Diane Bauman - articles

Originally Published In Front & Finish®, The Dog Trainer's News frontandfinish.com/ LOCATION REWARDING By Diane L. Bauman If I tell you that there is a person handing out $500.00 bills to anyone who visits 42nd street and 5th Avenue in New York City, and if you are going to be in the city, where would you plan to go? In dog training people give a lot of thought to the quality of the rewards they give to their dogs. Buffalo bites, salmon treats, filet mignon, broiled chicken, home-made liver brownies are just some of the treats available to dogs in training. Even more important then what kind of treat you feed your dog is where the dog receives the reward. I always tell my students to put the reward where the dog should be; not where he is! If you are trying to teach a dog to assume a position at your side in agility or obedience, place a treat such that if the dog was exactly in the desirable position, he could easily eat it. If the dog is in the wrong place and wants the food, he will usually adjust into the correct position to get the treat and eventually begin to anticipate where the treat will be given in the future. I refer to this as “location rewarding.” When you feed your dog a treat or offer a toy from your hand, your hand becomes very important to the dog. Sometimes in training you want a dog to focus on your hand, but at other times when trying to encourage a dog to focus elsewhere, rewarding from hand works against you. An example of this would be when teaching a dog to lie down on the ground or on a pause table. When the down position is accomplished, deliver the treat or toy to the table or the ground for the dog. This makes the surface the dog is lying down on important and not your hand. A dog looking up for additional treats/toys in your hand is inclined to lift his head up which causes him to get up off of the down position. If you feed a dog from your left hand, the dog learns to look to your left hand in the hopes of getting another reward. Most obedience trainers have figured this out and when working on teaching dogs to sit straight in front of the handler, rewards are given from the handler’s mouth or from both hands simultaneously positioned in the center of the handler’s body. In agility training, feeding from a specific hand can be helpful where trainers want their dogs to remain on one side of their body. Teaching a dog to focus on your left or right hand actually instructs a dog which side of the handler to stay on and when to change sides as in a front cross. Once again, the location of the treat is paramount to the learning process. In agility, it is a great advantage to teach a dog to work away from the handler. Dogs can usually run faster than their human partners, and if they are not willing to work at a distance, their speed is compromised. From the dog’s perspective, if he is repeatedly rewarded from his handler’s hands, why would he see any reason to move away from this person? To teach distance performance in agility, handlers must have a way to locate the treats/rewards ahead of the dogs’ path. This is frequently accomplished with the use of a food tube, or food pouch that can be thrown ahead of the dog. (The reward, even a toy, must be protected by a tube, container or pouch so that the dog cannot simply self reward without performing correctly.) Throwing or placing the reward where you want the dog to go, and not where he is, makes all the difference in teaching an agility dog to drive forward to the next obstacle. Food is used extensively in agility training when handlers teach dogs to perform contacts. Once again, the location of the food plays a large role in the dogs understanding of what is expected of him. Giving treats from your hand when the dog assumes a correct, stopped, contact behavior (ie Two-On-Two-Off, Down Position, Four- on- the- floor etc.) is useful in early training. However, if continued, it will teach the dog that the proximity of the handler and that the handler stopped moving, is the cue to perform the contact. After all, to the dog, if the handler is not near the contact, there is no chance of a reward. Contact training should progress to a point where, when the dog stops in the correct position on a contact, the handler throws the reward ahead of the dog from a distance and then releases the dog to get it. This way, the dog is assured that a reward is possible even in the absence of the handler nearby. Location rewarding, allows handlers the freedom to handle from a distance (“peel off”) away from obstacles, while providing the dog a reason to continue moving straight ahead and complete the obstacle correctly. All trainers want to see their dogs complete a full set of twelve weave poles. Many dogs pop out of poles early in anticipation of earning a reward (usually given from hand) or being permitted to go on to the next obstacle. Location rewarding can help explain to a dog why he should complete all the poles. If your dog pops out of poles early, say nothing, then throw a reward like a food tube or food pouch past the last pole. No, you are not rewarding him for popping out! The dog will notice your action and if he goes to the end of the poles to see if he will be rewarded, praise him for realizing his error, but do not offer a treat. Repeat the weave poles. This time, if the dog completes them, reward by throwing the protected food/toy ahead of the poles and offer a treat. The dog will quickly figure out that if he wants to earn a reward, he must take the time to complete all the poles. Suppose you give your dog an “OUT” command to instruct him to move out away from you towards a jump, but instead, the dog turns towards you and misses the jump? This is another perfect opportunity to, say nothing and take a food tube/pouch and throw it in the direction the dog should have gone. (Always put the food where the dog should be; not where he is!) Let the dog wonder why you threw a reward out beyond that other jump. Let him see what he could have earned had he gone out there on your command, “out.” Now, begin again and see if the dog sees a reason to move out away from you and take a jump far away! When the dog finally takes the distant jump, throw the reward and then go out and open it for him to get his treat. Dogs learn by anticipating what will happen next and deciding if it is in their best interest to proceed. By being aware of location rewarding, handlers can communicate with their dogs more easily and accurately.
Originally Published In Front & Finish®, The Dog Trainer's News, March 2009 frontandfinish.com/ CAN OBEDIENCE LEARN FROM AGILITY? Diane Bauman It is not news that since the onset of agility as a titling performance event in AKC we have witnessed a decline in entries into Obedience Trials. In an attempt to counter this loss of entry income, the AKC created Rally and more recently numerous non- regular obedience classes which we may or may not ever see offered at Obedience Trials. Will Rally or new non-regular classes breathe new life into the sport of obedience? I doubt it. They are Band-Aids that do not address the real problem. Having competed at top levels in obedience for the first 26 years of my canine career and now having competed for 14 years in agility at the National and World level, including the writing and publication of multiple books on both sports, I view this dilemma from a different perspective. I have heard it said that agility is more popular because it’s more fun than obedience. Nothing could be further from the truth. Taught properly, both sports are fun for dogs and their handlers. I see just as many wagging tails and smiling faces on my obedience students and their dogs as I see in agility lessons. Both venues offer man and dog a place to learn, communicate, grow and spend time together. I do not think my own dogs could even tell you when we work together if we are doing agility training or obedience training. To them, it is quality time spent interacting, learning new things and earning rewards. While I continue to train my dogs in obedience (ie heeling, retrieving, fronts, finishes, stays, signals etc.), I have not ventured into an obedience ring to compete in almost ten years. Why? To answer this question, turn to the sport of agility and look at why it has grown so fast. What is it about the AKC agility program that brings so many new dogs and handlers into the action each year and then hooks them to the point where some would prefer to spend their money on agility entries, than their own personal needs? The AKC agility program is diverse, challenging, logical and progressive. Agility welcomes people into the Novice level with minimal training (six months to a year), gives them a taste of success and then challenges the exhibitor at the Excellent level to the limits. This accomplishes two very important things. It makes it easy for a beginner to become involved and it holds the interest of the experienced participant by constantly increasing the difficulty of the advanced tests. In any sport, it is essential to hold on to the advanced level competitor. This is the person who goes on to teach and bring the new people into the lower levels of the sport, thus, keeping the program alive and growing. At the Novice level in agility, the courses are fairly simple, short and basically require that the dog and handler demonstrate an understanding of every obstacle. There are only 6 weave poles in Novice. The scoring is such that even mistakes such as “refusals” or a “wrong course” in standard agility do not prevent the team from earning a qualifying score. In other words, the judging is more lenient for the inexperienced novice dog. At the Open level, the courses are a little longer and the handler must demonstrate more advanced handling techniques. There are usually more side changes and now dogs may be asked to complete 12 weave poles. The judging is also more difficult but not as strict as it will eventually become at the Excellent level. This gradual, progressive program works to bring dogs and handlers along in a logical way. People find themselves making progress and learning with every event they enter. Usually, once a dog enters the ring, he will continue to compete as his skills become perfected through training and trialing. In contrast, the AKC Obedience program begins with a Novice level class that is perhaps the most difficult of all to master. It takes an average dog and handler a year to a year and a half to learn to heel with the expertise to be competitive. (I can teach any dog to retrieve in less than 3 months.) Unfortunately, heeling is the major part of the novice class in obedience. To make matters even worse, the heeling in novice is judged by the exact same standards as heeling at the Utility level is judged! This is totally irrational. Assuming a team does complete a CD degree, it is now usually many more months or even years of training before they are ready to enter the ring at the next level. Is it any wonder that people are discouraged from even thinking about entering into Obedience competition? The novice level obedience class does not prepare a dog for the open level. In open obedience the dog is required to retrieve, jump, perform a moving drop and master out of sight stays. Wouldn’t it make more sense to start some basic level steps of these exercises in Novice? This would then provide a logical progression. There is actually less of a gap between the Open and Utility exercises but many of the Utility exercises should also be started at the Novice and Open levels. This would prepare and encourage the dog and handler to continue on to advanced training and not see it as some daunting task only within reach for professionals. There is nothing wrong with obedience as a sport other than the way the program is designed. Instead of blaming agility for the decline of participation in obedience, I think obedience should learn from the agility world and restructure their program. What would it take to lure me and others back to the world of obedience? Answer: a logical, practical, challenging, progressive program. I propose the following: Novice: On leash heeling in a figure 8 pattern the size of the entire ring. Minimum of 3 halts. Fast and slow on the straight part of the figure 8. No turns. A “down in motion” at some point in the heeling. Points lost only for dogs out of heel position when moving or more then 45 degrees out of position in a sit. No additional handler aides (talking, gesturing etc.) permitted. Stand for Exam Recall on flat. Recall over a high jump or broad jump (judges choice). Retrieve on flat on leash ( 6 ft.) (Any object including but not requiring a dumbbell.) Including a front and finish not scored for accuracy but must be completed. Signals on or off leash (handler’s choice) at 6 ft. using hand and/or voice. Sits and downs off leash in a circle the size of the entire ring, with handlers crossing the circle so that it is dog-handler-dog –handler standing in a circle. Open: Heel on leash in a regular pattern. Heel off leash in a regular figure 8 pattern. Drop on Recall Retrieve over high jump Broad jump Directed Retrieve with only 2 gloves. Scent Discrimination with two articles and a third scented one. . Utility: No changes; getting to this level was the plan all along! It would not take much alteration to upgrade the current obedience program that is sound but significantly out of date. Instead of creating new (Rally and other classes), or making things easier, we should restructure what we have and preserve obedience as a fun, challenging sport. Agility works because it’s easy in the beginning and then increasingly demanding at the highest level. Obedience should learn from Agility. Comments welcome.
NJ Life Magazine has many article's written by Diane. click on "The Bark Park" on the right, then click on Diane Bauman at the left. Then go to " More articles by Diane Bauman" and click on it. www.newjerseylife.com/current-issue/index.aspx Originally Published In Front & Finish®, The Dog Trainer's News, Sep/Oct 2008 frontandfinish.com/ Training for Attention in the Agility Ring Diane L. Bauman The concept of “attention,” I believe, first came on the scene in obedience training in this country sometime in the late 70’s to early 80’s. As if over night, the phrase “Watch Me” was suddenly being chanted coast to coast in dog training classes everywhere. Heeling started to take on a new look. Dogs pranced next to their handlers with heads high looking alert as they paid attention to the body cues that would tell them what direction their handlers were taking. There are now many “attention exercises” and even special training classes devoted to teaching “how to get your dogs attention.” In order to teach anything you must first have the attention of your student. For the student to be able to perform what you have taught, the student’s mental state of mind must be one of focus and concentration. There is no doubt that dogs that are attentive to their handlers score higher in obedience and make fewer mistakes in agility. What you may not realize is that the type of attention needed for training obedience is very different from the kind of attention desired in the agility ring. In obedience, attention is usually thought of as a dog that is looking at his handler, not necessarily at the handler’s face. Dogs taught to heel looking at the handler’s face are often wrapped around the handler’s left leg in a forged position. Or, the handler is wrapped around, staring at the dog in an unnatural position. Often, these dogs cannot walk parallel to their handler and are said to be “side-winding” as they try to maintain eye-to-eye contact in a position that forces the dog’s body totally off balance. In contrast, dogs taught to heel looking up at the left side of the handler’s body can pay attention and maintain their balance as they heel in a more correct position. In agility, there are really only a few seconds on a course (areas of confusion) where the handler actually needs his dog looking at him! Dogs in agility that have repeatedly been taught to look at their handlers often spin, jump around in circles, and do not work at distance. It is very difficult to send these dogs ahead to obstacles. The key to attention training in the agility ring is that the dog must be taught to look ahead to the obstacles while knowing where his handler is and what he is being instructed to do next. To accomplish this, the dog uses peripheral vision, his excellent hearing and even his scenting ability. Attention is really about a state of mind and NOT a head position. Have you witnessed the dog in the obedience Utility ring that stands with his head facing directly toward his handler on the Signal Exercise? And then, when the handler gives a signal, nothing happens. While the dog’s head is positioned correctly pointing at the handler, where is his mind? Is he paying attention or just assuming a learned head position? In my system of training agility (outlined in the newly released book Agility Start to Finish Alpine 2008), the dog is taught the command, “Here.” That means: move towards me, line up with my body on the side closest to you, and look ahead to the next obstacle that I send you to. The dog should not be looking at my face; but rather positioning himself next to my body. If I need my dog to look directly at me, I use only the dog’s name, which means, “Look at me. It’s not what you think it is!” This allows me to pull the dogs eyes off of the wrong obstacle he may be starting to focus on and redirect him appropriately. Beginning handlers, in an effort to get their dogs to work with them, do too much “look at me” attention training. Calling a dog, looking directly at his face and feeding him treats from your hand are very good ways to encourage a dog to look directly at you. Calling the dog to you after each obstacle interrupts the flow of motion you should be trying to create. Is this really what you want in agility? Handler focus is not about the dog’s head position, it is really about his state of mind. Training techniques such as targeting or the use of food tubes and other motivators that are thrown ahead of the dogs’ path, will teach dogs to continue moving forward. Training a dog to “send” ahead of the handler and move laterally out away from the handler are other ways we instruct dogs to look ahead while maintaining awareness of their handler in the agility ring. A dog that is running towards a reward after having responded correctly to his handler’s signal is definitely paying attention to the task at hand. He is just not looking at his partner. When you set out to train for attention in agility, be careful what you ask for…you might just get it!
Originally Published In Front & Finish®, The Dog Trainer's News, December 2009 frontandfinish.com/ The Concept of Maintenance in Training By Diane Bauman In all facets of dog training there are skills a dog learns and retains and then there are training concepts that seem to require constant reinforcement. It is important that a trainer recognizes which behaviors will need maintenance and why. It is as if certain things a dog learns he knows forever and others break down simply by asking for the behaviors. The more I work with dogs, the more I realize how much they tend to anticipate. In fact, we say that a dog has not really learned something until he anticipates it. For many years I heard the belief that if you give a verbal command following a hand signal that the dog will learn to wait for the verbal command. This is totally untrue. Dogs do not wait, they anticipate! Think of start lines in agility or finishes in obedience. Dogs must be taught to wait because their natural inclination is to anticipate the next command or action. The exercise that brings this concept to the forefront in obedience is the Broad Jump. In agility, anticipation damages performance when a handler “peels off” weavepoles, chutes and contacts. Let’s consider the broad jump first. Whenever a dog is asked to jump a broad jump in the obedience ring he is required to turn sharply back towards the handler. After a few repetitions, the dog begins to anticipate this turn which, if left untreated, leads eventually to cutting the corner of the jump. Constant maintenance is required to keep the dog jumping straight across the jump. For more information on how to maintain the broad jump, refer to my book Beyond Basic Dog Training, third edition. (Howell 2003). In agility, there are many situations where a dog’s anticipation of where the handler is going next, will cause an improper obstacle performance. “Peeling off” refers to a situation where the handler begins running with the dog near an obstacle but as the dog executes the obstacle, the handler gets further and further away from the dog, in an effort to show the dog where he is going next. Each time the handler makes use of this handling technique the obstacle performance weakens as the dog begins to anticipate where he will be going next. Left unmanaged, this causes dogs to pop out of weave poles early, get tangled in chutes and miss contacts. If the handler is aware enough to maintain the performance, these errors can be avoided. To maintain good contacts and weave pole performance when a handler must “peel off,” away from the obstacle, reward the dog in practice by throwing a motivator (food tube or toy) straight ahead of the dog. This helps the dog understand that even though his handler is moving laterally, it is to the dog’s advantage to continue straight ahead to claim his reward. In other words, to prevent the dog from anticipating a sharp turn towards his handler, we encourage him to anticipate a reward landing directly in front of him. Anytime courses have required me to “peel off” weave poles or contacts over the weekend, I make sure to include maintenance training the next week to strengthen the dog’s willingness to drive straight ahead and complete the entire obstacle. The chute is another obstacle that requires frequent maintenance. If you repeatedly call a dog, asking for a sharp turn out of a chute, the dog begins to anticipate and will turn early in the chute. This is dangerous because if left unmanaged, the dog runs the risk of getting tangled going through the chute material. To maintain a straight forward run through the chute, reward the dog by throwing a reward directly ahead of the chute a few times. This is usually all it takes to remind the dog that the correct performance is running straight through the chute. Remember, if you have a weekend of trials where you have been required to call a dog abruptly out of the chute, you are going to need maintenance training the next week. Once a trainer realizes which skills become weakened with performance, it is easy to keep performances on a trained dog, accurate and fast. Do not wait for things to break down, maintain them!
“Houston, we have a problem!” By Diane Bauman It has happened again. At a recent obedience trial on the East Coast, a small dog was viciously attacked. As the toy dog galloped out to retrieve his dumbbell in the Open B Class, a Cattle Dog from the adjacent Novice B ring, jumped the ring gates, grabbed him, pinned him to the ground and punctured the little dog who was screaming. If it had not been for the swift action on the part of the handler of the toy dog, the incident could have easily ended with a lifeless body. The handler of the Cattle Dog screamed and fainted. Two judges stood frozen as the little dog’s handler flew to his defense. The handler scooped the Cattle Dog up (with both arms) and in one very quick motion, tossed it way up in the air and away. The Cattle Dog landed stunned, which gave the toy dog and his owner time to escape their ring. The small victim was immediately examined by veterinarians who happened to be at the trial exhibiting their own dogs and the owner of the injured party left for the pharmacy to purchase antibiotics. While the physical damage to the toy dog turned out to be minor, the psychological damage will prevent this dog from ever competing in an obedience ring again. Obedience has lost more than one entry. The emotional aftershock has caused this owner and handler to find safer, less stressful venues in which to compete with his dogs. Days later, as I spoke at length with the handler of the small dog that was attacked, I searched for answers. How could this happen? How did the Cattle Dog make it all the way to the Novice B ring without anyone knowing he had the potential to seriously attack another dog? Even though the Cattle Dog in question has been banned from ever trialing again, how long would it be before another dog followed suit? And finally, why didn’t anyone try to help this exhibitor? I cringe when I think about what has happened to AKC Obedience and the dogs that are supposed to be under control, respectful and trained. The fault of this incident lies not with the Cattle Dog; he was not the one who sent in the entry for the trial, but with the humans who are responsible for the training and performance of the dog. Further investigation uncovered that the Cattle Dog had a history at match shows of “going after other dogs.” Having discovered this flaw in training, why wasn’t it repaired and proofed before the dog was entered in a trial? As an obedience instructor of many years, I believe that it is my responsibility to inform students when they are ready to enter a competition. While I cannot prevent them from doing so prematurely, I would certainly not permit a dog that would run out of the ring, for any reason, to compete with my blessing. I never thought I would become one of those people who talked about “the good old days.” Ten to fifteen years ago, I do not remember as many dogs breaking stays or being out of control in a ring. What has happened? Simply put, the trend in dog training has changed in the last fifteen years. We are now in an era where some people feel it is wrong to ever correct a dog. Amidst this liberal setting, dogs are “redirected,” “clicked” (reinforced with the use of a clicker to create behaviors) and people applaud themselves for being able to train in a “purely positive,” “hands off” way. Dogs today are frequently distracted, cajoled, and bribed with food. Training problems are often managed instead of eliminated. I consider myself to be a very positive trainer. My dogs are all taught with gentle techniques before I expect them to understand and perform. Once I am sure that a dog understands, I am also positive that the dog is going to choose to comply. This part of the equation is based on my belief that a dog who willingly disobeys should learn that there are consequences for his actions. My dogs all understand that “crime doesn’t pay!” Good trainers are fair and balanced. They use the mildest correction that works and teach dogs what the correction will be ahead of time, should they choose to disobey. I do not believe that the Cattle Dog mentioned above thought that there would be a serious consequence for his actions. Actually, I doubt he was thinking at all. More likely he was just reacting to a moving animal nearby, oblivious of his handler. I am willing to bet that this dog was never worked on livestock so that he could learn to control his impulses while in prey drive. To add to the complexity of this problem, trainers today encourage dogs to play with toys when schooling as a form of reward. It is not uncommon to see dogs lunging at furry, fuzzy toys. Motivating dogs with play is a wonderful tool but it also raises the prey drive in a dog who might then think it permissible to grab a real, furry dog in the next ring! Not all dogs are equal. They all have different levels of drive. Some require serious consequences to get them to change their behavior. Others will comply with their handler’s wishes with nothing more than a mild suggestion. Good training adjusts to the individual dog at the end of the leash and does not stipulate that dogs should never be corrected. There is definitely a place for food in dog training. Treats should be used to teach, guide, focus and reward a dog; but not to bribe. Every dog must eventually be able to perform without the promise of a treat or he is not trained. The dog must understand when it is fun to play with a furry toy and that he may never leave a ring to chase a live dog that resembles his toy! People who own dogs that do not understand these rules are not ready to exhibit. Assuming a dog is well trained and ready to trial, there is always the risk of an accident. Even expert training is not a guarantee. Knowing this risk, handlers continue to enter trials, but who wants to feel that if something goes wrong, no one will help? Why did two judges just observe? Did anyone from outside the ring try to assist? Whose responsibility is it to break up a dog fight? What is the AKC protocol in this situation? Having reviewed the AKC Obedience regulations, I find references to what to do if a dog attacks another dog or person (lots of paperwork and a hearing) but no information about what to do when the attack is actually taking place. If nothing else, shouldn’t the judge at least have thrown a clipboard at the offender? Dog fights at obedience trials are a very touchy subject. Each incident carries with it specific circumstances. I have not written about this event to judge but rather to draw attention to a growing problem in the sport of obedience. A problem, I believe, which is founded in modern day training techniques. If training does not swing back to a more balanced approach, including correcting dogs for inappropriate behaviors, I fear the sport is doomed.