Teaching a dog to stay closer when off the lead?

9

{97702}

...
Joined
9 July 2012
Messages
14,849
Visit site
Anyone got any ideas? Amy has always gone off ahead on walks, while my other 3 generally stay close to me (I've trained Hoover to trot more or less at my heels as he isn't small-dog friendly) and it has never been a problem. Since I've moved house I am now walking the dogs in a Forestry Commission wood, with big well defined open pathways, and Amy is getting further and further ahead with every walk!

Her recall is 100% so she will always come back when I call, but she then turns around and trots off ahead again at a high speed.....so I call her back...she comes back....and trots off again. I am getting really bored of our whole walk route reverberating with "Amy come here" every 2 minutes! It really isn't safe for her to be so far ahead, the woods are pretty busy with walkers, cyclists, horse riders and occasionally idiots riding scrambler bikes :mad: so I would like her to stay nearer to me.

Unfortunately a long line isn't an option, as all the dogs (except Hoover) regularly disappear into the woods in pursuit of a possible rabbit/squirrel/deer/blackbird/acorn falling off a tree :D
 
Could you feed her from your pocket on your walks or teach her 'close' or 'follow' IE, not a formal velcro heel? So that it's to her advantage if she stays closer to you. Apologies if she is raw fed, bit messy that!!
 
You are predictable. She knows she can go far ahead because you will maintain contact by obligingly calling her back and reassuring her every so often.

Turn the tables on her. Hide behind a tree, say nothing, then make a big fuss of her when she comes and finds you. Don't be too quick to help her but get her worried.

Make as if to go your normal route, but change your mind (when she's ahead) and go another way. Could you deviate and walk down an extraction ride? No whistling, no shouting. Make her find you. Next time, she will watch in case you do it again.

Why should she bother staying close? She knows exactly where you are! She has you perfectly trained!
 
LOL Dry Rot I read your reply and thought - you are so right :D Amy really is a sweetie as she will get terribly anxious if she 'loses' me, so I think I will try a combination of your idea and CC's idea - random rewards, and unpredictability :)

I did try that a bit tonight, she disappeared over the next hill and I stopped and waited....no sign....so I turned round and walked back the way I had come....no sign.....then I had to get home to go out for a run so I had to call her!!! She came belting back in a right panic, but I ended up putting her on the lead because I was fed up of calling her. I will allow more time for my walks over the next few weeks and see what happens :)

Thanks for the ideas both :)
 
Dry Rot said:
You are predictable. She knows she can go far ahead because you will maintain contact by obligingly calling her back and reassuring her every so often.

Turn the tables on her. Hide behind a tree, say nothing, then make a big fuss of her when she comes and finds you. Don't be too quick to help her but get her worried.

Make as if to go your normal route, but change your mind (when she's ahead) and go another way. Could you deviate and walk down an extraction ride? No whistling, no shouting. Make her find you. Next time, she will watch in case you do it again.

Why should she bother staying close? She knows exactly where you are! She has you perfectly trained!
Click to expand...

This, I have the opposite problem as I struggle to get mine to pay any attention to anything else but me and its my own fault as I used to play hide from the dog if he had wandered off. I cant loose him now even If I tried
 
I know there are lovers and haters of this.. my lab stays close, the staff is a bit thick and cant remember his name! I had enough in the end, and got a zap collar for him I think I only used it 3 times on a very low setting when he didnt respond now hes perfect. but I had worked for 2 years on him (training classes etc etc etc) to be like he was after just 2 weeks with the collar! But it should never be abused, I first used mine with a trainer and rather than use the beep as a warning we used a command, so that when he doesnt have the collar he still responds to the command and not a beep if that makes sense.
 
I had both mine out today across the farm (we have a lot of pheasants down at the mo which he will chase) and he was good as gold, I do have to catch him before he goes on the run after something, but he instantly responds to me saying his name and come, and he comes and sits by my feet for a good boy treat (which is only one of his normal feed biscuits.... thick dog!)
 
Just a quick update to say that the techniques are working already :) I am hiding behind lots of trees/turning around and heading back the other way/taking different routes and already Amy is constantly glancing over her shoulder to make sure I'm still there, or running back to me if she had gone ahead out of sight :)

She is getting lots of fuss and hugs which to be honest she values more than food rewards - although she does get a lot of fuss and hugs at home too :D
 
Picklenash said:
Just a quick update to say that the techniques are working already :) I am hiding behind lots of trees/turning around and heading back the other way/taking different routes and already Amy is constantly glancing over her shoulder to make sure I'm still there, or running back to me if she had gone ahead out of sight :)

She is getting lots of fuss and hugs which to be honest she values more than food rewards - although she does get a lot of fuss and hugs at home too :D
Click to expand...

Good.

It has actually been proved under laboratory conditions (as scientists do!) that fondling and praise have a higher reward value than treats.

Most dogs would die for a vigorous ear scratching. Use your finger tips and massage quite vigorously. They absolutely love it -- or at least most do! But don't forget the praise.
 
Just to clarify, I wasn't advocating 'treating' the dog, DR, I was suggesting the dog earns part or all of its daily allowance of normal bog standard food by doing certain behaviours but appreciate it's not for everyone :)

However as Amy prefers cuddles then that's a moot point - glad she's sticking closer!
 
Last edited:
Same thing I did with mine. I would wait until he was a certain distance and I'd just turn around and go the other way. Sometimes back in the opposite direction, sometimes off into the woods or across the field depending where I was. He soon learned that rather than have to panic and come crashing around corners looking for me, it was easier to stay within a reasonable distance. All four of them do it now, because they have learned it from him. I love it. I can be in a field with the four of them off in different places and I'll see someone with loose dogs enter a field and need to get them all back. I never ever call them. All I have to do is turn and walk the other way and within seconds they are all with me. They aren't perfect, one of them isn't great with other dogs and one isn't great with strange people, so I need to get them back. This happened to be the best way of doing it :-)
 
That sounds fantastic GG :) if my lot are in full flight then I call Amy and she brings them all back to me, but usually the others are all around me so no need to call - and I am always watchful on a walk, the joy of walking sighthounds!!

Amy is so good, if she sees someone ahead she will stop and come back to me rather than advancing towards them without any need for me to call - Cayla always said cheese was the route to Amy's perfect recall :D
 
Booboos said:
That sounds very interesting, could you provide the reference please?
Click to expand...

Probably in "Dog Behavior -- The Genetic Basis", Scott & Fuller, if you care to look. It's years ago since I read that and, as it works, I've never needed to question it. I use what works -- and that does.
 
Dry Rot said:
Probably in "Dog Behavior -- The Genetic Basis", Scott & Fuller, if you care to look. It's years ago since I read that and, as it works, I've never needed to question it. I use what works -- and that does.
Click to expand...

OK I was just interested in the claim that petting works better than treating. I don't doubt that for some dogs it does, but the claim that it does for the majority of the dogs seemed contrary to everything I have read and I wanted to read the study.

I think the book is "Genetics and the Social Behaviour of the Dog" from 1965, also by Scott and Fuller as I can't find the title you mention exactly. The words 'petting' and 'cuddling' do not occur at all in the book, the word 'touching' has hits with reference to forced training but not as a reward.

On page 145 they mention Fuller 1955 shows that puppies that were punished everytime they approached the experimenter overcame their fear when the punishment stopped from which he concludes that food rewards are not necessary for puppies to attach themselves to people.

From there they mention the (awful) Harlow study 1958 with the monkeys which chose the comfortable mother alternative.

On page 177 they do mention that feeding alone (i.e. going up to a puppy and giving it its daily meal) does not by itself have a powerful effect on the formation of social relationships (incidentally on the same page they say "Food rewards which can be used so effectively to motivate learnt behaviour...." which seems to contradict your earlier claim). They go on to mention studies (Elliot and King 1960, p. 177-8 of S&F) where puppies were hand fed but had no other physical contact with handlers - half the puppies were overfed, the other hald underfed.

I've only had a quick search of the book but can't find your point, if you can provide a more specific reference it would be appreciated.
 
What rewards are effective (or not) will depend on what you are attempting to teach and often in the breeds you are attempting to train. That is just simple logic.

All I can say is that I read that quote years ago, tried it, and it works for me. It also amused me that scientists invariable set out to prove what most sensible people already know. I tried the food rewards but found when the dogs had a choice, i.e. Gorganzola cheese or a rat/rabbit/hare/game bird, they invariably chose the latter! So why a treat should be a strong inducement for a dog out hunting to return to it's owner is beyond me.

It is possible, through training, to train dogs to become obsessive over certain things. Mine are trained to be obsessive about me! The worst dogs by far on the recall (usually beyond redemption) are English setters of a certain working strain that have learnt from experience that there is game out there and the human owner is intent on preventing them from hunting it. But I am sure if you gave me time I could think up many other examples.

If you observe, or even better hunt, a pack of hounds you will quickly see how the pack respond to the voice of an old reliable hound yet learn to ignore the "liar". Yes, there are hounds that will lie, just as humans do, and I suppose they do it for attention seeking! Pointers and setters will "back" a reliable brace mate when it points but quickly learn to walk straight past a known liar. So why should they treat their human owner who persistently calls them for nothing, or interrupts the far more interesting things they are doing? As I always try to call my dog for something that will interest her, she is pleased to come to call.
 
Why must it always be so black and white?

I call my dog back to send him into a bit of cover...
I call my dog back for a food reward - yes, a treat! Shoot me now...
I call my dog back to have a game with his special toy or a ball...
I call my dog back for a fuss...
I call my dog back because he needs to come to heel or go on the lead...
He never knows which one it's going to be...
And he keeps an eye on me because I might leap behind a tree, or head off in the opposite direction...

Guess what? He comes back. He comes back when he's chasing bunnies. He comes back when he's playing with his dog friends. He comes back out of the river. Why wouldn't he when the odds are good that it will be worth it for him?

Why must it be one method above all others, admitting no other? I do not feel this is an effective way to train.
 
Dry Rot said:
What rewards are effective (or not) will depend on what you are attempting to teach and often in the breeds you are attempting to train. That is just simple logic.

All I can say is that I read that quote years ago, tried it, and it works for me. It also amused me that scientists invariable set out to prove what most sensible people already know. I tried the food rewards but found when the dogs had a choice, i.e. Gorganzola cheese or a rat/rabbit/hare/game bird, they invariably chose the latter! So why a treat should be a strong inducement for a dog out hunting to return to it's owner is beyond me.

It is possible, through training, to train dogs to become obsessive over certain things. Mine are trained to be obsessive about me! The worst dogs by far on the recall (usually beyond redemption) are English setters of a certain working strain that have learnt from experience that there is game out there and the human owner is intent on preventing them from hunting it. But I am sure if you gave me time I could think up many other examples.

If you observe, or even better hunt, a pack of hounds you will quickly see how the pack respond to the voice of an old reliable hound yet learn to ignore the "liar". Yes, there are hounds that will lie, just as humans do, and I suppose they do it for attention seeking! Pointers and setters will "back" a reliable brace mate when it points but quickly learn to walk straight past a known liar. So why should they treat their human owner who persistently calls them for nothing, or interrupts the far more interesting things they are doing? As I always try to call my dog for something that will interest her, she is pleased to come to call.
Click to expand...

Yes that is a reasonable things to say (although it has nothing to do with logical necessity!). It is not what you said at first though. At first you said that "studies showed..." and I was interested in your claim and, quite reasonably I think, asked you for the reference.

The treat is not the inducement for the dog to return to the owner, you misunderstand operant conditioning. There are quite a few studies on operant conditioning but if that's not your cup of tea that's fair enough.

I suspect that by 'obsessive' you mean 'form a strong positive association with', which is entirely possible and can happen with any kind of reward including access to the owner.

Observing a pack of hounds sounds suspiciously like something those pesky scientists would engage in - I'd rather sit in my armchair and as a reasonable person arrive at a logical conclusion about the behaviour of dogs... :D clearly I am joking with this last point!
 
Spudlet said:
Why must it always be so black and white?

I call my dog back to send him into a bit of cover...
I call my dog back for a food reward - yes, a treat! Shoot me now...
I call my dog back to have a game with his special toy or a ball...
I call my dog back for a fuss...
I call my dog back because he needs to come to heel or go on the lead...
He never knows which one it's going to be...
And he keeps an eye on me because I might leap behind a tree, or head off in the opposite direction...

Guess what? He comes back. He comes back when he's chasing bunnies. He comes back when he's playing with his dog friends. He comes back out of the river. Why wouldn't he when the odds are good that it will be worth it for him?

Why must it be one method above all others, admitting no other? I do not feel this is an effective way to train.
Click to expand...

So you admit to being an anarchist?

Don't you know there are rules?

SHOCKED!:D
 
Spudlet said:
Guess what? He comes back. He comes back when he's chasing bunnies. He comes back when he's playing with his dog friends. He comes back out of the river. Why wouldn't he when the odds are good that it will be worth it for him?
Click to expand...

I am SO jealous! My hounds are a nightmare. Nose to the floor and off! They couldn't care less if I hide, have treats, have a tennis ball, give out ear scratches or praise! One of them is really soppy and loves attention but gets led astray when they are all off together. Sometimes I think a nice clingy pastoral herding breed would be alot simpler than hunting hounds! Oh well its a challenge! I'm not looking for perfection or to override genetics - just not to lose them when out walking!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top