Part 2 of Ian Dunbar Seminar!

Since apparently Crystal is going to take awhile to write about he Ian Dunbar experience, I might as well finish up on the other things that really caught my attention from Saturday.

One question I had about his RRNR (basically repeating the cue and walking closer continuously until the dog does the behavior) was if it could inadvertently reward the behavior you are trying to punish.  What first made me ask this question was when Ian was talking about teaching dogs to heel.  A lot of trainers only focus on the negative and are constantly leash popping their dogs for being out of position.  Ian was arguing that not only do we need to reward the dogs when they do the right thing, but that we need to give more constructive feedback such as teaching the dog a word such as slow, or hurry up and then use those cues as information to the dog.

My question to Ian, was that can't a cue that was positively trained actually reward a behavior?  In the same way that a finish can be a reward for a straight front, couldn't a dog learn to forge and then be rewarded by the cue to "slow."  Or as a better example, I think a lot of dogs out there learn to jump up first before sitting.  They jump up to get the owners attention, are asked to to sit, and then nicely fold back down where they receive lots of praise.  They learn not only that sitting gets petting, but as part of a behavior chain they learn to jump first, then sit.  I did try and ask this all to Ian, but either I didn't ask it correctly and he misunderstood me, or he just blew it off because he doesn't think it occurs if you use RRNR correctly.

Another aspect I found interesting on Saturday was that he actually teaches his dogs different levels of performance based on their name.  Ian formalizes disobedience :)  90% of the time Ian argues that we don't actually care if the dog obeys or not.  If he really wants the dog to listen, then Ian uses the dogs full name.  So Rover Sit would be optional.  But Rover Doggy Sit would always be enforced.  And if he wanted pizzaz, a nice tucked it sit, that Ian would use yet a third name to go be before the cue sit.

I thought about it and I do currently have a little system for my dogs. But instead of using a cue to go before the real command, I just use different commands.  If I say sit, down, stay, come, all done, etc then I ALWAYS enforce it.  But if I tell Vito to go relax, just lie down, come cuddle, come over here, no more, then they are basically optional.  I would like it if he would down, or come, but I don't really care if he does it or not.  And if I want precision, then I use his formal obedience cues such as front and heel.  Having more cues makes it a bit more complicated than just putting a different name before the cue, but I would think that it would be easier for the dog to learn what you expect.

And finally, my last observation about Saturday was the use of the command in the praise as in Good Sit.  Now I know that dogs are really great at learning what we want so it probably doesn't matter one bit.  Traditional trainers have always said the command after the dog did it so it clearly can be done that way.  But I still find it extremely annoying.  I believe that dogs see cues as actions.  Sit means to lower the butt to the floor.  And that is why a lot of dogs have zero clue what you mean when suddenly the dog is lying down and then you tell the to sit.  They can't lower their butt any further, so it is like an entirely new command!  By saying Good Sit, I would imagine the dog would hear it as good....Sit rather than as a quality of the position.  Especially in the learning stages when you are naming the behavior, I always give it right BEFORE I think the dog is going to do it, not after.  Just a pet peeve of mine!

Does anyone else get what I'm trying to say about cues rewarding behaviors?
Do you guys have different levels of obedience, and do you think a different name is an easier idea than different cues?