That's close to our experience with Beanie although not quite the same.

In her case the problem was sniffing the floor. I assumed at first that it was because she was a scent hound and she found sniffing more interesting than training. But Carol spotted that the sniffing was a direct result of confusion - in this case because I was talking. She doesn't respond well to ANY unnecessary talking - even praise. I cut the gob-sh*te and she stopped sniffing.

Beanie is smart but she gets frustrated when she doesn't get things right first time. A 'no' seems to underline the fact that she's failed to secure her reward and amplifies the frustration. Again the result was often wandering off to sniff. But in her case Carol figured that being firm would work best. She encouraged me to be much more demanding in my expectations. Whereas my inclination was to do something closer to what worked for Mia (reward partial successes lightly and jackpots for perfect results), Carol had me hold out for perfect behaviour. It might take three tries but no relenting when it was felt that Beanie was capable (she is very smart). It worked a charm. A whole host of problems were fixed in an instant and our girl learned patience

But no negative markers.

In that kind of training environment I don't see any reason to persevere with negative markers with Beanie. Maybe with Biggles. We get good results without and they have caused problems in the past.

But consider the situation of dogs playing off-lead in a meadow within the park. You want them to run free in the meadow but you don't want them to go out of it. It's fairly easy (with lots of work) to get them to stay close, to come when called and so on. But getting them to run and play yet not go out of the meadow (cross a boundary) is very difficult - even when you're watching them like a hawk at all times. Yes, you can systematically reward all the things you want them to do but how do you make it clear that you don't want them to cross that boundary?

This is a situation where a negative marker could be a silver bullet - if the dog responds well to it. At one point Carol suggested simply snapping the lead on if the dog behaved in a way we didn't want. But predictably I suppose that resulted in the dogs being reluctant to come close - a problem that we'd never experienced before as we'd always rewarded check-ins - no matter how naughty they'd been prior to the check in. The consequence or negative marker has to be something that doesn't make the dog avoid you.

In doors, even when they're very excited, a 'no' or 'don't you dare' will work if the dogs try to go into a room they aren't allowed in. So I guess 'no' does work as a firm command or warning rather than simply a negative marker. But outside they're too far away for this to work - even if they hear you they'll ignore. It needs something that gets in at a deeper level. A clicker works infinately better than a 'yes' or 'good girl' so I'm figuring some kind of negative marker device is worth exploration.

I am doing something similar with Mia - basicaly first I reward her for just checking in with me (even cocking an ear to me at the start) then right away I send her away to 'go play' and many many times I just give her a quiet random treat for being aware I am there - then I reward her more by sending her off to play
Then she starts checking in with me more so I reward, ask for a behaviour, reward and send away again
It makes the running away become less important and removes the conflict that away is bad
Then althoug they can be away having fun you call them back often for fun things to do so they get used to being a closer distance to you while still being free to sniff

Because we were able to start this from day one when ours were tiny pups it's always worked very well. Whereas most beagle owners consider it normal when their dogs disappear for an hour, five hours or more ours normally only ever manage 2 minutes between check-ins. If they're having particularly good fun it'll very rarely stretch to 5 minutes. The worst ever was 10 minutes and that only happened once. Some days can be perfect - they'd romp around the meadow having a ball and checking in regularly to say hi and grab a treat! They'd come when you called and would pretty much have everyone commenting on how well trained they are. But other times they'd probably do exactly the same thing from their point of view, but from ours it was unacceptable as they'd chosen to take their romps outside of the meadow.

For us is there seems to be no RELIABLE happy medium. If we step up the training either the dogs are stuck to us like glue and don't run and play (because they're obsessed with pleasing us to release the treat which I'm certain is more of an obsession than pure pleasure) or else the running and playing randomly takes them too far away. They never let us out of their sights but they aren't capable of knowing when they're in danger. We need to be in control of when and where they roam - not them.

Also, there's the danger that if you accept them going out of sight a little bit they'll learn to venture further and further afield. Especially when you've got two little scoundrels as they're with their pack and that gives them confidence.

Our opinion tends to switch between playing it safe and restricting freedom while we attempt to condition them to be very close at all times and taking some risk in an attempt to give them good quality of life. It's a tough decision to make - a friend's Beagle was killed recently when it ran onto a railway line close by the park.

Things will be a lot better for us soon. We move to a new house at the beginning of December. The house is on a 1/3 acre plot - this is the back garden:



We're also just minutes from the beach which is about the safest open place you'll find. As they'll get to run and play as much as they like in the garden we'll feel better about restricting them elsewhere. In time maybe they can be trusted off-lead on the beach. We can work on it.

But if I can find a good way to get them safely off-lead at the beach sooner I'll jump at it. It will improve their quality of life a great deal. It's not lazyness - it's wanting the best for my dogs while they're young enough to really enjoy it rather than waiting until they're so old and unfit that they aren't capable of being naughty

This is them at the beach.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS9pC...layer_embedded

The real fun (for them) is when they take off over great distances until they're little dots on the horizon....or even out of sight all together. It gives you goosebumps to watch as it's just so beautiful. Now if only they could understand that they could do that every day of their lives if they just stayed that little tiny bit closer so that we could see them easily and so that they could hear if we wanted them back immediately...

Funny video but dosent look like it is just a tickle to me
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAxznP3nGNw

It is pretty funny That reminds me of playing dares with stock fencing as kids - I remember the farmer telling us it wouldn't hurt if we touched the fence with a blade of grass.....he was fibbing - it hurt 100 times more. It felt as if your finger joints were dislocating. Didn't stop us doing it though

I think he says "It tickles - but it's startling more than anything".

Now *IF* that's what the dog feels and *IF* it would solve the problem without the need to keep repeating the experience then I'd definitely consider it acceptable to 'tickle and startle' the dog a couple of times in order to have it reliably stay within boundaries thus giving it massively improved quality of life for the rest of it's life. And certainly I'd be willing to try a vibrating collar or spray collar with expert guidance.

Or course our problem is a little different in that we can't really use an electric fence. We need to keep our dog within boundaries whilst on the move - or at least in places that we don't own and therefore can't install an invisible fence. And I appreciate that whilst many people consider the e-fence to be an acceptable and safe use of the shock collar, using them in conjunction with a remote is a different kettle of fish due to the difficulty in reliably pushing the button at exactly the right time.

But still, the technology is of interest. I'm keen to find out more as it could lead to a solution to our problem.

Ah, this isn't correct, sorry Scarter .
Clicker people don't often advise the dog owner to hide the clicker so the dog doesn't associate it with you. There is no reason to.

Was this advice given to you? if so, do you know why?

It certainly isn't across the board advice given by clicker trainers generally - although you've kind of suggested that it is

Sorry to bring it up, but I don't want anyone reading this and thinking that is the norm.

Wys
x

Excellent suggestion I saw this down in some-ones large garden a couple of years ago they have a child with severe disabilities he likes to be outside all weathers if possible so they took all the old lawn up and put this down so the children can play out all year round unless someone had told you it was artificial you wouldn't of known.

We only have a small garden and are having a re-think and are going to put Ollie a piece down. You can hose it if they have a pooh and wee on it.

Much better in my opinion than electric fences and e-collars.

Sorry to agree with Wys again, but....

Cosmo has been clicker trained from day one with us. He sees the clicker and gets excited, he LOVES training with it and it has made my life so much easier. It is so easy to break what he needs up into manageable bits and show him what I want him to do. Example...he came home from agility on Wednesday and OH told me he needed to be able to do a spin to the right (he already does it to the left. On Thursday morning, out came the clicker, we reinforced the left spin then I started on the right. In around 30 seconds he had it nailed.
He KNOWS I hold the clicker and make it work. He will nudge my hand that holds the clicker if he thinks he has done something right and I haven't clicked it!!!!! He is very funny (and cheeky) The fact that he knows I operate the clicker has probably helped his training rather than hindered it.
The people who showed me how to use a clicker properly are exceptional trainers (aren't they Wys ) and didn't once mention hiding it. I would imagine hiding it would make it much more difficult to clicker train a dog effectively as having the clicker behind your back would mean you have a hand that is already occupied...then you have to have a hand for the treat...and possibly a hand to lure...not enough hands.....

Agree with the above always understood clicker training to be a positive, so why the need to hide the positive you are training with.

Hiding things behind your back, insinuates a negative, i.e... not wanting the dog to associate you with the action

Glad hiding the clicker isnt the norm - I haddnt heard about that one

The point I was making with the clip was the fact the boys were expecting something (like a dog would be the 2nd time) and they were not sure when, the suposed 'tickle' first warning before they got up to the fence got a big reaction from them because they were already expecting something and a bit jumpy
Its different for kids doing it for fun but I would hate to think of my dogs being under that amount of stress waiting for the 'tickle'