why the assumption the dog has "ignored you"?

presumably the dog at a kerb would be on a lead?

Krusewalker ~ I assumed this simply because when i start training a dog it's always done in a low distraction enviroment. So lets assume the dog has learnt what sit actually means using positive reinforcement ofcourse.
Then during another training session you ask them to sit and they don't comply what they've done is essentially ignored you.

Now don't get me wrong i am by no means a cruel person. If i think the dog will be reliable in my eyes using positive reinforcement only thats all i'll use. In many cases though that simply isn't the case.

Obviously the dog should be on the lead but alot of owners assume there dog(s) are trained and walk around with them off leash. Atleast where i live.

Now if using positive reinforcement only the dog only has one reasons for complying. Praise. Now if there is something of higher value across the road then the dog will in most cases choose to ignore you.

However using very light wrist filicking actions even with a martingale collar teaches the dog that there is a correction for not obeying there cue.
So now the dog has two reasons for listening, they recieve praise most importantly but also avoid the correction.

but still the same question to the same statement....why does not sitting on first request only equal/mean "dog has ignored you"?

again, what is wrong with saying sit, and if dog doesnt sit, waiting an interval, then saying sit again?

Krusewalker ~ As i stated when first training a dog to sit it's done in a little to no distraction enviroment. So if you say the dogs name before you give the cue you have there attention.
Agreed?
Now if you have to repeat yourself to that dog it essentially means the dog is ignoring you/Disobeying.
Thus in my eyes the dog is not really reliable.

On to your second question.
In my opinion you shouldn't have to ask multiple times for a dog to obey you.
Basically your instilling in the dog that they only have to listen and obey you when they feel like it.

Thanks for the questions.

how so?............................

Krusewalker ~ If the dog is in full health and you have there attention then no there isn't any other reasons. Other than they're choosing not to listen.

To your second point. If you have to ask the dog more than once, it's clearly multiple times.

On to your last question. If you give a dog a cue and they ignore you and all you do is then ask them again.
All you're doing is teaching the dog that they can pick and choose to listen when it takes there fancy.
If they recieve no correction then they have no reason to reliably listen to you.

Ofcourse this is my opinion.
I'm sure you have your own opinions on this.

Thanks for the questions.

Indeed i do, and you are welcome regarding the questions.
Im still seeking the answers though

A dog yes must be taught in an environment where there are not competing distractions.

When it will do x with 80% reliability you can move to a more distracint environment.

However, surely you then change the criteria to 0 as we know that dogs so not generalise well.

Any time we change a variable, we have to lower the criteria.

So IMV, the way you have explained how you train, it appears that you believe that because a dog has been tested in an environment of low distraction it should, ipso facto, repeat this level of reliablity when outside.

This is untrue.

But perhaps this is not what you meant?

Also, for those of us training by operant conditioning, we would not necessarily have but the behaviour on a verbal cue, thus we are not putting our dog in a position to "ignore" or "disobey" our commands.

My personal view is that if my dog is not "compliant" rather than punishing the dog, I remind myself that my teaching, training and testing has been insufficient.


Dogs do what works, so why should they "disobey"?

I am more inclined to believe that it is more likely that they have been insufficiently trained, are confused and have not been provided with sufficient reward.

Of course dogs are only dogs and there will be times that they may calculate that "the game is worth the candle" eg rabbit v you.

If the rabbit is nearer to them than you are, they might chance their arm!

Hi and welcome to Dogsey

I did notice that (as far as I can tell) you tend to use praise for a reward, or to show the dog he is right - is that correct? Only I do feel that very few dogs work well for just praise.

They will sometimes if praise comes to mean a sign that they have avoided punishment, though.

I find that different dogs respond very well to different rewards - and it's fun using a "hierarchy of rewards" too! So you find out what the dog loves best, and not so keen on, and have things in between. So this could be:

Liver best
Chicken
Tug game
Chasing
Cuddles
kibble (only using as an example).

Wys
x

How much would you proof the sit before expecting your dog to understand the idea?