Teaching Sit

[jetcitywoman]

I've not liked advice to teach a new grey to sit by tucking his back legs (the hug method), because I've seen new adopters try it and fail. We even had one new adopter who managed to teach their dog to run away when they touched him. Not good. I instinctively knew there was a trust issue there, but since I'm no trainer, I had no idea what the solution was. But I was just browsing the Dancing Greyhound website and stumbled on the absolute BEST description of how to do the hug method *properly*. I'm going to try it with my Ajax, since he's a touchy affection-demanding boy and so far hasn't learned sitting very well. Can some other people try it too, and then we can compare notes to see how well we all do? If it works as well as I think it will, maybe we should pin the link here and point newbies to it.

 

Here's the link:

 

Greyhounds do Sit

[Guest zombrie]

I tried this with Doolin. He thinks it is so much fun (he is obsessed with the human touch) the thing though is, I can get him to sit now while barely putting any pressure, but he leans his whole body on me and then slides down into a roach

Edited March 19, 2011 by zombrie

[kudzu]

I do not like that method for teaching sit even done the way she describes but her point is not to teach sit so that is irrelevant. I do think it is also important for a dog to allow itself to be handled & manipulated. Her point that this is not about force but it is to increase trust is very good. I do worry that people will try this in the wrong way with the wrong dog & wind up getting bitten or even making their dog's fears worse. Yet, if people are able to really understand what she has written as well as their dog's body language then it seems like a plausible way to teach a dog to accept turning over control of their body to someone else. Basically, it sounds good in theory but I fear some of the results when practiced in real life by new adopters. My girl wouldn't bite but you'd scare the bejeepers out of her quite a few times before accomplishing this.

 

In my opinion, there is a better way. I disagree with this statement:

Food is what every dog should get, like air and water. You are not training a porpoise, whale or manatee. You are training a Greyhound. If you train him with food, that is exactly what he is going to see you as: a food dispenser. If you want him to love you, train him with love. Isn’t his constant need for our affection and approval what endears us to this breed over others? Use his intelligence, his desire to please, his need for love and physical contact, to show him what you want.

 

I do not understand her reasoning here. She doesn't agree with using food because then the dog will consider you a food dispenser. Aren't we already food dispensers? Where does our dogs food come from? She claims dogs want love, attention, physical contact so it is reasonable to expect him to work to get those. So doesn't this make the dog view us as love & attention dispensers? Why is that ok but not being food dispensers? Why would we not also make our dogs work for food? Heck, I've got to work to get the food in the first place.

 

The big problem with that reasoning comes in to play when you are the lucky recipient of the dog who lacked the desire to please, the one who has no or at least little need for physical contact. Its even worse when you get the dog who is flat out afraid of physical contact, gets scared of people's voices & turns away if people even look in his direction. How do you train those dogs?

 

Training a dog with love means trying to find what works best for that dog. It means being willing to work to discover what that dog finds rewarding & using that. It means building a communication system. It means working at a level & pace the dog feels comfortable with. Do I want my dog to learn to love, trust & desire physical attention from me? Absolutely! But I have found that training itself can be a very good tool for achieving that. Food is often extremely useful in training, helping to speed up the process. Why not use your dog's food to train as well as using affection?

 

By using food as a reward I actually managed to end up with a dog who will now work for praise. That is because she now understands what praise is. The method of teaching sit in the link provided would have caused a good deal of stress for my girl & caused fear. Force can be applied without any physical contact at all. Even food used as a bride can apply force. Force free, fear free training is my preferred method. Folding a dog into a sit does not always figure into that.

Edited March 19, 2011 by kudzu

[jetcitywoman]

I understand your point. I would bet that Kathleen would mostly agree too, that every dog is different. I think what's she's saying is that most people, especially new dog people, focus *too much* on food as a reward. I did because the trainer we hired for Capri taught us that way. I was astounded that Capri not only learned to sit on command, she learned to beg. I think Capri is a textbook case of what Gilly is trying to say there: smart, food-oriented dogs will do whatever it takes to try to make food pop out of you. My Ajax isn't as food motivated so that technique has worked poorly for him.

 

As to your point about people not using the technique correctly and getting bitten, I think Gilley's explanation is much better and more clear than other's I've seen and read. I've seen experienced dog people show newbies how it's done in a quick 10-second demo with their own dog. No surprise that the newbie took their new grey home and within the first week taught the dog to run away whenever they touch it. Lucky it didn't lash out instead of running away. The problem with what I witnessed was this:

 

* experienced dog handler doing the demo with her own dog who already knew how to sit on command and trusted her

* experienced handler was in a hurry and forgot to tell the newbie that it takes time and patience and how imperative it is to move slowly with lots of repetition over a few weeks

 

I watched this demo and even I forgot about that second bullet because the handler made it look so easy. I think she even told the room "oh it's easy to train a sit, just do this..."

 

I wasn't the person who accidentally trained her new dog to run away, but I did try the tuck on Capri after watching that demo. I felt her tense up and knew not to try it again, unlike the other people.

 

I think the whole point is - as you said - not really teaching SIT, so much as teaching both handler and dog to learn to read and trust each other. I think if THIS was demonstrated and explained *properly* to new dog people, it would be a good thing. Especially with our houndies, who come to us as adults and have to build new relationships with us as their new mommas/owners. But on the other hand, you're absolutely right, this may not work with shy or spooky dogs.

Edited March 19, 2011 by jetcitywoman

[Guest 2dogs4cats]

I taught both of my Greyhounds how to sit using "sort of" a similar method, but there were a couple of key points I disagree with. The article says you are not teaching sit, you are teaching trust. In my opinion you have to have the dog's trust before you would even consider attempting to teach sit. If the Greyhound doesn't trust you already, this method will never work and may get you a growl or worse. Second thing is I used LOTS of treats and praise and I think most trainers would agree. I think treats are very necessary. Lastly, I used a variation of the hug method. I don't hug around the chest, I think this creates more of a fear response if your arm is there. I guess my method wasn't very much like the article after I think about it, but it is very possible to teach them how to sit. They are VERY smart, so it took maybe 3 times and they got the hang of it. Then I couldn't stop them from sitting when they heard the rustle of a treat bag. I also taught them to lay down, which is easier than the sit. I would say, I wouldn't attempt this with a dog you have had less than 6 months and longer for some dogs. They really have to have an attachment to you before you start training. In my opinion, Greys take a bit longer to warm up to a new owner and build that trust. Good Luck!

Just a note, I ended up teaching my Bridge dog many years ago, how to do some parts of an agility course, so he could do tunnels and everything. He was spunky and had fun! They can learn almost anything I think.

[krissy]

The article says you are not teaching sit, you are teaching trust. In my opinion you have to have the dog's trust before you would even consider attempting to teach sit. If the Greyhound doesn't trust you already, this method will never work and may get you a growl or worse.

 

Totally agree. This may help the dog to learn to yield to pressure and to trust you further, but I wouldn't suggest that this be done to gain a new dog's trust. I taught Summit to sit by luring and shaping. It was difficult in the beginning but patience paid off and he learned to do it all on his own... for food. I use LOTS of treats, especially when teaching new tricks. For things he already knows he doesn't get a treat every time, and he has learned by extension that praise and affection is a reward, but he never would have valued these prior to starting to train. I taught him many things before I started to teach him to yield to pressure. I taught him to settle and then started teaching him to roll flat onto his side by making him yield to pressure. It required trust and built trust to do it, and it would have been frustrating to attempt anything like it without some sort of relationship already in place.

[GeorgeofNE]

I taught George to sit the way I've taught every other dog I've trained to sit. He's a dog. It's not rocket science.

[Batmom]

Read it carefully. If you follow her instructions rather than rushing along to get to the sit, virtually no chance you'll get bitten.

 

That is the method I've used to teach all my greyhounds (save Gidget, who already knew) to sit.

 

 

I agree with her about food as well. Need to try harder not simply to agree but to do it!

 

Lady was brilliant. So thankful that she left a few articles behind.

[Guest Wasserbuffel]

I disagree on the food thing. I think of doing what I say as my dog's job. I don't go to work for nothing but praise from my boss. I go to get paid. Why should my dog be any different? Why shouldn't I pay her for a job well done? I guarantee I'm going to wor harder and learn a task much faster if there's a $100 bill waiting for me at the end.

[kudzu]

Read it carefully. If you follow her instructions rather than rushing along to get to the sit, virtually no chance you'll get bitten.

The concern is that many people seem unable read their dogs well nor are they capable of refraining from rushing or perhaps just do not realize they are rushing. And I put myself in the group that unintentionally rushes, by the way. In the meantime you really can accidentally give a dog a good startle. Many of her suggested methods will produce fear in many dogs. I find the use of "No fear" on her pages rather ironic. If done incorrectly, as some people will despite their best efforts, this method can be dangerous.

 

Food isn't required for training. However, rewards are one of the most powerful ways to get a dog to repeat a behavior. Most dogs find food highly rewarding. That makes it quite a valuable training tool. As with so many other things, including the very article we are discussing, if used properly food will not create a dog who only works for food nor will you end up with a beggar. Just as with the article on sit, if done incorrectly then you can end up with some additional, unwanted behaviors.

 

The question I have ask myself is if done improperly which method has the least chance of causing dangerous side effects? That's the one I will choose. Why even suggest someone of unknown skill take the chance when there are safer methods available?

 

To the OP: I agree that as an explanation of using the fold method of teaching sit this one is the best I've read or watched.

[Batmom]

Why even suggest someone of unknown skill take the chance when there are safer methods available?

 

I guess I don't see the danger if one follows her instructions.

[jetcitywoman]

Regarding this comment: "if used properly food will not create a dog who only works for food nor will you end up with a beggar."

 

I taper off the treat rewards as the behavior becomes more reliable, so Capri works well and not only for food. What I'd like to know is how I went wrong to accidentally teach her begging. I only treated her when she responded properly to my command/hand signal but not when she offered the behavior unasked for. So how did I get a beggar anyway?

 

Why even suggest someone of unknown skill take the chance when there are safer methods available?

 

I guess I don't see the danger if one follows her instructions.

 

I agree. To work with dogs you do need some sensitivity to learn to pick up on their subtle signals. Even when you reward with food. There are plenty of insensitive/impatient people out there who try to train their dogs with food, and end up with confused/frustrated dogs. Those are the people who start yelling at the dog: "sit fido, fido sit, fido SIT, SIT FIDO!" When we had our trainer help us with Capri she commented how we were patient enough to give her time to think about what we were asking and said not many people do that.

 

You might not get a dog that bites from that, so that's not a danger. But you do end up with frustrated people and dogs. With both methods, you need patience and sensitivity and *good* coaching.