I'm so spoiled - but making progress in training!

[IceyBlueSibes]

After I discovered clicker training years ago, I have become so spoiled at how easy training was for me. LOL I can't find the clicker now, and Lugar is in need of some manners or atleast strengthening them. I haven't gotten a chance to get a new one, so we have to do without it for now.

We went outside tonight to work on a couple commands. He knew sit from the very beginning. I'm pretty sure he knows "Lay(down)" because 9 times out of 10, if I'm eating and he begs, all I have to say is "Go lay down" and he will turn away to lay down.

I worked some more on sit, a couple times with "Lay" and "Paw". We actually started off using his toy when doing "Paw", but he wasn't understanding how to do it with the treats too. So, he now knows paw! After a bit of work, he has learned what paw meant. We are now working on the hand signal (palm facing up in front of him, like asking for a handshake). He successfully did it 4 times. Before he got bored with that, I asked him to 'lay', then to come. He did that well too.

He's a smart bugger, but still being a puppy his attention is elsewhere at times LOL But I'm going to work on that too, cuing a "look at me". He does well when you call his name. He immediately looks at you.

Is using his name as sort-of a "focus your attention here" command okay? Or should I still use a different word?

Just thought I would share a bit of progress with him.

[Rivsky]

Sounds like Lugar is doing great (as are you of course!!!)

This is just some advice I got from a trainer which I think makes sense re: using a dog's name for something - we were told always to follow the name with a command - so if you want him to look at you say his name first if his attention is elsewhere and follow it up with "watch" or "look" or whatever your word is.

We were told NEVER to just say a dog's name on it's own as it loses it's value the more a dog hears it and it doesn't actually mean anything to them - like someone constantly saying your name all the time - eventually you'd just ignore it because you wouldn't be able to work out what the heck it is they wanted you to do!!

[oc_spirit]

I use their name as a ""focus"" command and then if they''re being snots and still ignoring me then I get stern with a ""dog's name FOCUS!"" and then they know I really mean business but I hardly have to get stern, they both know their names well.

[sammy]

We start out in manners and puppy clicking the dogs when they look back when we call their names. We toss a treat away from us and then say "Rosie!" and click as soon as the dog's head turns and toss another treat. When I toss a treat I say "get that!". the dogs love it-- what's more fun to a dog than being cued to look back and chase a flying treat? We call it "the name game"

The name game is the beginning of recall training but also conditions the dogs to really cue off their name. AS Rivsky said- you don't want a dog who learns to ignore you and tune out to the sound of their name- which I see everyday at the park with all these people who call their dogs constantky everytime they are sniffing something, going to greet another dog etc.They basically train their dogs to ignore them at the park. Much handier to train to have a dog that really pays attention / drops everything and looks back when their name called. My dogs don't have to come to me when I use their name , but they do look back (useful in agility as well). If I want a recall I use their name and then my recall cue.

We do also teach a specific "watch me" cue that means look right in my eyes and build up so that we can hold treats in our hands and extend them and do arm circles and the dog will maintain eye contact- but that's separate etc
oh- the other benfit of tossing a treat and saying "get that!" is that quite often then if food just falls and I don't say anything, the dogs will look up and me, waiting for me to say "get it!" instead of pouncing on it.