why do there have to be so many different dog-training systems? (rant)

[welsummerchicks]

<go to bed>

Wish I could. When I lay down, I can't breathe very well. Eventually I have to, but it's not something I enjoy.

And I do really understand most of what's going on....

fairly-rigid fairly-complicated different systems *at the entry level*.

I'm right there with you, I see the same problem and I think it has a very negative outcome. But my feeling the reason the complexity and rigidity is there is that - that whole marketing-I-have-to-invent-something-that-sounds-different-in-order-to-sell-it thing.

After decades in multi-lane time sensitive process and large multi-tiered systems design, I believe that complexity - perceived or actual - in any system(of processes, of steps/actions, of learning, of behavior - just about anything) - always comes out of:

a lack of understanding of the basic elements and mechanisms underlying the process, a lack of a clear sense of the process and its necessary stages of development, and a lack of well-defined goals.

the clinician was a Bettina Drummond student and my background was, uh, more conventional north american. But, she just kept shouting and shouting louder and louder at me to do some darn thing I don't even remember what, stop moving my seat with the horse at the walk I think?, and I just could not figure out WHAT on earth she wanted me to do (like, HOW to do it). She wouldn't or couldn't give me any assistance on how, just kept going on and on about how I had to do it now, why was I not doing it, look if you're not going to do it then just stop and stand there until you are willing to do it, etcetera, getting madder and madder

I can't comment on the clinician without seeing what happened and hearing the wording used.

BUT....there are so many clinicians out and around who are 'practicing differential marketing' (1.) inventing their (own terminology, 2.) introducing unnecessary complexity, 3.) copping an attitude that they are being attacked when someone doesn't understand them) that you very well could have run across one.

That is a particularly common set of problems with that side of the dressage business, in fact.

I don't think you will ever have a dog class training experience that will be as unpleasant, and I'm not so sure the problem at your riding clinic was a rigid or complicated system - it just sounds like someone with a very bad temper who doesn't teach very well!!!!

As far as dressage in general, we have so many unqualified clinicians out there, if I shook a stick 3 foot stick, I'd hit one.

 

[Mak]

Wow, I feel lucky. We went to our first class last night (without dog) and the trainer, while they do use a clicker method, said that if the clicker doesn't work, we'll find something that does. When I said our 9 yr old Lab is going a bit deaf, she said: "awesome!" If he can't hear the clicker, we'll put you on hand signals right away. I said I've been using some, but maybe not "standard" as I don't know what that is, just what he knows. She said, ok, we'll work with that. Also use whatever treat or other thing works for your dog, as not all respond to the same thing. Dog with allergies? Fine, use your treats not what we use.

We'll see next week if this is a good thing, or chaos with all the dogs there!

 

[welsummerchicks]

In my present state, I think that while there may be a million different ways to teach something, there's always going to be a very small subset of methods that are efficient, create less side effects and stress, result in more reliable response, etc.

And I think if a certain dog needs a 'different method', that doesn't sound right. There should be a dial from 1-10 that allows for teaching a range of dogs with the same method, just a softer or stronger version of it.

I think that the most reliable methods are simple, easy to understand, easy to carry out, and have a logic behind it that's based on how dogs think and behave.

I was talking to a reading tutor last week and was amazed at how research-based her method, her steps, and the order she taught things in really was. I honestly was stunned. It was extremely impressive. She had multiple well designed studies getting the same results again and again, to back up what she does. She was definitely not picking what she 'liked best', what had 'a good sounding explanation' or 'sounded nice'. Her whole method was crafted around juried, reviewed research - studies that got the same results in many studies conducted by different organizations, even with slightly different study design.

I'm not sure the same kind of quality and detail of research exists for dog training.

That could be another reason there are so many different 'systems' - because the quality research just is not there. So it's all opinion and charm.

 

[Akane]

Relying heavily on leg aids would not really get ya too far in a horse racing, for instance.

If they actually took the time to teach those horses much of anything for aids the horses would probably be far better off.

Just the fact it would take longer and they'd have to start racing later would do it but we really don't want to go there. Summary- Leg aids are useful for all horses, important for most horses, and have about a dozen and a half ways to teach them to each horse that all get you the same result.​

 

[Rusty Hills Farm]

Pat, I've been involved in schutzhund for a LOT of years and, yes, for awhile I was right where you are now. But the thing is, each dog is an individual. Now I train to what seems to work for that individual dog and forget all the rest. I'm a "my way or the highway" kind of guy as far as classes and trainers are concerned. Any class that cannot deal with that is not for me. So this is how I train: I follow the rules established by the sport association and anything not specifically required by them, well, I do it MY way. This has meant that, at times, I have had to go round up a whole new group to train with. So be it. That is FAR better than messing up a good dog. I always trust my gut in this department. If it doesn't feel right, then it isn't right.

It really is like working with horses. Just because everybody else in the barn does it a certain way does not mean that I am going to retrain just to fit in there.

Wherever I am, I watch and learn. If something looks like it might work better than what I have been doing, I may try it IF the dog has not been responding to what I have already been doing. But if he is solid on the work, NO WAY IN H-E-DOUBLE HOCKEY STICKS am I gonna set back his training by changing the ground rules on him.

The proof that what you are doing is working is ALWAYS gonna be how well the dog does in actual competition and not how well some trainer THINKS he's doing.

Also, I am a firm believer that no 2 people ever do anything EXACTLY the same, so even tho such-and-such method works for them does not automatically mean that it is going to work for you. Likewise no 2 dogs ever respond to stimuli exactly the same way, so you have to learn to read the dog and help him learn what you are trying to teach him, help him to overcome whatever obstacles are slowing his progress. I do not believe sticking rigidly to one way or one system is ever going to work on all dogs. It's only gonna work IF your dog happens to think/learn that way. If he doesn't, it's up to us to figure out how to meet his needs, thereby freeing him to learn. I've never had a dog who didn't want to learn whatever I was teaching. They want so much to please us!

JMO, always.


Rusty

 

[welsummerchicks]

Oh I don't know that race horses aren't ever trained to leg aids - every one I've ever gotten on was very good with leg aids and was extremely fun to teach any dressage and they learned very, very quickly - though a good many of the horses we rode were taught flying lead changes and a lot of other stuff using the rider's leg, I understand that's not totally universal.

Actually I think the trouble is that because the jockey's leg falls on a completely different part of the horse's body that when you ride with your leg down around their body, they get very confused, and think they're being punished for not being reactive enough when they feel that leg all over their body. I think too that the leg aids they learn are very rudimentary like a green horse would learn in dressage - leg - go - not a lot of subtlety there, but like any green horse 'leg=go' is a necessity for all training to follow.

We spent a little while rubbing our legs all over on their sides while patting them as they stood on a loose rein (rewards) and they seemed to get the idea very quickly that that long leg was not a punishment or an 'escalation' - in other words we were desensitizing them to the leg. Though meanwhile a good sized contingent would be screaming that we were 'desensitizing' the horse to our legs, and that that was wrong wrong wrong. Why? Because they didn't like the word 'desensitize', I guess. That's a 'bad word'. The fact that some of the top dressage experts in the world discuss desensitization to the leg even at the most advanced phases of training - they weren't aware of that. Or, evidently, that their horses were still thinking that leg meant 'jump out of the gate' and ours were trotting and cantering around like little angels after a few weeks of training - AND responding perfectly well to the leg.

They simply had never heard of anyone doing that so they were against it.

Which somehow, brings me to my point...LOL.

Someone else's method that seems weird or wrong ...isn't, always.

I've found 3 things -

1.) Much of what these complex theories teach is - just wrong - it simply doesn't work, and is based on theories about how dogs think that simply aren't true
2.) Much of what these complex theories teach is - a time waster and 'Dog Confuser' that later has to be undone because it conflicts with what you are trying to teach later
3.) Not everything that seems complex and wrong, really is complex and wrong - it can seem wrong simply because you're unfamiliar with it.

Whether it is 1, 2, or 3, really depends on the experience and success - AND ego - of the trainer.

How you view it depends more on what you've been taught before and in what manner you believe it, than whether it's really complex or false or not.

What we are unfamiliar with always seems complex, wrong-headed, confusing. Due to our perceptions and experience, it really is not all that easy to decide what is 'complex', what is 'wrong'. Basically, all we can really do is the best we can do - make decisions, try to be consistent, and - well - we all learn the same way. By making mistakes. Every dog we train is trained better - more economically, more simply, more tuned-to-that-dog, than the previous one we trained.

Anyone who understands how a dog thinks, can understand that calling a dog to you and beating him when he comes, is going to pretty quickly teach him not to come to you, instead of teaching him, 'you didn't come to me fast enough', it teaches him 'don't go up to this lady, she beats you when you do that'. There are warnings to not do that in dog training books published years and years ago. We can, pretty easily, understand a LOT about training dogs by understanding how immediate and straightforward his thinking is.

One day I saw a lady in the pet shop, shouting lustily and repeatedly, 'SIT!' at her dog. When the dog did not sit, she said 'nooooooooooo, wrong', and the dog stood, glancing around, cringing down on his hind legs, flattening its ears, looking up at her and then quickly away, wagging its tail uncertainly, in other words confused. Finally, one of the clerks couldn't stand it any longer and said, 'Who taught you to say 'noooooooo, wrong' when your dog didn't sit? Why don't you just right away, put him into a sit?' The woman went on to explain a very complex, BRILLIANT sounding theory behind this, all to do with responsibility, free will, doggy decision making and the like, and the clerk said, 'That sounds lovely, but it isn't how dogs learn'(and lost a customer that day I think!).

Miracles of miracles, I went to the internet and found a video of a guy who was saying, 'nooooooo, wrong', when a dog didn't sit, and somehow, by heaven, he was getting dogs to sit. But he was doing an awful lot of OTHER stuff that was actually teaching the dog to sit that he never pointed out in the video - the dog was learning despite all these trumpetings of 'noooooo, wrong'.

I talked about it with my trainer and he said several lovely things -

1.) No matter how stupid a training method is, there are some dogs that are going to figure it out and 'learn' from it- largely by guessing - yup - trial and error.
2.) No matter how good a method is, immediacy, timing and reading the dog are what make it work even better
3.) If you use 'gentle, logical sounding words' to explain your method, almost anyone will believe the method is both gentle AND better - your manner is more important than your content.

The brilliant sounding theory was to sell 'Mr Wrong's' videos and had a very appealing, intellectual tone. The OTHER stuff he did, that had nothing to do with his theory, which I call 'The 'Wrong' Theory', was what taught the dog to sit, LOL!

But how do you know when you don't know - how do you know WHAT really is 'overly complex' and what you're simply not familiar with so are resistant to? How do you know when you don't know? The answer is, 'you don't'. Experience is the teacher, and mistakes are the method.

Dogs are ALSO good teachers. Watch your dog. Just don't see what you want to see - meaning read too much into what he does just because you want to cut down a method you are sure shouldn't work.

It doesn't pay to be changing everything all the time so that the dog is chronically irritated and confused and relearning everything - but it also doesn't pay to be too resistant to learning something that just could be a better way.

 

[mandelyn]

First you need to come down and not over analyze the situation, it's just dog training. It's only complicated if you make it that way. It doesn't matter if you make a fist and your dog sits, or if you flatten your hand out and it lays down. Or some other signal. Those signals and cues are not the core thing behind dog training. Those are preferences. Use them or others, it doesn't matter. But you can't teach anything if you're frustrated. Go outside with your dog, practice what you KNOW. Be mindful of your timing and practice being a trainer..the dog will learn as you go along.

Classes are to teach the human. The dog learns by default. Don't think of it as school for the dog. It's school for you to become a dog trainer and to end up with a decent dog with good behavior. The perk to the dog is it gets to learn social skills and learning around distractions. As you transition from class to class in your search for who works, ask a lot of questions. Ask why.

"Don't use the word No"

Why not?

"Because it isn't a command". Well neither is "Leave it" "out" "Drop it"... there is no redirection with those words either. Words to your dog mean what you assign them to mean. That's what training means. You could say "Pancakes" and your dog will sit.. if you assigned that meaning to that word. You can use No or whatever other word you want, so long as you have a follow up command, or you teach what you want No to mean. In my house, "No" means stop what you're doing and come here and then sit. That's a mouthful. "No"... to catch their attention. "Come"... to come to me. "Sit"... now you get praise and love even if you were just doing something really awful. Ta-da, redirection complete. After several times... "No" starts a series of events. Fine for pet homes. I'm not training competition dogs. But I gave a designation of expected behavior to the word No. You could have the exact same thing with a whole other word. Like Pancakes. I flip my dog the bird and it sits, you stomp your foot and it lays down. Whatever you teach is what they will do... it's all preference. Now in the show ring, sit has to mean sit. In a show, you need to be consistent, and be able to perform the required tasks in a uniform manner. I don't think you want to hear 15 people say "stay" and then the one odd ball says 'Pancake!" Haha.

"Don't use their names for discipline"

Why not?

Because it assigns a negative designation to hearing their name. Partly true. If you only ever use the dogs name when it's bad, yes, that will be the case. Use the dog's name for everything or not at all. If you ever plan on getting a second dog, use the name for everything. Bingo, come eat. Bingo, let's go for a walk. Bingo, sit. Bingo, Come. Bingo, go to bed. Bingo, NO!. Yes Bingo, that means YOU. So when you add another dog, you teach it that name. Bingo sit, Spot, stand. Ta-da, each does what they were specifically told. In case you want one to sit and one to stand. Otherwise, each will mirror whatever you say, unless you assign a name, cue, or whatever, to communicate with one dog in a group. Dogs aren't stupid. They know their names if you teach them their names. They will learn what that name or word means with HOW you teach it. A name could be a bad thing. Or you could teach it to mean you're talking to THAT dog.

"Prong and choke collars are cruel"

Why?

Because they choke the dog. Because they're mean looking metal things. Because no dog needs that amount of force, you can teach a dog anything in a field of wild flowers while chasing butterflies and unicorns. Actually, any training aid can be cruel if used improperly. Most trainers I know tell beginners the tools don't work, just to keep the uneducated from trying it on their own. You need to have good timing, know the proper placement, lot's of details go into those aids. You can screw it up if you don't know what you're doing. How many people have you seen with a big dog in a prong collar, leading the way on a walk with tension in the leash, the collar too big and hung low on the neck? ALL WRONG! Waste of money right there. Needs to fit right. Needs to be high on the neck, no tension unless issuing a correction, and that correction needs to be quick, fast, and in a hurry, and over and done with just as fast. You want the dog to respect you and the tool, and not form a reliance on that tool, it's temporary, not something the dog wears it's whole life. You don't chain the dog up with one. You don't let it wear it around the house. It's for training ONLY. It's for "Hey you, I'm serious" moments. That's all. They are way too much for a beginner. If you desensitize your dog to it with improper or too frequent use, there is no other tool to try unless you upgrade to a shock collar.

Look for the core of the class, the main principles. Don't worry about the details and the preferences of the teacher. Ask questions. Stay calm. Look at it as a class for you. Don't worry about how you look, how your dog is acting compared to the others. Doesn't matter. You're there to learn, the dog will learn with you by default. You're taking this much too seriously. Your dog won't be done with training when the class is completed. Training and practice is on going for the dogs life. Make sure YOU know the core principles, choose a set of commands and cues that are easy for you to remember, so that you can continue to do it away from the class.

If your dog is having problems, look into finding a trainer that will come to your house and give one on one lessons. Also good if you want more specifics, more education, more one on one time for yourself. Classes serve a purpose, just make sure you're getting what you want out of it. switch if you're not. Keep the same commands YOU know that work for your dog. Don't worry about getting the little details and preferences exactly like everyone else in the class. You're not there for that. Find out if the command and way or require for competition if that's what you want. Choose a trainer that currently shows in what you want to show in. If your dog is to be a pet that stays at home, choose what works for your dog and you both. Have fun with it, don't stress!

 

[welsummerchicks]

I hope you know that all of the above post is your opinions only, that many people do not agree with you on one or more points based on very sound and practical reasoning, and still train very successfully, and there are just as many reasons on the opposite side of the argument for each of those categories. On several points, I would argue that your insistence that 'NO DOG EVER' needs something, can lead to very serious consequences, not just training difficulties and an unhappy owner, but injury or death of a dog.

I agree with 'don't overcomplicate it', though.

I do think people argue over what signals to use too much. However, what signals you use does matter in certain ways. They need to not look like other signals you will teach - each one needs to be distinct. Too, signals work best and are learned the easiest, when they are an extension of the original training, rather than something different. These signals are easiest for both the dog and the handler to keep straight. For example, sit command looks exactly like the gesture made during early on leash leash training, as does the down and other signals.

Too, if signals are used for things that are not distinct or clearly enough different from each other, the dog is going to make more errors.

It is also nice if there is a little commonsense involved, such as the command for 'attack' does not look or sound like something a person might do absent mindedly.

No may not be a command per se, but it can be used successfully and effectively (and instinctively and naturally, which is also important) in dog training.

 

[mandelyn]

Quote:
Well right, and the OP needs to find what works and form opinions on it as well. Everyone is going to do it differently and have different opinions on which method, why, how, for what... the goal is all the same, having a trained and happy dog to coexist with. And knowing that there are 500 different ways of doing it, going about it with an open mind and low stress will help in finding what works for that house. The OP is in the "which way is up?" phase of learning. Eventually it will all click and make sense in one form or another.

Just go slow and avoid frustration. Look for the core principles in any class. Make things your own so you can work with confidence and be able to reach the goal of being consistent.

 

[patandchickens]

Quote:
If they actually took the time to teach those horses much of anything for aids the horses would probably be far better off.

I dunno, there do seem to be a reasonable number of barns that *do* start their youngsters in a dressagey-basics kind of fashion...

...but my point really was that as there is only about 6" of a jockey's leg ON the horse during a race, you just CAN'T use much in the way of leg aids. And of course leg aids will get you exactly nowhere at all in harness racing, the person being about 4' behind the horse

Pat