# Joel Silverman - Does Your Dog Cheat?



## Celeigh (Nov 29, 2007)

My dog, Fergus, is the master of trying to get away with murder! If I ask him to sit, he'll sit, but hover his rear about an inch or two above the ground. Same with laying down - he hovers with little intention to stay there. He knows the Wait command (like stay), but he'll take a step or two when my back is turned. He's always pushing the boundaries with me to see what he can get away with!


----------



## TheHooch (May 9, 2007)

Nor River isthe most truthful dog I have ever had but her daughter Laurel will come crawling on her belly at a`snail's pace and about 40 percent of the time I never know what she did


----------



## JoelSilverman (Oct 21, 2008)

Isn't it amazing how different they can be?


----------



## diana_D (Jan 27, 2008)

Emma tries that once in a while, and it's funny. Once she stole food from the table. I had forgotten to put it back in the fridge and suddenly I see her proudly walking with something in her mouth. Needless to say it was OUR food she had stolen. I was away from her, told her to sit, she did that, then told her to stay, she did that, too, but the moment I came close to remove that from her mouth, she started to run all over the place. I was laughing all the time and I eventually managed to remove it. 

But this is part of the funny side of having a dog as a family member and she is so amazing and adorable.


----------



## Rob's GRs (Feb 25, 2007)

I can trust my Liam, however given the chance or enough time Hogan will most likely do something he was not suppose.


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

I have no cheaters. The last "cheater" I had was when I raced sled dogs and had a swing dog that only pretended to pull. We proved she wasn't by attaching a rubber band to the lines and it was never taut. My partner wanted to pull her from the team. I put her in lead and she excelled - never again cheated and in fact got me out of a couple of very sticky situations - I learned to trust her implicitly.


----------



## GoldenJoyx'stwo (Feb 25, 2007)

Tucker is just plain too smart for us...


----------



## twogoldenboys (Mar 3, 2008)

Pointgold said:


> I have no cheaters. The last "cheater" I had was when I raced sled dogs and had a swing dog that only pretended to pull. We proved she wasn't by attaching a rubber band to the lines and it was never taut. My partner wanted to pull her from the team. I put her in lead and she excelled - never again cheated and in fact got me out of a couple of very sticky situations - I learned to trust her implicitly.


That is VERY interesting. I love to learn about animal behavior. It shows that there is something going on behind the curtain when they cheat. Alex (12 yrs) would rather walk on fire than to cheat, but Fargo (6 mos) is a teenager and lives to cheat.


----------



## Lucky's mom (Nov 4, 2005)

Lucky doesn't like to bypass the boundries. A proud moment was when I walked into the dining room and saw Lucky his chin planted firmly on the dining table 1/2 inch from and pointing at a peice of pizza one of my kids had left there. He had planted his chin there while I was gone, waiting for me and followed me with his eyes as I walked in. He waited for my answer.

I told him "off" and he imedieately pulled off and he got a little pizza in his bowl.


----------



## jnmarr (Mar 7, 2008)

Mine not only will try to cheat.. but I am embarrassed to say.. sometimes it takes me a bit to see they are training me! They are so smart!


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

twogoldenboys said:


> That is VERY interesting. I love to learn about animal behavior. It shows that there is something going on behind the curtain when they cheat. Alex (12 yrs) would rather walk on fire than to cheat, but Fargo (6 mos) is a teenager and lives to cheat.


I just had a feeling that she needed to lead. My partner, and her previous driver, both said I was nuts, that she would never lead. As it turned out, it was the smartest move I ever made. And she proved herself over and over. Amazingly, the rest of the team, who had never paid much attention to her at all, fully supported and respected her once I moved her. I loved that little dog - all 45 pounds of her.


----------



## T&T (Feb 28, 2008)

NO CHEATERS HERE 
WELL ... EXCEPT FOR ME


----------



## moverking (Feb 26, 2007)

I set up a little cheapie agility course in the backyard last month. I've had it for a few years but haven't had it out since I first got it. so, it's fairly 'new' to the girls. Ohhhh what a weave pole/tunnel/jump cheater Sadie is! She will do 2 perfect circles _around_ every set-up, while Loocie completely out performs her with minimal direction. 
Now play retrieve and Sadie will go till she drops. Loocie pulls a 'Merle'...she'll watch and wait, then out of nowhere barrel after the ball scoop it up run to return it, and spit it at your feet and walk away, lol.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

Finn is a very honest dog; Tango will attempt to cheat, but she is too obvious!


----------



## Faith's mommy (Feb 26, 2007)

i thought this was going to be about them cheating on us with other humans... which Faith does from time to time.


----------



## dannyra (Aug 5, 2008)

Kylee cheats....just watch her play ball. She'll run to go get the ball before I even pick it up. Obedience wise, it's mostly her "down" she cheats on. She'll sit on command. Lay down she'll just watch me for a while and then do it.


----------



## Augie's Mom (Sep 28, 2007)

Augie tries to cheat, but I usually don't let him get away with it.


----------



## JoelSilverman (Oct 21, 2008)

Isn't it amazing how they are all so different?


----------



## LifeOfRiley (Nov 2, 2007)

We don't call him the Eddie Haskell of the dog world for nothing!

Mostly what Riley cheats on is pestering his 'big brother.' We have a strict rule in this house anymore: No pestering, harrassing, challenging or otherwise bothering Gunner.
Riley figured out that if he stood behind me and peeked around, he could give Gunner "the eye" and I couldn't see him doing it. 
I got wise to that. Though, it took much longer than it probably should have!


----------



## LibertyME (Jan 6, 2007)

Lexi will steal the remote and hide it under her chin.
All it takes if for you to get up and go to the kitchen -
You can see it on her face as she pops up from where she was resting - snags the remote from the chair and promptly returns to her sleeeping spot, "HA-HA You snooze, you lose!!"


My dear Liberty is as honest as the day is long - bless her little heart...


----------



## Abbydabbydo (Jan 31, 2007)

For basic house rules and manners mine do not cheat, they know it will get them nowhere. Everything else they make up the rules so how can they cheat? 

My favorite is how they wait to position themselves for the best seat or best spot in bed. Now that it is dark earlier I may take a book to read on the couch or watch TV
in the evening. They know that if they are in the right place at the right time it might be snuggle time, so they are always jockeying for position. But no one cheats, one of them just has to wait their turn. Which I am proud to say they do. Sometimes with a sigh, but whomever goes second seems to enjoy the cuddle more for waiting.

Gotta get me a bigger couch.


----------



## Celeigh (Nov 29, 2007)

LifeOfRiley said:


> We don't call him the Eddie Haskell of the dog world for nothing!


How funny! We call Fergus Dennis the Menace!


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

I'd be interesting in knowing everyone's, including Mr. Silverman's, definition of "cheating" as it applies to dogs... it's somewhat of an anthromorphization, given the true definition, and I personally don't believe that dogs truly "cheat". Dove, the lead dog I told you about _really _didn't "cheat" per se, but she did not work enthusiastically in the swing dog position - she wasn't pulling - it took the rubber band to see that...

_transitive verb_ 
1*:* to deprive of something valuable by the use of deceit or fraud
2*:* to influence or lead by deceit, trick, or artifice
3*:* to elude or thwart by or as if by outwitting <_cheat_ death>

_intransitive verb_1 a*:* to practice fraud or trickery b*:* to violate rules dishonestly <_cheat_ at cards> <_cheat__ing_ on a test>
2*:* to be sexually unfaithful —usually used with _on_<was _cheat__ing_ on his wife>
3*:* to position oneself defensively near a particular area in anticipation of a play in that area <the shortstop was _cheat__ing_ toward second base>


----------



## LibertyME (Jan 6, 2007)

In the truest sense of the word I agree that dogs dont 'cheat'...although when Lexi deliberately takes advantage of my abscence and snags the remote taking it back to her bed....simpley to get attention when all she would have to do to get the same attenion is come and sit in front of me and wag her tail - it _feels_ like a bit of 'elaborate trickery'. ;-)
When they not only enjoy the reward, but the process in which they get the reward - it does give pause for thought...


----------



## LOVEisGOLDEN (Jan 4, 2008)

I have never thought of dogs "cheating", however-they do push boundaries & can be sneaky.

Layla gave up on this a long time ago, she was so obvious about it-I nipped it fast.

Blush, can't really be faulted for some things. the poor thing is as dumb as a stick & doesn't really know what is going on most times... if she didn't learn it as a young pup, she never really grasps it...


----------



## cubbysan (Mar 13, 2007)

When Brady is in his "chewing the kids" moods, I will give him a bone to chew. He will bring the bone to whatever child is his victim, and lay down beside them chewing the bone, then he will gradually move his head over to the child, and start chewing them instead of his bone.

I will say "No Bite!", he will stop biting and start chewing his bone again, only to start the process all over again.


----------



## JoelSilverman (Oct 21, 2008)

I try not to get too technical, and get caught up in dictionaries. But one of the definitions did say "to elude", and there is no anthropomorphizing here. We are not humanizing at all. The fact is that the people that responded with a "yes", saying that their dog "cheated" understood the meaning. My definition I use of cheating or TESTING, which you will see in my book coming out in spring is "when an animal knows how to do a behavior.. (the behavior is proofed) but he does it wrong on purpose". Pushing and crossing boundaries intentionally is "cheating".

This is something that we see often in live shows in what we call "show discrimination" as well as dogs that are trained to do some very complex things for movies,TV shows and commercials. By the way, this is also a term that hundreds of professional dog trainers use. 

If you have dogs living in your home and train them, many times you will never see a dog TEST or cheat. Dogs cheat for a variety of reasons. One might be boredom.. they want to see what type of reaction they get from the owner or trainer. Another reason might be he might want to see what he can get away with when a new trainer works him. As we have seen in so many of the posts, it really depends upon the dog and the situation.

As I was telling you before, Foster is a bigtime cheater if given the chance. The reason he doesn't cheat is because he has figured out that it's just not worth it.

As a dog TESTS he will cheat.


----------



## Sivin (Nov 23, 2006)

Cara knows she's not supposed to pick up food from the bottom of the bird's cage.(The bird is encaged but the bottom, with the paper, is open.) I've caught her primed to do so and just gazing at me to make sure she's not busted.


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

JoelSilverman said:


> I try not to get too technical, and get caught up in dictionaries. But one of the definitions did say "to elude", and there is no anthropomorphizing here. We are not humanizing at all. The fact is that the people that responded with a "yes", saying that their dog "cheated" understood the meaning. My definition I use of cheating or TESTING, which you will see in my book coming out in spring is "when an animal knows how to do a behavior.. (the behavior is proofed) but he does it wrong on purpose". Pushing and crossing boundaries intentionally is "cheating".
> 
> This is something that we see often in live shows in what we call "show discrimination" as well as dogs that are trained to do some very complex things for movies,TV shows and commercials. By the way, this is also a term that hundreds of professional dog trainers use.
> 
> ...


My question was prompted by the various replies, many of them stories of behaviors that I don't consider "cheating" in either the truest definition of the word, nor in the context that professional trainers use it (which I am well aware of.)

I live with multiple dogs, and have trained them. I don't perceive obedience sinply as something to be done in a class situation or on a set schedule, but rather part of every day living. This begins immediately with the puppies that I breed. I'm not sure that testing always equates to, or is followed by, cheating, and until a dog is known to be fully reliable on any given command or behavior, it would be unrealistic, IMO, to say that he is cheating if he eludes it when he doesn't fully understand the action to be followed by the request. 
Evidently my dogs are not bored, as they don't cheat, and never have. My credibility as a dog trainer would certainly suffer if they did!


----------



## FranH (May 8, 2005)

The warm spots on the couch when we return home from having dinner out is my example of cheating


----------



## GoldenJoyx'stwo (Feb 25, 2007)

I don't know. I think it's a sign of intelligence when a dog "tests." Darn, my two children did that, too. I don't find it to always be disrepectful. Of course, that depends on how the dog is testing. 

What would you think if you put your well trained dog in a "down" "stay" and he or she broke the "down" "stay" to save the life of a person nearby in danger? 

Would that be a "cheat" or a "test". The answer is probably yes, but I'd bet you be on here very proud of your dog's heroics.


----------



## JoelSilverman (Oct 21, 2008)

Pointgold said:


> My question was prompted by the various replies, many of them stories of behaviors that I don't consider "cheating" in either the truest definition of the word, nor in the context that professional trainers use it (which I am well aware of.)
> 
> I live with multiple dogs, and have trained them. I don't perceive obedience sinply as something to be done in a class situation or on a set schedule, but rather part of every day living. This begins immediately with the puppies that I breed. I'm not sure that testing always equates to, or is followed by, cheating, and until a dog is known to be fully reliable on any given command or behavior, it would be unrealistic, IMO, to say that he is cheating if he eludes it when he doesn't fully understand the action to be followed by the request.
> Evidently my dogs are not bored, as they don't cheat, and never have. My credibility as a dog trainer would certainly suffer if they did!


I am so used to talking to people, so this writing in forums is a little more difficult and sometimes it is hard to get my point across. This is a great point that you brought up. My original post is based on a training situation where you give the animal a cue. It was my mistake for not making that clearer. So let me make this a little easier. Let's imagine that your dog has been trained to SIT and STAY from 10 feet away for 4 weeks. So there is no question that the behavior is trained and the dog understands. 

On this one day, with no distractions or changes in the environment, he breaks the SIT ans STAY and walks to you. If there are no health problems etc... , I would classify this as TESTING or CHEATING. Because history shows that he understands and that this is proofed. 

With this example I just showed you, my dog FOSTER, will intentionally get up with anyone new working him to see what you are going to do. If you take him back and make him repeat it once or twice, he has your respect. What the dog did was TEST. to see what you were going to do.

You can use many things, but that is an example of what I was saying.


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

JoelSilverman said:


> I am so used to talking to people, so this writing in forums is a little more difficult and sometimes it is hard to get my point across. This is a great point that you brought up. My original post is based on a training situation where you give the animal a cue. It was my mistake for not making that clearer. So let me make this a little easier. Let's imagine that your dog has been trained to SIT and STAY from 10 feet away for 4 weeks. So there is no question that the behavior is trained and the dog understands.
> 
> On this one day, with no distractions or changes in the environment, he breaks the SIT ans STAY and walks to you. If there are no health problems etc... , I would classify this as TESTING or CHEATING. Because history shows that he understands and that this is proofed.
> 
> ...


 
You'll forgive me for not seeing that, as your original post did not mention any situation. 
It may be a matter of semantics, but I don't think that the words "testing" and "cheating" can be used interchangeably, much like "aggression" and "dominance".


----------



## JoelSilverman (Oct 21, 2008)

I do beg to differ.. those are two totally different examples. But that is your opinion and I appreciate that.


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

JoelSilverman said:


> I do beg to differ.. those are two totally different examples. But that is your opinion and I appreciate that.


Of course they are, and I was in no way comparing the two other than that I believe that both are often used incorrectly.


----------



## JoelSilverman (Oct 21, 2008)

And there are hundreds of trainers that will disagree with you, just as there are hundreds of trainers that will disagree with me. And I will guarantee you more people will take shots at me.


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

JoelSilverman said:


> And there are hundreds of trainers that will disagree with you, just as there are hundreds of trainers that will disagree with me. And I will guarantee you more people will take shots at me.


I'm not sure what you mean by this - I am not on television nor do I have books for sale, but I am a trainer, with a successful business - for nearly 25 years in our area. I'm not taking shots at anyone, but I believe that when teaching, being able to clearly define terms is important.
I was agreeing with you that testing/cheating and aggression/dominance are totally different examples. But I cannot believe that there are many who would not agree that in each, both words are often used interchangeably when they should not be.


----------



## paula bedard (Feb 5, 2008)

Sam never cheated on me, he was a one woman dog. As far as he was concerned, the sun rose and set on me. Ike on the other hand, has 2 girls on the side. I'd say Ike's cheating on me.


----------



## PeanutsMom (Oct 14, 2007)

JoelSilverman said:


> This is always fun to chat about.. cheating.. it is so funny because there are dogs that are so totally honest like one of my past dog's DUKE, and then there is Foster, the dog all over my website, who is a big time cheater.... But only if given the chance.. Don't get me wrong.. Foster is the sweetest and most gentle dog, but he will try to get away with something if given an opportunity.
> 
> Does your dog try to cheat?


I agree, it is fun to just chat about how sneaky they can be. My boy Buddy seems to be more concerned with doing what he's supposed to, even when no one is looking. Buddy will stand and cry while staring at a piece of chicken left on a plate, but will not steal it no matter how long it's left unattended. Peaches and Peanut will act like they don't even notice something, the moment you turn your back, that item is gone. And of course everyone is laying down being good with a look that says "what chicken?" lol


----------



## JoelSilverman (Oct 21, 2008)

It's a lot of fun!!!


----------



## JoelSilverman (Oct 21, 2008)

Pointgold said:


> I'm not sure what you mean by this - I am not on television nor do I have books for sale, but I am a trainer, with a successful business - for nearly 25 years in our area. I'm not taking shots at anyone, but I believe that when teaching, being able to clearly define terms is important.
> I was agreeing with you that testing/cheating and aggression/dominance are totally different examples. But I cannot believe that there are many who would not agree that in each, both words are often used interchangeably when they should not be.


I meant more people will take shots at me than you... so I have gotten used to that. 

But did the example I gave you about Foster testing make sense?


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

JoelSilverman said:


> I meant more people will take shots at me than you... so I have gotten used to that. and I understand people will disagree too.. but it seems to be from the dog trainers, and not so much the dog owners.


 
Boy, you ARE new here... I'm RIDDLED with bullet holes


----------



## T&T (Feb 28, 2008)

:doh: I THOUGHT THIS THREAD WAS ABOUT "CHEATING" ... :doh:
LIKE IN BEING "SNEAKY" ... 
OR ... 
TRYING TO "GET AWAY WITH" ...
AND MY REPLY POST WAS BASED ON THAT INTERPRETATION ... :doh:


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

JoelSilverman said:


> I meant more people will take shots at me than you... so I have gotten used to that.
> 
> But did the example I gave you about Foster testing make sense?


You must have edited your post, or I would have replied. I understand your scenario about Foster. I do feel that even though you indicate that there are no changes in the environment, nor any distractions, there are very subtle differences in body language, inflection, etc, that dogs read that may facilitate the need for the new handler to repeat the exercise once or twice before the dog understands it as meaning the same thing as when you do it. Testing? _Perhaps._ Cheating? I don't believe so. And we could take it back, also, to "The Bond". This dog doesn't know the new handler - there is no bond, or trust... Personally, I would not expect, nor necessarily want, my dogs to blindly obey everyone. That said, I can always count on my dogs to have very good manners, and if asked to sit or lie down, or, to "leave it" if in a social situation, they would comply.


----------



## AmbikaGR (Dec 31, 2007)

Pointgold said:


> You must have edited your post, or I would have replied. I understand your scenario about Foster. I do feel that even though you indicate that there are no changes in the environment, nor any distractions, there are very subtle differences in body language, inflection, etc, that dogs read that may facilitate the need for the new handler to repeat the exercise once or twice before the dog understands it as meaning the same thing as when you do it. Testing? _Perhaps._ Cheating? I don't believe so. And we could take it back, also, to "The Bond". This dog doesn't know the new handler - there is no bond, or trust... Personally, I would not expect, nor necessarily want, my dogs to blindly obey everyone. That said, I can always count on my dogs to have very good manners, and if asked to sit or lie down, or, to "leave it" if in a social situation, they would comply.


And as an aside to this, those of us that do "competitive" obedience actually train and proof our dogs NOT to listen to another's commands. Mant times you have a team working in the ring next to you giving commands to their dog and you really don't want your dog to react to them.


----------



## GoldenJoyx'stwo (Feb 25, 2007)

Sorry...meant to edit this post.


----------



## JoelSilverman (Oct 21, 2008)

Hi Hank.. I will be the first to tell you that I know nothing about competitive obedience. And those of us who train animals for movies and commercials do teach dogs to listen to other people's commands. But what you do and what I do is not the issue. This is about some dogs _understanding_ or _trying_ to get away with things.. and in many cases it may be a response to a cue.

But my job is to go out and teach the public, many of which do not have near the experience you or PG do. _(By the way, PG, I have a lot of respect for you. just talking with you)_ Many of these people need a lot of help just understanding the most basic dog training ideas.

The reason I started this post was to get into the reasons a dog may respond to a cue incorrectly. The reason that I find it so important to new pet owners, is that I teach that the correction varies upon whether the dog truly knew it, or whether he was truly confused. 

I think you will agree that the correction will vary based upon the response. If the dog is confused I teach the new pet owner to regress, making things easier. But if the dog truly understands, I teach that they are going to want to repeat the behavior and _not regress_.


----------



## AmbikaGR (Dec 31, 2007)

JoelSilverman said:


> I think you will agree that the correction will vary based upon the response. If the dog is confused I teach the new pet owner to regress, making things easier. But if the dog truly understands, I teach that they are going to want to repeat the behavior and _not regress_.


I might use the word "response" rather than "correction" in this situation. I do agree and don't think a dog should ever be corrected if they are confused or do not yet know what is expected of them.


----------



## GoldenJoyx'stwo (Feb 25, 2007)

Hank, when we brought our two to a training facility we were asked to do a little practicing before class. I was giving Tucker a few commands and had no idea a GSD was following my commands rather than his owners.


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

Kimm said:


> Hank, when we brought our two to a training facility we were asked to do a little practicing before class. I was giving Tucker a few commands and had no idea a GSD was following my commands rather than his owners.


That frequently happens in my classes. Mainly it is because I am more concise and abbreviated than the owners, who often "talk too much" and move around constantly, making it difficult for the dog to pick out the actual command - they are giving so many mixed signals. You[ve surely seen the cartoons - "Blah blah blah blah blah blah sit blah blah blah blah blah."


----------



## GoldenJoyx'stwo (Feb 25, 2007)

Pointgold said:


> That frequently happens in my classes. Mainly it is because I am more concise and abbreviated than the owners, who often "talk too much" and move around constantly, making it difficult for the dog to pick out the actual command - they are giving so many mixed signals. You[ve surely seen the cartoons - "Blah blah blah blah blah blah sit blah blah blah blah blah."


It was a bit funny because I had no clue the dog was following my commands. I must be pretty loud (I'm only 5'1)because they were not sitting right beside us. The owner said, "My dog will not listen to me, but he is following every command you ask for!" I then paid attention. He was pretty good at following. This dog didn't pass the CGC and I felt bad for them.

I must share this and then I'm out of here...I did watched Joel Silverman on AP and did learn from him. In fact, Shadow was following basic commands pretty early. I was very surprised at how easy he was to train in the early days.


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

Kimm said:


> It was a bit funny because I had no clue the dog was following my commands. I must be pretty loud (I'm only 5'1)because they were not sitting right beside us. The owner said, "My dog will not listen to me, but he is following every command you ask for!" I then paid attention. He was pretty good at following. This dog didn't pass the CGC and I felt bad for them.
> 
> I must share this and then I'm out of here...I did watched Joel Silverman on AP and did learn from him. In fact, Shadow was following basic commands pretty early. I was very surprised at how easy he was to train in the early days.


You do not need to be loud. In fact, I speak to my dogs in a relatively low voice. I rarely raise my voice when working them, unless they are out of sight when I call them. I have found that they are more focused, I get better eye contact, and they are more intense when I speak softly.

I have no issues whatsoever with Mr. Silverman's methods. In fact, it seems that after working around the semantics and wordsmithing, he ultimately said what I was saying.


----------



## JoelSilverman (Oct 21, 2008)

Hi Hank.... I totally agree.. but people do that.. many...we are on the same page...


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

JoelSilverman said:


> Hi Hank.... I totally agree.. but people do that.. many...we are on the same page...


 
Because they do not know better until taught. I teach people how to train their dogs. I train my own dogs.


----------



## JoelSilverman (Oct 21, 2008)

Thanks Kimm... Exactly PG.. Unfortunately many of the new dog owners across the nation do not have someone like you teaching them..


----------



## FlyingQuizini (Oct 24, 2006)

IMO, dogs don't "cheat".

Dogs are opportunists. If they see a chance to get what they want quicker than how we're proposing it, they'll take it. It's a hardwire survival tactic. A dog lives to please himself 24/7/365. If he's not executing the behavior the way in which I would like, it's my responsibility to make it worth the dog's while to play the game MY way.


----------



## JoelSilverman (Oct 21, 2008)

I would disagree with that. All dogs are different. There are some dogs that are totally "honest" dogs. My dog DUKE was not an opportunist, and he was the most honest dog. He died at 14 years, but worked on the set almost all of his life. He would work for anyone, and never cheated. If he saw an opportunity, he would never go after it.

Foster, the cute little dog on my site in all the videos is by far the smartest dog I trained, but also a totally "dishonest" dog. He will test anyone, and is a total opportunist.


----------



## FlyingQuizini (Oct 24, 2006)

JoelSilverman said:


> I would disagree with that. All dogs are different. There are some dogs that are totally "honest" dogs. My dog DUKE was not an opportunist, and he was the most honest dog. He died at 14 years, but worked on the set almost all of his life. He would work for anyone, and never cheated. If he saw an opportunity, he would never go after it.
> 
> Foster, the cute little dog on my site in all the videos is by far the smartest dog I trained, but also a totally "dishonest" dog. He will test anyone, and is a total opportunist.


All that means is that Duke was more content playing the game your way. We have to work harder with some dogs than others to make playing the game OUR way more fun. It's harder with Foster than with Duke. I still don't think that's cheating. Cheating includes "to deceive with trickery" and that's certainly not what dogs do.

The problem, IMO, with using a word like "cheating" among especially pet owners, is that it builds up in the minds that their dogs are actually willfull, stubborn, spiteful, "cheating" creatures when they don't perform as expected. If a dog knows what to do, he will, except for a vareity to conditions -- none of which (IMO) include cheating, spite, willfullness, etc. (More like, he wasn't paying attention when the cue was issued, not motivated, unwell, etc.)


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

FlyingQuizini said:


> All that means is that Duke was more content playing the game your way. We have to work harder with some dogs than others to make playing the game OUR way more fun. It's harder with Foster than with Duke. I still don't think that's cheating. Cheating includes "to deceive with trickery" and that's certainly not what dogs do.
> 
> The problem, IMO, with using a word like "cheating" among especially pet owners, is that it builds up in the minds that their dogs are actually willfull, stubborn, spiteful, "cheating" creatures when they don't perform as corrected. If a dog knows what to do, he will, except for a vareity to conditions -- none of which (IMO) include cheating, spite, willfullness, etc. (More like, he wasn't paying attention when the cue was issued, not motivated, unwell, etc.)


 

I completely agree. And further promotes anthromorphisizing. Which I fully admit to having fun with, such as in posts about my dogs being sill, or thinking this or saying that. But, I don't think that there is room for it when it comes to training.


----------



## FlyingQuizini (Oct 24, 2006)

Pointgold said:


> I completely agree. And further promotes anthromorphisizing. Which I fully admit to having fun with, such as in posts about my dogs being sill, or thinking this or saying that. But, I don't think that there is room for it when it comes to training.


*The problem, IMO, with using a word like "cheating" among especially pet owners, is that it builds up in the minds that their dogs are actually willfull, stubborn, spiteful, "cheating" creatures when they don't perform as corrected. *

Whoops - my post that was quoted in Mary's post had a type-o! It should say, "... when they don't perform as EXPECTED" not as CORRECTED! I was typing too fast and my brain was merging expected with correctly! Whoops!


----------



## diana_D (Jan 27, 2008)

Oh I have just remembered the cutest thing my Emma did - I would really call this cheating. When I was potty training her she would signal me she wanted to go potty then I took her to her potty area. The little princess would pretend to pee only to get her treats . That was soooooo funny, to see her trying so hard to get some treats. 


PS she is obsessed with food BIG time


----------



## FlyingQuizini (Oct 24, 2006)

diana_D said:


> Oh I have just remembered the cutest thing my Emma did - I would really call this cheating. When I was potty training her she would signal me she wanted to go potty then I took her to her potty area. The little princess would pretend to pee only to get her treats . That was soooooo funny, to see her trying so hard to get some treats.
> 
> 
> PS she is obsessed with food BIG time


I can see how you might think of that as "cheating" but from a learning standpoint, it just means that the connection SHE made wasn't the one you wanted her to make.

YOU - Squatting on grass while GOING PEE = cookie.
HER - Squatting on grass = cookie.

She's really not "pretenting to pee"... she's not capable of having the thought process of, "I know my human really wants me to pee, but I don't want to, so I'm just going to squat here and see if I can get a cookie for it." More than likely, what the dog learned was squatting = cookie so she was willing to keep squatting if you were willing to keep providing reinforcers (cookies, a smile, laughing, etc... all could be reinforcing in that situation).


----------



## GoldenJoyx'stwo (Feb 25, 2007)

When the word "cheating" was used in this thread I never thought of it in a negative way.

I'm beginning to think we need to get out our dictionaries before we post.


----------



## FlyingQuizini (Oct 24, 2006)

Kimm said:


> When the word "cheating" was used in this thread I never thought of it in a negative way.
> 
> I'm beginning to think we need to get out our dictionaries before we post.


The thread didn't say that cheating was a bad thing, but if we look at the literal definition of "cheating" it includes willful deceit. My concern is attaching those motives to a species that is incapable of operating that way.

Dogs do what works. Period.


----------



## GoldenJoyx'stwo (Feb 25, 2007)

FlyingQuizini said:


> The thread didn't say that cheating was a bad thing, but if we look at the literal definition of "cheating" it includes willful deceit. My concern is attaching those motives to a species that is incapable of operating that way.
> 
> Dogs do what works. Period.


I hear what you are saying, but I never interrupted the word that way. I think the rest of the post may have clued me in to what was truly meant by the word used.


----------



## Ninde'Gold (Oct 21, 2006)

I probably have the most untrained dog on here hahaha but when I get Tucker to sit, he will but his lie down he'll do it but as soon as I go to give the treat to him he starts to get up lol and I'm like "noooo you're supposed to stay laying down" but whatever haha 

I'm told I spoil my dog too much.


----------



## marshab1 (Aug 28, 2006)

Kimm said:


> I hear what you are saying, but I never interrupted the word that way. I think the rest of the post may have clued me in to what was truly meant by the word used.


Me too Kimm. In fact actually I liked the word "cheat" being used in many instances it just seems to fit. Because sometimes it does not mean being deceitful, it just means taking the easy way out.


----------



## JoelSilverman (Oct 21, 2008)

marshab1 said:


> Me too Kimm. In fact actually I liked the word "cheat" being used in many instances it just seems to fit. Because sometimes it does not mean being deceitful, it just means taking the easy way out.



You guys are so right, because I am sure you have seen it or are aware of it, or this makes sense. Sometimes people get too literal and get caught up in dictionaries...It is a term many professional animal trainers use, which is what animals will do. As a matter of fact, I don't know one trainer that does not use it. Dogs and marine mammals.. They will see what they can get away with. That is cheating. It is pre-calculated.. and if you don't think that dogs will do it, you are missing out on a very important part of animal behavior. Foster will not do it on me because he knows he can't get away with it, but I will guarantee he will try it with anyone else.. *just once to see what you do*. If you still don't think dogs cheat, I will be more than happy to let you work Foster.


----------



## FlyingQuizini (Oct 24, 2006)

*That is cheating. It is pre-calculated.. and if you don't think that dogs will do it, you are missing out on a very important part of animal behavior. *

Well, here's the thing -- we don't *KNOW* what the animal is thinking, and THAT is a fact... so truth be told, it's impossible to say that their "cheating" is "pre-calculated". Dogs do what works. Period. I just don't believe that to be "cheating". If my dog is trying to take a short cut by not performing the behavior as I'd like, it simply means I'm not making it worth his while (at that moment, under those circumstances, etc.) to play the game my way. 

You see the glass half empty, I see it as half full. We're both correct. Afterall, the only thing that two dog trainers can agree on is what the third dog trainer is doing wrong!


----------



## GoldenJoyx'stwo (Feb 25, 2007)

So I decided to use the duct tape trick in front of the kitchen sink. Tucker has decided he doesn't like the tape, but I'll be darned. He goes up to the sink, carefully places his paws over the duct tape at the corners where there is counter space, and manages to lift himself so he doesn't touch the tape. He then makes his selection of dirty bowls and finds the one he wants to lick.

I swear after the first attempt he calculated all his following attempts, which were successful by the way. I knew exactly what he would do. Sometimes I think I do know what he is thinking. Maybe he has me trained???


----------



## JoelSilverman (Oct 21, 2008)

FlyingQuizini said:


> *That is cheating. It is pre-calculated.. and if you don't think that dogs will do it, you are missing out on a very important part of animal behavior. *
> 
> Well, here's the thing -- we don't *KNOW* what the animal is thinking, and THAT is a fact... so truth be told, it's impossible to say that their "cheating" is "pre-calculated". Dogs do what works. Period. I just don't believe that to be "cheating". If my dog is trying to take a short cut by not performing the behavior as I'd like, it simply means I'm not making it worth his while (at that moment, under those circumstances, etc.) to play the game my way.
> 
> You see the glass half empty, I see it as half full. We're both correct. Afterall, the only thing that two dog trainers can agree on is what the third dog trainer is doing wrong!


 I cannot tell you word for word what an animal thinks, but I can go by their actions, and their history. _Pre-calculated_ is "I am going to do this, and I am going to see what you are going to do". The animal wants to see how you are going to react. That is my definition, not from a dictionary. But I think that many of the readers in this forum will agree with me. Kids do the same thing at an age where they cannot speak. When I present this topic in seminars it opens a lot of people's eyes, and really hits home. Let me give you some examples:

Let's say there is a behavior your dog has been doing consistently for 2 years. Today a new person gives the identical cue, and the dog just stands there waiting to see what they are going to do, and this is something that he will do at times with new people. There is a pretty good chance he is TESTING the new person because of the history. He knows what to do. He is doing it wrong on purpose. . There is a clip on this on the front page of my website. TESTING and CONFUSION.

http://www.companionsforlife.net/ click on the "why does your dog do things incorrectly?" clip on under one minute tips


Let's say a dog has been trained to do this next thing for 2 years....If you give a dog a cue to sit from a lying down position and he knows that he is not allowed to cheat (meaning he must leave hid rear end on the ground), and this one time you give him the cue, he gets up, walks to you two feet and sits, he is most likely cheating because of his history. 

Dogs do things wrong for one of two reasons. Either they are confused (they _don't _know how to do it), or they are testing you (they know how do do it).

There is a whole chapter on that in my book _"What Color is Your Dog?" _coming out next year. And as a matter of fact, my publisher Bow Tie Press (Dog Fancy and Cat Fancy) loves that chapter.


----------



## AquaClaraCanines (Mar 5, 2006)

At lure coursing (corner cutter, he knows the lure always comes back...)


----------



## AquaClaraCanines (Mar 5, 2006)

I agree with Stephanie on this one. 

Even humans- why do we cheat? Because we can. Because the reward for cheating (not having to do our homework) is greater than the risk of not cheating (we won't get caught).


----------



## JoelSilverman (Oct 21, 2008)

AquaClaraCanines said:


> I agree with Stephanie on this one.
> 
> Even humans- why do we cheat? Because we can. Because the reward for cheating (not having to do our homework) is greater than the risk of not cheating (we won't get caught).


Same with smart dogs!!


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

Saying "testing and/or confused" pretty much covers the gamut, but they both mean entirely different things. To blanket something like that to me is like going to a "fortune teller" who says things that she is safe saying as they pretty much cover everyone's life.
I am less inclined than you are to believe that a dog does something wrong on "purpose". I rather think that at some point he was inadvertantly rewarded for doing so. If the dog knows a command when given by someone else, but doesn't do it when someone new gives it to him, he's not reading something the same way.


----------



## AquaClaraCanines (Mar 5, 2006)

I don't think it's "bad" though, and the word cheating implies negative things- lying, etc. I don't think dogs are capable of ill will. Even an aggressive dog has his motivators, and it's not wickedness. Just my view


----------



## AquaClaraCanines (Mar 5, 2006)

I totally agree with Laura on this. My dogs don't listen to my guy the same as to me... it's not bc they're bad or messing with him. He stands, speaks, and signals with his hands differently than I do.


----------



## JoelSilverman (Oct 21, 2008)

Pointgold said:


> Saying "testing and/or confused" pretty much covers the gamut, but they both mean entirely different things. To blanket something like that to me is like going to a "fortune teller" who says things that she is safe saying as they pretty much cover everyone's life.
> I am less inclined than you are to believe that a dog does something wrong on "purpose". I rather think that at some point he was inadvertantly rewarded for doing so. If the dog knows a command when given by someone else, but doesn't do it when someone new gives it to him, he's not reading something the same way.


"If the dog knows a command when given by someone else, but doesn't do it when someone new gives it to him, he's not reading something the same way."

This is truly what you think? And you think that there is no possibility that the animal may be testing the new person?


----------



## JoelSilverman (Oct 21, 2008)

AquaClaraCanines said:


> I totally agree with Laura on this. My dogs don't listen to my guy the same as to me... it's not bc they're bad or messing with him. He stands, speaks, and signals with his hands differently than I do.



Who said anything about your dog being bad? But if your dog listens to you and does not listen to your guy, why is that? If he is giving different cues than you do to your dog, do you think the dog may be just a little confused? That is confusion.... Based on what you are saying, the dog just does not understand.


----------



## GoldenJoyx'stwo (Feb 25, 2007)

This is interesting. I was looking up the definition of "cheating" which included a link to this site. Hmmm....

http://www.geocities.com/huntingpoodles/Glossary2.html
So are they saying that the dog is supposed to be avoiding the water??? Or is the dog cheating by avoiding the water???


















*CHEATING*: When a dog avoids water, cover or obstacles enroute to or returning from an item to be retrieved.


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

JoelSilverman said:


> If your dog listens to you and does not listen to your guy, why is that? If he is giving different cues than you do to your dog, do you think the dog may be just a little confused? That is confusion.... we are talking about an animal knowing what he is doing wrong.


I'll reply to this one as well as Mr. Silverman's question of me in the previous post. 
Yes, I do believe that. And confusion cannot possibly be equated with knowing that he is doing something wrong. Confused means that he is unsure, not that he knows. To say that is contradictory.


----------



## JoelSilverman (Oct 21, 2008)

Pointgold said:


> I'll reply to this one as well as Mr. Silverman's question of me in the previous post.
> Yes, I do believe that. And confusion cannot possibly be equated with knowing that he is doing something wrong. Confused means that he is unsure, not that he knows. To say that is contradictory.


Let's not mix posts up. This is what I wrote.
_
Who said anything about your dog being bad? But if your dog listens to you and does not listen to your guy, why is that? If he is giving different cues than you do to your dog, do you think the dog may be just a little confused? That is confusion.... Based on what you are saying, the dog just does not understand. _

You misread that post to her. I never said confusion was equated to doing something wrong on purpose. She was telling me that her husband was giving different cues. I was telling her the dog was truly confused, and did not understand.


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

JoelSilverman said:


> Let's not mix posts up. This is what I wrote.
> 
> _Who said anything about your dog being bad? But if your dog listens to you and does not listen to your guy, why is that? If he is giving different cues than you do to your dog, do you think the dog may be just a little confused? That is confusion.... Based on what you are saying, the dog just does not understand. _
> 
> You misread that post to her. I never said confusion was equated to doing something wrong on purpose. She was telling me that her husband was giving different cues. I was telling her the dog was truly confused, and did not understand.


Actually, your original post, before you edited it read (I quoted it when I replied):
Quote:
Originally Posted by *JoelSilverman*  
_If your dog listens to you and does not listen to your guy, why is that? If he is giving different cues than you do to your dog, do you think the dog may be just a little confused? That is confusion.... we are talking about an animal knowing what he is doing wrong._


So, you must see where I was coming from when you originally said that "That is confusion...we are taking about an animal knowing what he is doing wrong," As you originally wrote it, it was equated with confusion.


----------



## AmbikaGR (Dec 31, 2007)

Kimm said:


> This is interesting. I was looking up the definition of "cheating" which included a link to this site. Hmmm....
> 
> http://www.geocities.com/huntingpoodles/Glossary2.html
> So are they saying that the dog is supposed to be avoiding the water??? Or is the dog cheating by avoiding the water???
> ...


The dog is NOT suppose to go around or avoid water, cover or obstacles. Doing so would constitute cheating. A dog should take a straight line to or from the retierve. Many tests intentionally have these ste up in the test to see how the dogs handle them.


----------



## AquaClaraCanines (Mar 5, 2006)

More later- dinner is calling! I read, though


----------



## GoldenJoyx'stwo (Feb 25, 2007)

AmbikaGR said:


> The dog is NOT suppose to go around or avoid water, cover or obstacles. Doing so would constitute cheating. A dog should take a straight line to or from the retierve. Many tests intentionally have these ste up in the test to see how the dogs handle them.


Thank you, Hank. In other words, dogs do sometimes cheat? :doh: Arghh...


----------



## FlyingQuizini (Oct 24, 2006)

Kimm said:


> Thank you, Hank. In other words, dogs do sometimes cheat? :doh: Arghh...


I think we need to be careful to remember that in field work, the term "cheating" has a very specific definition, which, IMO, is not directly in line with the dictionary definition of "cheating".


----------



## GoldenJoyx'stwo (Feb 25, 2007)

FlyingQuizini said:


> I think we need to be careful to remember that in field work, the term "cheating" has a very specific definition, which, IMO, is not directly in line with the dictionary definition of "cheating".


Interesting point, but if they can use the term...I think I've beaten this to death and I now have to be put it to rest. It's a no win situation. LOL


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

LibertyME said:


> Lexi will steal the remote and hide it under her chin.
> All it takes if for you to get up and go to the kitchen -
> You can see it on her face as she pops up from where she was resting - snags the remote from the chair and promptly returns to her sleeeping spot, "HA-HA You snooze, you lose!!"
> 
> ...


Does Lexi want the remote bc it's such a desirable object to humans?


----------



## AmbikaGR (Dec 31, 2007)

Ljilly28 said:


> Does Lexi want the remote bc it's such a desirable object to humans?


No, I think it is more of a commentary to what is on the TV.


----------



## FlyingQuizini (Oct 24, 2006)

Kimm said:


> Interesting point, but if they can use the term...I think I've beaten this to death and I now have to be put it to rest. It's a no win situation. LOL


Well, my only point is that just b/c people choose to use a word a certain way on a regular basis, doesn't make it technically correct.

You often hear people say, "for all *intensive* purposes" instead of "for intents and purposes"... or they'll pronounce the word "height" as though there is a "th" at the end.

Lots of people do it. Doesn't make it technically correct.

Lots of people believe their dogs operate with willfullness and spite. Doesn't make it correct... or even possible!

I will fully admit, I am a BIG TIME stickler for not wanting people to attach certain words to dogs -- willful, spiteful, cheating, etc. b/c I truly don't believe dogs operate that way and when people convince themselves otherwise, dogs often suffer as a result.... i.e., the dog who is punished for being "willful" when he just doesn't understand. To me, the use of the word "cheating" has the same potential to create conflict.

Just my opinion..... and I'm stickin' with it!


----------



## OnceAGoldenAlwaysAGolden (Jul 8, 2008)

Maggie is totally the most trustworthy one...but Mya, ha, a whole other story. Mya has this bad habit of getting up on our kitchen table so the other day I left food on the table and ran out back and told her no to getting on the table well as soon as I shut the door I looked in the window and her she was up on the table again...lol and the other day I made hot dogs and laid them on the table...I turned my back to go to the fridge and caught her the corner of my eye reaching up to take one, when I turned and looked at her she stopped and I said no...then I turned back again and she stole the weiner out of the bun...lol...she swallowed it whole without chewing afraid I would get time to take it...I know its bad but I cant help but laugh...lol


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

AmbikaGR said:


> No, I think it is more of a commentary to what is on the TV.


Lol Hank, you're the best.

How about this? At Tally's RallyO class last Thursday night, a woman got an intense bloody nose so most people put their dogs on down/stays and crowded around. Tally stayed put along with 8 of the other 9. One dog though, a gorgeous well-trained Doberman who usually has no trouble usually with down/stays, started crawling on his belly toward the group of humans, just sort of inch by inch. Was that 'cheating"?


----------



## mylissyk (Feb 25, 2007)

LibertyME said:


> Lexi will steal the remote and hide it under her chin.
> All it takes if for you to get up and go to the kitchen -
> You can see it on her face as she pops up from where she was resting - snags the remote from the chair and promptly returns to her sleeeping spot, "HA-HA You snooze, you lose!!"
> 
> ...


LOL, you have to catch that on video!


----------



## GoldenJoyx'stwo (Feb 25, 2007)

FlyingQuizini said:


> Well, my only point is that just b/c people choose to use a word a certain way on a regular basis, doesn't make it technically correct.
> 
> You often hear people say, "for all *intensive* purposes" instead of "for intents and purposes"... or they'll pronounce the word "height" as though there is a "th" at the end.
> 
> ...


 Well, see, now that explains it all!


----------



## JoelSilverman (Oct 21, 2008)

I see..... it's not technically correct according to ............_you_.. now I get it..


----------



## FlyingQuizini (Oct 24, 2006)

JoelSilverman said:


> I see..... it's not technically correct according to ............_you_.. now I get it..


Sure, not according to my personal interpretation of the definition of "cheat". At the end of the day, this debate comes down to a matter of opinion.

IMO, I still don't think it's technically correct to say that dogs "cheat". You do, and that's your opinion.


----------



## vrocco1 (Feb 25, 2006)

If I find that Jesse (while playing poker) has an Ace up his sleeve, is that considered cheating? I mean, as long as it is still up his sleeve, technically, he has not cheated.


----------



## AquaClaraCanines (Mar 5, 2006)

That's what I am trying to get at too. Dogs are not willful, spiteful, cheating- in the negative sense that those words make ME think of. Being intelligent and trying options to get to the prize with the least effort possible is not cheating- it's being clever. Maybe it's just the different choice of words


----------



## EvanG (Apr 26, 2008)

Since virtually everything we want them to do is our idea, it is reasonable that they resist these acts to varying degrees. Even the simple act of getting a dog to come - as easy as it usually is to perform - is our idea. Once a pup enters puberty they begin to assert their independence, and then begins the "cheating" spoken of.

Training quality and thoroughness must rise with age.

EvanG
www.rushcreekpress.com


----------



## JoelSilverman (Oct 21, 2008)

AquaClaraCanines said:


> That's what I am trying to get at too. Dogs are not willful, spiteful, cheating- in the negative sense that those words make ME think of. Being intelligent and trying options to get to the prize with the least effort possible is not cheating- it's being clever. Maybe it's just the different choice of words


You are correct! Of course they are not spiteful. They want nothing more than to please us. But certain dogs will try to push it to see what they can get away with. When I see a dogs cheat or test, I actually like it because it shows me a sign of intelligence.


----------



## LibertyME (Jan 6, 2007)

AmbikaGR said:


> No, I think it is more of a commentary to what is on the TV.


Perhaps seeing Seinfeld and CSI repeats are starting to get on her last nerve??!


----------



## Jo Ellen (Feb 25, 2007)

Daisy will sometimes steal a cube of butter from off the counter. She would never attempt this if I was in the room, it only happens if I am out of the room and can't see her.

I would think of this as "cheating" or opportunistic. And I can definitely see some forethought in this behavior, even deliberateness. 

Can I conclude, JoelSilverman, that you think my dog is intelligent? :wave:


----------



## GoldenJoyx'stwo (Feb 25, 2007)

JoelSilverman said:


> When I see a dogs cheat or test, I actually like it because it shows me a sign of intelligence.


I think I said something similar to this way back on page...??? Post number 32. LOL

No folks, I am not being paid by Joel Silverman...


----------



## AquaClaraCanines (Mar 5, 2006)

I can get on board with that thought. 

I think dogs just do what they do- not to please us- but also not to DISPLEASE us.


----------



## JoelSilverman (Oct 21, 2008)

Jo Ellen said:


> Daisy will sometimes steal a cube of butter from off the counter. She would never attempt this if I was in the room, it only happens if I am out of the room and can't see her.
> 
> I would think of this as "cheating" or opportunistic. And I can definitely see some forethought in this behavior, even deliberateness.
> 
> Can I conclude, JoelSilverman, that you think my dog is intelligent? :wave:


Not intelligent... a genius!!!!!


----------



## JoelSilverman (Oct 21, 2008)

AquaClaraCanines said:


> I can get on board with that thought.
> 
> I think dogs just do what they do- not to please us- but also not to DISPLEASE us.


You do not think your dog lives to make you happy, and try to please you?


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

My dogs must be morons, then, as they've never done anything like that.


----------



## JoelSilverman (Oct 21, 2008)

Kimm said:


> I think I said something similar to this way back on page...??? Post number 32. LOL
> 
> No folks, I am not being paid by Joel Silverman...


Darn.. I was afraid someone would see that post!!!!!


----------



## GoldenJoyx'stwo (Feb 25, 2007)

Pointgold said:


> My dogs must be morons, then, as they've never done anything like that.


I'm going to wet my pants! : OMG!


----------



## JoelSilverman (Oct 21, 2008)

Pointgold said:


> My dogs must be morons, then, as they've never done anything like that.



You just have very honest dogs. I think I mentioned about 10,000 posts ago my dog Duke was probably like your dogs. He would never test or cheat, but he was a very smart dog, as I am sure yours are too. But my dog Foster is a whole other animal. He will totally get away with something if he can. 

I guess that was the point to this thread to talk about the differences in dogs in relationship to cheating or testing.


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

JoelSilverman said:


> You just have very honest dogs. I think I mentioned about 10,000 posts ago my dog Duke was probably like your dogs. He would never test or cheat, but he was a very smart dog, as I am sure yours are too. But my dog Foster is a whole other animal. He will totally get away with something if he can.
> 
> I guess that was the point to this thread to talk about the differences in dogs in relationship to cheating or testing.


 
My dogs learn at a very early age that there are consequences for any misbehavior. So, tell me how, if they've never tried to steal butter or anything else off a table and been corrected for doing so would they know not to ?

I'd better add the disclaimer that my dogs are not stifled, mistreated, neglected, beaten, or manhandled, but are happy, busy, and very easily trained. I certainly don't want anyone to think that they are intimidated or too fearful to do anything.


----------



## GoldenJoyx'stwo (Feb 25, 2007)

Pointgold said:


> My dogs learn at a very early age that there are consequences for any misbehavior. So, tell me how, if they've never tried to steal butter or anything else off a table and been corrected for doing so would they know not to ?
> 
> I'd better add the disclaimer that my dogs are not stifled, mistreated, neglected, beaten, or manhandled, but are happy, busy, and very easily trained. I certainly don't want anyone to think that they are intimidated or too fearful to do anything.


Have you taken in older dogs that have had no formal training, PG? If so, none of them have "tested" you?


----------



## JoelSilverman (Oct 21, 2008)

Pointgold said:


> My dogs learn at a very early age that there are consequences for any misbehavior. So, tell me how, if they've never tried to steal butter or anything else off a table and been corrected for doing so would they know not to ?
> 
> I'd better add the disclaimer that my dogs are not stifled, mistreated, neglected, beaten, or manhandled, but are happy, busy, and very easily trained. I certainly don't want anyone to think that they are intimidated or too fearful to do anything.


She's talking about stealing butter off the table... OMG... I am not talking about stealing butter off the table. I am talking about training sessions.. and your dogs have never tested you.... ever????


----------



## FlyingQuizini (Oct 24, 2006)

JoelSilverman said:


> You do not think your dog lives to make you happy, and try to please you?


Dogs live to please themselves. Good trainers teach the dogs that keeping the hairless monkey "happy" is the key to opening the door to all things good for them. Again - they do what works. I ask for something, they do it, something good happens for them.


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

Kimm said:


> Have you taken in older dogs that have had no formal training, PG? If so, none of them have "tested" you?


I have, Kimm. And I have never felt that they have tested me.


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

JoelSilverman said:


> She's talking about stealing butter off the table... OMG... I am not talking about stealing butter off the table. I am talking about training sessions.. and your dogs have never tested you.... ever????


"She" is still here, and we _were _talking about stealing butter off the table, as a "cheating" scenario. I said that I've never had a dog do it, and asked you a question about it.


----------



## GoldenJoyx'stwo (Feb 25, 2007)

Sounds just like my kids.

"Dogs live to please themselves. Good trainers teach the dogs that keeping the hairless monkey "happy" is the key to opening the door to all things good for them. Again - they do what works. I ask for something, they do it, something good happens for them."

I was responding to FQ's post.


----------



## AquaClaraCanines (Mar 5, 2006)

No I do not think my dog lives to please me. I think my dog(s) live to please themselves... and if pleasing me brings them things they like, they'll continue to do so. However this doesn't mean I don't adore them, and they me.


----------



## AquaClaraCanines (Mar 5, 2006)

FlyingQuizini said:


> Dogs live to please themselves. Good trainers teach the dogs that keeping the hairless monkey "happy" is the key to opening the door to all things good for them. Again - they do what works. I ask for something, they do it, something good happens for them.


Yeah. That.


----------



## GoldenJoyx'stwo (Feb 25, 2007)

AquaClaraCanines said:


> No I do not think my dog lives to please me. I think my dog(s) live to please themselves... and if pleasing me brings them things they like, they'll continue to do so. However this doesn't mean I don't adore them, and they me.


Then how can a dog adore you?


----------



## AquaClaraCanines (Mar 5, 2006)

Because I have good treats and I take them to the beach


----------



## AquaClaraCanines (Mar 5, 2006)

In all seriousness, I can't be certain dogs do adore us in the way we adore them. But that's personal opinion. My dogs are certainly extremely affectionate towards me, and they are very attached to me, but that's (IMO, and I know what that's worth here- ie, nothing) because I am the one who makes life happen for them- food, toys, play, walks, ear scratches, training time- I'm their primary care taker. It sure feels good to feel adored, no matter what the "cause" of the adoration.

But yeah, I do not personally believe dogs live to please us just because we're humans and they are dogs. What living being lives to please any other living being for NO reason other than selfless adoration? There's always something in it for the pleaser IMO, and that's NOT a bad thing.


----------



## GoldenJoyx'stwo (Feb 25, 2007)

If you think about, people live to please themselves, too. If we aren't pleased, we usually move on. If our boss isn't pleased, he/she tells us to move on. If we please those around us, something good comes out of it. We stay married, keep our jobs...In many instances, we do what works.


----------



## AquaClaraCanines (Mar 5, 2006)

I totally agree!!!


----------



## GoldenJoyx'stwo (Feb 25, 2007)

AquaClaraCanines said:


> I totally agree!!!


I'm cool with that!  I have to go to bed now.  I'm wiped out!


----------



## FlyingQuizini (Oct 24, 2006)

Doing what works is necessary for the survival of any species!


----------



## Jo Ellen (Feb 25, 2007)

I do think that dogs are specially wired to have an affinity towards humans. Call that affinity whatever you want, we all know what it is and how it makes us feel. 

I read in a book once that dogs are the only animal that prefer the company of another species over their own. 

I think my dog adores me and I don't need to get scientific or technical about what exactly that is or isn't. 

This is a very interesting topic, I'm really glad you posed the question, Joel!!


----------



## AquaClaraCanines (Mar 5, 2006)

I can go with that Jo!  Hey dogs do what works- they please us- in any variety of ways for any variety of reasons. And in turn, we love them and give them affection and bond with them. It works out great for both parties.


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

JoelSilverman said:


> She's talking about stealing butter off the table... OMG... I am not talking about stealing butter off the table. I am talking about training sessions.. and your dogs have never tested you.... ever????


 
I'm still interested to know your take on this: (when stealing butter off a table was discussed)

When I said that my dogs had never one this, you said that I have "very honest dogs".

I said:

My dogs learn at a very early age that there are consequences for any misbehavior. So, tell me how, if they've never tried to steal butter or anything else off a table and been corrected for doing so, would they know not to ?


----------



## JoelSilverman (Oct 21, 2008)

Pointgold said:


> I'm still interested to know your take on this: (when stealing butter off a table was discussed)
> 
> When I said that my dogs had never one this, you said that I have "very honest dogs".
> 
> ...


I have no idea what you are asking me. But do you understand that this is not what I was talking about? I was talking about a training session. This is totally different.


----------



## GoldenJoyx'stwo (Feb 25, 2007)

Pointgold said:


> My dogs learn at a very early age that there are consequences for any misbehavior. So, tell me how, if they've never tried to steal butter or anything else off a table and been corrected for doing so, would they know not to ?


Maybe because you started teaching them good manners before they could reach the table???


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

Kimm said:


> Maybe because you started teaching them good manners before they could reach the table???


 
But, from a purely "behavioral science" standpoint, that would mean that they are thinking at a level thought to be beyond the realm of a dog...


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

JoelSilverman said:


> I have no idea what you are asking me. But do you understand that this is not what I was talking about? I was talking about a training session. This is totally different.


But, since you are dealing with a pet popuation, it is entirely relevant. And I think that the question is clear - How, if a dog has not attempted to do something "wrong" (steal butter from the table) and been corrected for doing so, would they know that it is wrong, and therefore, not do it?
You said that Daisy is a genius because she only stole butter from the table when her owner was not there... My dogs have never stolen butter from the table. You said that is because they are "honest". Why?


----------



## GoldenJoyx'stwo (Feb 25, 2007)

Pointgold said:


> But, from a purely "behavioral science" standpoint, that would mean that they are thinking at a level thought to be beyond the realm of a dog...


Does anyone "really" know what a dog is capable of thinking? Is this not an area that creates great debate? I really don't have the answer to this. I haven't read much about it or the differing opinions if there is/are any.


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

Kimm said:


> Does anyone "really" know what a dog is capable of thinking? Is this not an area that creates great debate? I really don't have the answer to this. I haven't read much about it or the differing opinions if there is/are any.


Because it IS known that dogs are "opportunists", if the opportunity to get butter (or meat or bread or whatever) off of a table presented itself, they would/should. Why would a dog NOT do it? Because they are "honest"? What does that mean as regards an opportunistic animal?


----------



## Jo Ellen (Feb 25, 2007)

I'm pretty sure Joel was kidding about my dog being a "genius." I think he was just being nice to me, even though I totally took the topic of track. And I apologize for that. I should be thinking more clearly before I enter into a discussion such as this.

Daisy is not a genius, she is smart though! She recognizes an opportunity when she sees it. She never countersurfed before I put her on a diet. I think the first time she stole a cube of butter, she was just hungry. And it worked for her. I'm sure it was very satisfying. And since I didn't see it when it happened, there was no correction, so all she had was the reward. I suppose I could train her to not do this but it's not that big of a deal ... haha, if you could see the size of my counter space, you might agree!

Again, totally not related to anything in this thread and I apologize. But I thank Joel for being kind to me, stupid as I am! 

:


----------



## GoldenJoyx'stwo (Feb 25, 2007)

Pointgold said:


> Because it IS known that dogs are "opportunists", if the opportunity to get butter (or meat or bread or whatever) off of a table presented itself, they would/should. Why would a dog NOT do it? Because they are "honest"? What does that mean as regards an opportunistic animal?


I can tell you that Shadow would not grab the butter off the table. I never taught him to "leave" it. He just never took something that was not offered to him. 

Tucker would grab that butter and suck it down without ever tasting it. I really wish I knew Tucker as a young puppy. I wonder if he would have followed Shadow's lead, or if I in some way influenced Shadow's behavior unknowingly.

Is it "honesty?" Is it "cheating?" The words don't really mean much to me, but I understand the point that was being made.


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

Jo Ellen said:


> I'm pretty sure Joel was kidding about my dog being a "genius." I think he was just being nice to me, even though I totally took the topic of track. And I apologize for that. I should be thinking more clearly before I enter into a discussion such as this.
> 
> Daisy is not a genius, she is smart though! She recognizes an opportunity when she sees it. She never countersurfed before I put her on a diet. I think the first time she stole a cube of butter, she was just hungry. And it worked for her. I'm sure it was very satisfying. And since I didn't see it when it happened, there was no correction, so all she had was the reward. I suppose I could train her to not do this but it's not that big of a deal ... haha, if you could see the size of my counter space, you might agree!
> 
> ...


 
It is totally relevant to the thread, and if a trainer is marketing himself (or herself) to the pet owning population, s/he had better be prepared to answer exactly such questions, particularly if one wishes to discuss "cheating".


----------



## vrocco1 (Feb 25, 2006)

Kimm said:


> Does anyone "really" know what a dog is capable of thinking? Is this not an area that creates great debate? I really don't have the answer to this. I haven't read much about it or the differing opinions if there is/are any.


I'm not sure, but as the owner of a dog that keeps an ace up his sleeve while playing cards (I've caught him more then once), my bet is yes!  

I'm afraid to take him to a casino, because I think he is also counting cards, and won't admit it. Dog knows, I've told him time and time again to knock off the cigars, martinis and Italian food. :doh:


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

vrocco1 said:


> I'm not sure, but as the owner of a dog that keeps an ace up his sleeve while playing cards (I've caught him more then once), my bet is yes!
> 
> I'm afraid to take him to a casino, because I think he is also counting cards, and won't admit it. Dog knows, I've told him time and time again to knock off the cigars, martinis and Italian food. :doh:


If you were to take that dog to a casino, you would be contributing to the deliquency of a minor. But, you are from Joizee...it's probably like a bar mitzvah to youse.


----------



## vrocco1 (Feb 25, 2006)

Jesse is thirty-five in "dog" years. I think it is time for him to settle down. My guess is that spending his younger days as a runway model was made him wild and rebellious. Now, he is just a gigolo.


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

vrocco1 said:


> Jesse is thirty-five in "dog" years. I think it is time for him to settle down. My guess is that spending his younger days as a runway model was made him wild and rebellious. Now, he is just a gigolo.


But, if his actualy birthdate is on his drivers license he will not get into that casino. Nor should he. He is a fambly man now, for heaven's sake, and needs to be more responsible. He needs to be a good role model for his sons and daughters.

BTW, Here is a great site regarding conversion of dog to human years (the old 1=7 is no longer considered accurate).

http://www.france-property-and-information.com/dog-years-to-human-years-age.htm


----------



## GoldenJoyx'stwo (Feb 25, 2007)

Pointgold said:


> BTW, Here is a great site regarding conversion of dog to human years (the old 1=7 is no longer considered accurate).
> 
> http://www.france-property-and-information.com/dog-years-to-human-years-age.htm


Funny how things that were once thought accurate, change...


----------

