TUGGING

[herdcentral]

My BC loves to tug and catch balls and scoff food - at training. She plays enthusiastically and races over jumps with the promise of a ball or tug at the end. She just loves training and squeaks with joy when we arrive.

 

As soon as we get to a trial she seems to lose complete interest in these items. She is not a shy dog but she is very young still but it is rather perplexing as she is a real speed machine at training but goes all slow and unenthusiastic in the trial ring regardless of what I try and tempt her with before or after the event.

[MaggieDog]

I have to say I was totally thrilled when I went a whole agility class with Z just using a tug reward vs. food recently. Why? Because it told me that my dog and I can play well together such that it is reinforcing and I now have a very solid alternate reward to use - food gets boring to me sometimes.

 

All my tug games have rules and I teach this to my students with toy-obsessed dogs as well:

 

- Designated tug toy is kept up when not in use.

- I start the game, dog does not get to bug me to start game.

- Dog must drop the toy on cue throughout the game.

- Dog must sit or do some other requested behavior after dropping the toy so that I'll continue the game.

- NO teeth on skin *ever*; game ends immediately if teeth touch my skin

- I end the game when I want to (generally before the dog is done to maintain interest).

 

I'm currently working Z in SAR and trying to build tug drive as the reward there - she'll now play tug in new situations, but we still have to work with her playing with the "victim" vs. just me. I like using tug as a reward in training situations because it's harder to run out of a tug than treats, it releases any pent up energy or stress, it's easier to hide (food is smelly), and it creates a bond with the tugger and tuggee. Currently we use what works - food - but we'll see if we can use tug in the future.

[Serena+Eluane B.C.]

Tugging is very, very important in my personal opinion with agility. Eluane is absolutely craaaazy about her agility. That in itself is her huuuge reward! However, what tugging is that it's a very powerful reinforcer if you have a dog with drive and speed in competition. It is only necessary if you want a top dog. A dog with not a lot of drive I noticed would rather do the food thing and gentle praise. A dog that is crazy about agility needs a focal point of stop-and-go training for specific maneuvers. As Greg Derrett (top agility trainer) says, if a dog loves the equipment more than it loves interacting with you, you will ruin your dog. Interactive reward is CRUCIAL if you want a top agility dog. Tugging allows for eye contact, muscle strength, tone, your direct interation with a dog and as an immediate reward. If you just run a dog as agility for fun than yes! by all means, the treat, the hug that is fine. Again, tuggy is for stop-and-go reward for sequential training on complex moves. Dogs that are rewarded on power will act on power!

[stockdogranch]

I think one thing that confuses the stockdog people is why you would even bother doing agility if the dog is not intrinsically motivated by it to start with

 

Absolutely. And you've answered this.

 

Are there any sheepdog trials where the dog exhausts its sheep at the end of the run directly through the middle of the next 12 waiting dogs?

 

Not exactly through the middle of other dogs, and the sheep simply wouldn't go , but certainly there are lots of situations where another dog is working stock in very close proximity to lots of other dogs, and those other dogs are told to just lie quietly, and they do. That's part of biddability--they learn to resist temptation.

 

Overall, Alaska, you really answered my questions well. Thanks.

 

But now I'm still confused with this:

 

Given the choice between coming back to you and not playing any more or running again and again and again and again, most flyball dogs go for the unauthorized rerun.

 

With working stock, young dogs need to learn essentially this same lesson--leave the stock when I say, and it's not your choice to just keep going back to the stock and working it (which of course, when they are young, they all do. If they call off too readily when very young, you may not have much of a dog). In fact, there's a current thread up in the training discussion about this very thing. This is a tough lesson, but learn it they all do. Not sure how this really differs, or maybe it's just that we (those nasty stockdog folk ) just have higher expectations?

 

A

[Genie]

But now I'm still confused with this:

With working stock, young dogs need to learn essentially this same lesson--leave the stock when I say, and it's not your choice to just keep going back to the stock and working it (which of course, when they are young, they all do. If they call off too readily when very young, you may not have much of a dog). In fact, there's a current thread up in the training discussion about this very thing. This is a tough lesson, but learn it they all do. Not sure how this really differs, or maybe it's just that we (those nasty stockdog folk ) just have higher expectations?

 

I don't think its higher expectations. While there will be some people who enter a trial before the dog has been adequately trained, on the whole, people who train for agility or flyball have just as high expectations for their dogs. I think its a matter of having different tools. In each case (stock work, agility, flyball), the dog must be trained not to run amok. We just use different methods and tools to train the dog to do it by our rules and direction and not run wildly about doing whatever they please.

 

ETA: When it was stated "Given the choice between coming back to you and not playing any more or running again and again and again and again, most flyball dogs go for the unauthorized rerun.", I believe this was meant to refer to dogs in training. A dog that runs amok like this isn't ready for the flyball lanes.

[Root Beer]

With working stock, young dogs need to learn essentially this same lesson--leave the stock when I say, and it's not your choice to just keep going back to the stock and working it (which of course, when they are young, they all do. If they call off too readily when very young, you may not have much of a dog). In fact, there's a current thread up in the training discussion about this very thing. This is a tough lesson, but learn it they all do. Not sure how this really differs, or maybe it's just that we (those nasty stockdog folk ) just have higher expectations?

 

I think the biggest difference is that Agility and Flyball are games.

 

One might say that coming when called is coming when called, but it really isn't as simple as that. In Agility (and I'd imagine Flyball), we work hard to make the equipment rewarding for the dogs. We teach them proper performance and reward, reward, reward until they LOVE it. And for the ones who LOVE it already, we reward, reward, reward correct performance so that they not only love going over jumps, going through tunnels, going over the contact pieces, weaving, etc., but they LOVE to do it properly.

 

Now, if I have spent a long time teaching my dog to LOVE performing an A-Frame properly and then one day I call him off and he takes it instead of coming to me, what message am I going to send if I decide to teach him a "tough lesson"?

 

Don't get me wrong - call offs are important and a well trained dog should call off. But if, in the context of the game, the dog does something instead of calling off right away, well, that is part of the game.

 

Add into that the fact that very often when dogs don't respond correctly during Agility runs (and probably in Flyball), very often the handler has sent mixed signals to the dog. We train our dogs to cue off of body language, our motion, and verbals. If I were to call Dean off a jump, but I keep running toward it with my arm extended toward it and he takes it, that's totally my fault. The cue of my motion overrides the verbal in that case. It isn't uncommon, especially for those of us who don't have handling down yet - handling, I have found, is very challenging to learn - that we accidentally give our dogs mixed signals out there.

 

I think that what this comes down to is that the disciplines of stockwork and dog sports (Agility, Flyball, etc.) are very different and that the expectations have to fit the discipline. I don't see one as having higher or lower expectations - they are just different.

[Genie]

Add into that the fact that very often when dogs don't respond correctly during Agility runs (and probably in Flyball), very often the handler has sent mixed signals to the dog. We train our dogs to cue off of body language, our motion, and verbals. If I were to call Dean off a jump, but I keep running toward it with my arm extended toward it and he takes it, that's totally my fault. The cue of my motion overrides the verbal in that case. It isn't uncommon, especially for those of us who don't have handling down yet - handling, I have found, is very challenging to learn - that we accidentally give our dogs mixed signals out there.

 

I think flyball is a bit different from Agility in that once trained and proofed, the flyball dog can almost run itself. That said, it takes on average, about a year to train a dog to the point where its ready to run its first race. Handling isn't as big an issue as the dog has the same sequence of equipment to take each time (jumps-box-jumps). Another factor is that it can be dangerous if the dog crosses over to the other lane, so training to a certain level is critical. Collisions with another dog at high speed can cause some terrible injuries, so the flyball dog should be taught and proofed to not cross over or chase the dog in the other lane before its put in competition. Unfortunately, not all teams feel that way and there are some dogs put out in the race lanes too early.

[ziggzmom]

My BC loves to tug and catch balls and scoff food - at training. She plays enthusiastically and races over jumps with the promise of a ball or tug at the end. She just loves training and squeaks with joy when we arrive.

 

As soon as we get to a trial she seems to lose complete interest in these items. She is not a shy dog but she is very young still but it is rather perplexing as she is a real speed machine at training but goes all slow and unenthusiastic in the trial ring regardless of what I try and tempt her with before or after the event.

 

 

Hi,

 

In training everyone is familiar, dogs are familiar, you're more relaxed. At a trial it's a highly charged environment. Strange dogs, new location, handler nerves(which carry right down the leash to the dog). As your girl gains experience and maturity and you don't get as stressed(I'm guessing you probably get a little stressed at trials=). I'll bet she starts acting more like the dog you see in training.

 

Happy Training~

 

Janet

[stockdogranch]

Now, if I have spent a long time teaching my dog to LOVE performing an A-Frame properly and then one day I call him off and he takes it instead of coming to me, what message am I going to send if I decide to teach him a "tough lesson"?

 

Don't get me wrong - call offs are important and a well trained dog should call off. But if, in the context of the game, the dog does something instead of calling off right away, well, that is part of the game.

 

 

I think I'm being dense, because I still don't really see the difference (other than dogs who are not really ready to trial yet). If you call the dog off and you teach it a "tough lesson" (this is a fairly seasoned dog, yes?), then, I don't see how that should be detrimental. When we have young exuberant pups on stock, early on in their training, we set them up to try to call them off (as in, we're between the stock and them, with noone moving, to try to up our odds of being successful). We really hope they don't call off at first, though, as we want the draw of the stock to override everything else in their lives. So, we set it up, and try it. If they don't call off, and decide to go back to work, we don't get on their case (because, after all, we want them to go to the stock more than anything else on the planet, and certainly don't want to chastise them for doing just that), we just go back to work again, take another quick spin around the block, and then set up the call off situation again. Eventually, the pup gets tired enough that we can snag it up. But, as training progresses, we eventually get the dog to call off, first, with us in its face, but later, from farther and farther away, until it's solid. Once we know it's solid, then if it chooses to not take the call off, we get in its face big time.

 

So, I guess what I'm saying, is why can't that same principle be applied to the agility and flyball dogs? The reason I suggested "higher expectations" is that it seems that the dog (or the training?) just isn't "trusted" as much?

 

A

[capnree]

In reference to stockdog's last post -I agree with you, I do not think it would be detrimental. I think she may have been referring to a dog in training? Or, perhaps, a young dog, in competition in training? Whereas I would never think of setting foot in a USBCHA trial with a slightly trained dog, I wouldn't hesitate to try an agility trial with a young, unseasoned dog, who can do everything safely, at least.

 

I think it depends on the skill of the trainer, the skill of the dog, the expectations of the trainer, and what they care about. I have a soft dog who I would not initially call off, but he would never think of not coming when called, anyway. Now, every now and then if he stops thinking all together, I can tell him so. On the other hand, this may confuse you -but I am glad he's more confident to -he goes faster. Which is the point. (For me -to go faster.) My puppy I have to catch. I'm glad she thinks the tunnel is so fun she has to take it 1,000 times while avoiding capture. At the same time...walking her down in a field gets old. I'm pretty sure me teaching her she has to come is clearly not going to dampen any of her enthusiasm later, and coming is more important. Same situation as your puppy? It's what we'd all like to see, but it doesn't always happen, but instead of having a mediocre sheepdog, which is intrinsic, we can actually make a good agility dog. The scenario, really --is a training tool, like a tug. I would not expect a seasoned dog to behave like that, say, at a national level competition, or something.

 

Edit: I don't know about flyball. Flyball is too wild for me, seeming like it has a level of un-control, I don't know if it does or not -that's from an outsider's perspective.

 

Edit (again): Sorry, I was at a working/intro clinic, where the clinician mentioned watching someone train a dog in agility once -the dog was getting a lot of treats. The clinician asked the trainer if the dog needed treats to do agility, and the trainer said yes. The clinician wanted to know why on earth someone would do something that clearly was not intrinsic if they had to be fed food for it...

[Barb Scott]

The clinician wanted to know why on earth someone would do something that clearly was not intrinsic if they had to be fed food for it...

 

Not all of us have access to sheep!!!

Barb S

[Shetlander]

As soon as we get to a trial she seems to lose complete interest in these items. She is not a shy dog but she is very young still but it is rather perplexing as she is a real speed machine at training but goes all slow and unenthusiastic in the trial ring regardless of what I try and tempt her with before or after the event.

 

If she is so much slower at shows and not as responsive to what she finds rewarding in practice, then I would really suspect that she is experiencing stress at trials. It might be that she needs more time to build confidence. You might want to look at anything you might be doing when you show. Handler nerves are extremely common and can affect the dog. You may want to discuss this with your instructor to come up with a plan to help her be more confident and relaxed at shows. That may involve not showing for a while.

[Shetlander]

The clinician wanted to know why on earth someone would do something that clearly was not intrinsic if they had to be fed food for it...

 

Not all of us have access to sheep!!!

 

 

Too true. Quinn would much rather work sheep than do anything else, but he's stuck living with me. It's also very rewarding to see a dog learn to become happy and confident in agility. And is just a fun game to play, one that I find also strengthens my bond with my dogs.

[Seelie Fey]

So, I guess what I'm saying, is why can't that same principle be applied to the agility and flyball dogs? The reason I suggested "higher expectations" is that it seems that the dog (or the training?) just isn't "trusted" as much?

 

A

 

Every Herding trial I have seen, the dogs hover by their owners, look at them, at least one creeps a couple of steps toward the sheep, gets told to down, thinks about it, downs. I've seen the herding dogs jump to their feet and look at their owner and take a step or two toward the sheep (or more), and been called off. In flyball the "sheep" balls, toys, dogs running around are whizzing right by, constantly. Have I seen dogs on the side watching the racing without "joining"? of course. My own dogs are getting out of their crates, exercising, stretching, practicing their tugs before a race right next to the lanes and they mind and call off just fine. But, there is no space in the runnback area and racing lanes for "just a few steps" Do you put your herding dog in a down in the median of a highway with sheep on either side and expect it to stay there just to prove how well trained it is? NO. And I don't use the narrow space between racing lanes of dogs with balls and toys and frantic people calling it as an obedience exercise for my dog.

 

Higher expectations? No - different expectations.

 

<<RANT ALERT>>

 

I trust that in a tournament, if someone's poorly trained dog snarls and lunges at a trained flyball dog from two feet away for several minutes, crosses over and steals the ball from the dog's box in front of the dog, chases the dog down the lane and attacks the dog (and there are people out there who don't properly train their dogs) the dog doesn't engage. He doesn't stop running back even if the other dog tags him. And, if he is racing on the same team as the badly trained dog, he can race right after it, pass it nose to nose, and not flinch, swerve, or growl.

 

I trust that a trained flyball dog can have a perfect stranger come out of the blue, grab it from the crate, take it to racing lanes it has never seen before with dogs it has never encountered before, have it race for them flawlessly, at top speed, even if the dog's owner is racing another dog in the lane beside it.

 

I trust that a trained flyball dog will race the same if it is running against a pomeranian, a pittbull, a poodle, or a presa canario. It will race consistantly if it is handled by it's owner, a friend, a stranger, or a child, in open fields or concrete buildings echoing every single bark of a 100 plus dogs, on grass or matting or dirt or fake grass. It will race the same and give its all if it has been riding in a car for 10 hours, taken to a strange hotel room, taken to a strange place, fed strange food, and handled by a stranger. It will give it's all and run full out even after it has done it 25 times that day, and 30 the day before, is hot or cold, tired or revved.

 

When you are running a dog in flyball, to be competitive, you are asking much more than that it be obedient. There are a lot of obedient dogs that trot over the jumps, go get the ball, trot back and get a "good dog" They're obedient dogs. But, to be competitive, to get your dog to continously improve and get faster, safer, more consistant, you have to ask a lot more than obedience. You ask for them to put their whole heart in it each time and absolutely trust that you will give the same to them.

 

Honestly, think about it. Is an obedience person expecting more of there dog than you do of your herding dog when they say "down" and expect the dog to drop to the ground, none of this simply stopping, or pausing to let the sheep get a little further ahead, or when they say "here" and expect the dog to beeline to them and plant their butt on the floor, rather than arc around the flock giving sufficient space to avoid spooking or stampedeing them, or to expect their dog to attend them and work with them by keeping it plastered to their side looking up at them rather than gathering sheep from half a mile away and heeding whistles and cues to bring them in?

 

Different sports and disciplines expect different things. I respect real stockdogs, the way they intuit and work independently, the way they cut out the select animal or move pregnant or nursing lambs with the required gentleness but can cut off stampedes. But, I don't think less of a working stockdog or think it's owner has lower expectations if it doesn't execute a 380 degree turn backwards in a perfect heel or do scent hurdles or do a perfect set of weave poles or consistantly run a flyball heat in 3.5 seconds. Why do you keep insisting that I have "lower expectations" of my flyball dogs simply because I don't demonstrate obedience exercises in the flyball ring?

 

<<END RANT ALERT>>

 

We value different things in our dogs: For a "biddable" herding dog, it's acceptable, even necessary, to rely on its own moxie to push and snap at sheep to move them, maybe even grip. For a flyball dog, that dog is disqualified and banned because its very dangerous and leads to dog fights. A really good herding dog isn't thoughlessly obedient. The dog interprets, judges, sometimes may even refuse a specific command, but gets the job done without injury, because it's been bred to that for centuries. It's in the genes. The first (and only) herding lesson Seelie had her tail went down, her head went down, and she was circling and moving them this direction and that. She had a whole range of instinctual behavour just waiting to kick in when she saw sheep moving.

 

She certainly wasn't running the entire course the first time she came to flyball practice. I had to teach her every part. A flyball dog that debates, even for a few hundreths of a second, whether to get this ball or that ball, or whether to do the jumps, or whether to chase the rediculously squirrel-like puff ball height dog in the other lane or turn around and snap at the dog chasing him is a hazzard. So, they're trained and rewarded not to. Instead, they are strongly and consistantly rewarded for overiding their instincts. they are conditioned and highly rewarded every time they are in the ring, and encouraged to express enthusiasm and rewarded for it. Their enthusiasm isn't squashed because it isn't their turn. Every single time I line that dog up, I want it to be wholly commited to running down that lane and getting that ball. I don't ever want that dog thinking "but, wait, maybe it isn't my turn" or "she said no last time, so maybe I'm not supposed to." Herding uses the reward systems it has in it because they work well in the tempo and nature of herding. The dogs are bred for it, as their sole justification for existance, for centuries. I don't support dogs being bred exclusively for flyball. The same reward systems do not work in the 3 - 5 seconds a dog runs its flyball race. It's different. But it provides an avenue for my rescued border collie and my rescued shepherd mix to perform, to learn focus, to be valued for the very traits that probably led to them being dumped in the first place.

[capnree]

Seelie Fey --

 

I don't get, why can't a dog do flyball, and be able to recall off anything, ie, have the same expectations stockdogranch is referring to? Without decreasing the drive for any of the things you just mentioned. Can't you have both, not one or the other (recall vs. manic drive)? Shouldn't an excellent trainer be able to do that? I don't think your analogy works very well. Your "just a few steps" when a dog walks to the post, etc. are not of an equivalent nature to the flyball lane scenario. And I'm sure someone could prevent those few steps if they checked them. I don't understand how the flyball dog is not under control if it is not trusted. I do understand what you say about the safety issue. I don't understand where your "just a few steps" angle comes from. It sounds like you do not trust your dog not to take the step, and supplement your point by saying it doesn't matter in herding because you've seen dogs doing it.

 

I think an obedience person is asking less of a dog to do a simple task like come in a straight line, rather than be responsible for an entire group of sheep at a large distance, or have a feel for when to stop.

 

Note: The clinic anecdote wasn't meant to be a slight, if anyone thought of it that way, I thought it was an illustration...I mean, when you think about it, asking your dog to go over jumps and tunnels is kind of whacky. So I don't think too hard about it. : )

[Laurae]

In stockwork, if I understand it, the reward is always there on the field for the dog to enjoy, and the trainer only removes it (or access to it) if the dog makes a decision the trainer disagrees with. This works because a well-bred stockdog is genetically programmed to make the right decision much of the time.

 

We agility trainers don't have it so easy

 

Um...it's not quite as simple as that

[stockdogranch]

I don't get, why can't a dog do flyball, and be able to recall off anything,

 

Yes, that's exactly my question. Capnree's post says it well. And that was my point--a recall is a recall is a recall--whenever, wherever, with whatever going on. Period.

 

As for: (Sorry, this will be a bit of a hijack here, but I'll see if I can bring it back on topic)

 

In stockwork, if I understand it, the reward is always there on the field for the dog to enjoy, and the trainer only removes it (or access to it) if the dog makes a decision the trainer disagrees with. This works because a well-bred stockdog is genetically programmed to make the right decision much of the time.

 

Two things: First, lots of folks refer to the stock as the "reward," and I don't think I really agree with this. Yes, I know lots of people who, if their dog isn't "behaving," will not let that dog "have its stock." In other words, they'll put the dog up. But I think it is way more than that. Sure, the dog wants to interact with the stock; that's what makes it all work. But I believe it is the WORK itself, a huge part of which consists of interacting with the stock, that is the "reward" (actually I don't like the word "reward" in stockwork--I just don't think it fits).

 

And second: The well-bred dog is not genetically programmed to make the right decision; I would say that biddability (which is genetic) would be the desire to try to make the right decision, but the dog must somewhere along the line learn what is the right thing and what is the wrong thing to do.

 

I think that there are some misconceptions about working with a stockdog. Because instinct is genetic, and, yes, day one you can see a young pup just go in and start circling and balancing, people tend to think that training a dog to work stock is just a case of let it do its thing, cuz it was bred to do that. And that it's all very easy and so on. It's actually far easier to totally screw up a well bred dog--I see it all the time--due to poor training and handling. If it were that easy to train a stockdog, everyone would be a National Champion. If it were that easy to train a stockdog, the average student who shows up here with a dog who has decent instincts would stick around for more than the usual 6 lessons or so. Why do they quit? Because it's more work than they wanted to do. It's extremely difficult. Now, I'm not saying this is more or less difficult than the training for agility or flyball (I would think, that at least since there is instinct involved, that at the very least getting the dog to want to do it is already taken care of, which is why the tug--now I get it, so I really have come back to the original topic tadaa), I am only saying this to try to dispel some of the notions of "well, you guys have it so easy because the dogs were bred to do that."

 

A

[Root Beer]

I think I'm being dense, because I still don't really see the difference (other than dogs who are not really ready to trial yet). If you call the dog off and you teach it a "tough lesson" (this is a fairly seasoned dog, yes?), then, I don't see how that should be detrimental. When we have young exuberant pups on stock, early on in their training, we set them up to try to call them off (as in, we're between the stock and them, with noone moving, to try to up our odds of being successful). We really hope they don't call off at first, though, as we want the draw of the stock to override everything else in their lives. So, we set it up, and try it. If they don't call off, and decide to go back to work, we don't get on their case (because, after all, we want them to go to the stock more than anything else on the planet, and certainly don't want to chastise them for doing just that), we just go back to work again, take another quick spin around the block, and then set up the call off situation again. Eventually, the pup gets tired enough that we can snag it up. But, as training progresses, we eventually get the dog to call off, first, with us in its face, but later, from farther and farther away, until it's solid. Once we know it's solid, then if it chooses to not take the call off, we get in its face big time.

 

So, I guess what I'm saying, is why can't that same principle be applied to the agility and flyball dogs? The reason I suggested "higher expectations" is that it seems that the dog (or the training?) just isn't "trusted" as much?

 

A

 

A well trained dog can be expected to call off in Agility, but there is more than one way to teach this type of recall.

 

Just as we use motivation and rewards to teach the actual game, we use rewards and motivation to teach the recall.

 

I suppose one could use the same technique to teach a recall as you describe above, but, frankly, I would not want to given the fact that I can get the exact same result using rewards and motivation without risking any affect on my dog's drive and desire to play the game - and that is a risk when one gets in the dog's face big time over something that happens in the context of training sports.

 

A well trained sport dog will call off and that call off can be trusted as much as a stockdog can be trusted to call off sheep. The route that many of us take to get to that point is just different.

 

Once the dog is trained, one does not "need" treats or a tug to motivate anymore, but often we choose to give the dog those sorts of rewards to celebrate a good run. Maddie doesn't "need" to get a big hug, a few pieces of cheese, or to be told over and over that she's a good girl after an Agility run (be it Q or NQ), but we both enjoy the ritual. Dean doesn't need a game of tug at the end of every run, but when he does a particularly good job, I enjoy the game as much as he does.

 

It seems to me that some folks have a real adversion to rewards. I keep hearing things like what canpree quoted, "The clinician wanted to know why on earth someone would do something that clearly was not intrinsic if they had to be fed food for it..."

 

My reaction to hearing that is, "Why is that really such a problem? Why does the idea bother her so much? Nobody says she has to do it. Why can't she accept that it is enjoyable and worthwhile to others?"

 

If using food or toy rewards serves to get the dog trained to a high level of competency (which many, many trainers have accomplished), including competent call off's, then why not?

 

Why don't I get in my dog's face for not calling off a jump or for taking the wrong piece of equipment or for stopping for a moment to sniff on course, etc? Because there are reward based methods for building a reliable call off, for taking the right equipment on cue, and for choosing to run instead of sniff. And, in the context of a game, I find using reward based methods of training those things effective, and I enjoy the process of teaching them, and - as a bonus - the dog enjoys the process, too.

 

It's a game. Is it really appropriate to come down hard on a dog for messing something up in the context of a game? This is a choice that each trainer has to make. Some choose to do so, and many do not. But for those of us who do not, we are not going to end up with dogs with inferior training.

 

Again, that's not to say that good training is not expected. It is. That's not to say we don't teach our dogs to listen to us instead of doing whatever they feel like - we certainly do. That's not to say that we don't trust what we have trained - we definitely do.

 

We just get to that point differently, which is totally appropriate to the discipline in question.

[Root Beer]

I don't get, why can't a dog do flyball, and be able to recall off anything, ie, have the same expectations stockdogranch is referring to? Without decreasing the drive for any of the things you just mentioned. Can't you have both, not one or the other (recall vs. manic drive)? Shouldn't an excellent trainer be able to do that?

 

Using tug as a reward - for a tug driven dog - can teach a dog to recall off anything if the trainer uses it to his or her advantage. The nice thing is that using the tug as a reward has a two for one bonus. It can be used to condition a solid recall and it can actually increase drive.

 

I can't speak for flyball, but in Agility the last thing we want is manic drive. I have a dog with manic drive (Speedy) and he can't do Agility for that reason. We want focused drive, deliberate drive, and drive that remains under the control of the dog. Drive that allows the dog to fly through the course, but still be tuned in to the handler for direction.

 

So, yes, you can have both. And even a fairly good trainer should be able to achieve that with a normal dog. For some dogs tug is a fantastic tool for that, for other dogs a thrown ball is good, and for others food is the best way to go.

 

Use of a tug is not a display of lack of trust in the dog. It's a training tool and/or an enjoyable game for dog and handler to play.

[capnree]

I just wanted to explain my anecdote a little more...he wasn't belittling agility, it really was a foreign concept to him. I thought it was a good illustration of why some stockdog people did not understand tugging. I don't think it's fair to get defensive about something someone doesn't understand, when they've never seen it before and are coming from a completely different side of the spectrum. I told him I did agility, he didn't care, why would he?

 

Edit, because I didn't see the post above: I wasn't referring to agility, I think what Seelie Fey said he trusted his dog to do, in flyball, qualifies as manic drive. I have seen dogs in agility I think qualify as the same. It doesn't mean they are not handler focused, because someone is controlling them. But then you get into a breeding discussion, which was already done...

 

I do understand the reason for using a tug in flyball. I don't understand Seelie Fey's entire post. Maybe you summed up in a word what he/she was trying to say.

[Genie]

I think I'm being dense, because I still don't really see the difference (other than dogs who are not really ready to trial yet). If you call the dog off and you teach it a "tough lesson" (this is a fairly seasoned dog, yes?), then, I don't see how that should be detrimental. When we have young exuberant pups on stock, early on in their training, we set them up to try to call them off (as in, we're between the stock and them, with noone moving, to try to up our odds of being successful). We really hope they don't call off at first, though, as we want the draw of the stock to override everything else in their lives. So, we set it up, and try it. If they don't call off, and decide to go back to work, we don't get on their case (because, after all, we want them to go to the stock more than anything else on the planet, and certainly don't want to chastise them for doing just that), we just go back to work again, take another quick spin around the block, and then set up the call off situation again. Eventually, the pup gets tired enough that we can snag it up. But, as training progresses, we eventually get the dog to call off, first, with us in its face, but later, from farther and farther away, until it's solid. Once we know it's solid, then if it chooses to not take the call off, we get in its face big time.

 

So, I guess what I'm saying, is why can't that same principle be applied to the agility and flyball dogs? The reason I suggested "higher expectations" is that it seems that the dog (or the training?) just isn't "trusted" as much?

 

A

 

Ok, after reading Kristine's reply, I now get what you're asking. I'll answer as well from a different training perspective.

I use rewards as well as corrections in training. If I use a recall to call my dog back as he tries to veer toward the dog in the next lane or a dog on the sidelines during a training session, I expect him to obey that recall regardless of the distractions around. I trained a strong recall from a very early age and because a strong recall is important to me (it can save his life someday if I need to call him back before he runs into a busy street for example), I will enforce it with a strong correction if he blows me off when I give a recall command. I have 'gotten in his face' for blowing me off during the excitement of flyball practice and it hasn't diminished his drive to do flyball at all. In fact, because it clearly communicates to him what he did wrong, he responds well to it. I also use rewards. In fact, I find that I need to use reward most of the time and corrections only rarely, but I won't pull my punches when the situation warrants it.

 

I don't know if this is a trait common in border collies or just unique to Zeb: He thrives on clear communication from me. He may be soft in many ways, but he can take quite a correction and do well with it if it clearly communicates to him that what he did was wrong. Equally, he will do well with rewards if they clearly communicate that he did something right. He will shut down on me if I confuse him. I started taking lessons nearby with him on sheep and he did well when the instructor worked him. I don't know the first thing about how to train a dog to work stock and my feeble attempts to follow the instructor's direction when it was my turn to go out and work him only confused Zeb. I worked him into such a state of confusion that he shut down and wanted out of the round pen. She was able to easily get him back to happily working, so it was me. That was our last lesson. I realize that I don't know enough to do this right with him and Zeb can't handle my poor sheepdog training skills. That's when I tried flyball. I can do a much better job of training that and not confuse him, so that's what I'm training him for.

[Seelie Fey]

I am laughing as I read this.

 

We all come from such completely different perspectives, and that's neat, and why I like this board. To me, asking a flyball dog to run the course without tug and ball is like asking a stockdog at a herding trial to perform the exact manouvers without the sheep, just little chalk marks on the ground and whistles. It just doesn't make sense to me. I don't get it. <shrug>

 

But I am very defensive about anyone, in any context, promoting or spreading the idea that an untrained dog or a poorly trained dog, or a manic dog, or a dog with control issues should ever be in a flyball ring. In fact, I am quite rabid about it. That's how dogs and people get hurt in flyball.

[Root Beer]

I just wanted to explain my anecdote a little more...he wasn't belittling agility, it really was a foreign concept to him. I thought it was a good illustration of why some stockdog people did not understand tugging. I don't think it's fair to get defensive about something someone doesn't understand, when they've never seen it before and are coming from a completely different side of the spectrum. I told him I did agility, he didn't care, why would he?

 

Gotcha! That makes a lot more sense - that it was a foreign concept.

 

Just for the record, I wasn't defensive. I was curious, and actually rather surprised by (what I understood to be) his response, but I certainly didn't take it personally or anything.

[capnree]

Just for the record, I wasn't defensive. I was curious, and actually rather surprised by (what I understood to be) his response, but I certainly didn't take it personally or anything.

 

I will explain it better the first time, next time.

[ziggzmom]

 

Two things: First, lots of folks refer to the stock as the "reward," and I don't think I really agree with this. Yes, I know lots of people who, if their dog isn't "behaving," will not let that dog "have its stock." In other words, they'll put the dog up. But I think it is way more than that. Sure, the dog wants to interact with the stock; that's what makes it all work. But I believe it is the WORK itself, a huge part of which consists of interacting with the stock, that is the "reward" (actually I don't like the word "reward" in stockwork--I just don't think it fits).

 

 

Hi,

 

When my dog is working sheep a tuggy or cookies are the last thing he wants. He is highly motivated to keep working and put up with my novice mistakes and not show any loss of desire or drive. Pretty much the same for agility once he figured out what it was all about.

 

On the other hand, he enjoys obedience and does a very nice job, but he doesn't LOVE it. It is work(just like agility and herding), but he doesn't respond with the same intensity that he does agility and herding. I personally really love obedience and find it very rewarding=)

 

So is it the work that's rewarding or the type of work?

 

Janet