Why would you want to phase out the hand signal? Dogs definitely CAN learn both the cue and the signal, just as they can also learn a whistle cue. A dog that responds to a vocal cue, a hand cue and/or whistle is one whose owner is not "damned" to only elicitng a successful recall within vocal range - and what if you can not scream your come at a distance? Why NOT still have a good hand cue/whistles in your dog's repertoire, which then allows to acheive long distance and even blind recalls, sits and downs? IMHO, it doesn't take much more time or effort to teach and then train a vocal, hand AND whistle cue for "sit", "come" and "down", especially when the advantages of flexiblity of compliance in any environment is thereby ensured.
I'm also rather disappointed, how you dismiss clicker training so brusquely. Clicker Training doesn't rule out lure/reward. You made it sound as if Clicker Training only consists of shaping and capturing. Shaping and capturing or two of the four main techniques of CT which also include luring and targeting, but there are many instances in which shaping or capturing are actually much quicker and more efficient than lure/reward.
I hope you're not aiming at splitting and setting +R/-P camps into rivalry situations which is not at all necessary. I'd hope you'd be more for optimizing all methods of +R/-P training, not villainizing one in favor of another, for they are, after all related in technique and goals.
I don't believe that Dr Dunbar is suggesting you should teach your dog never to obey hand signals again; I think he is merely suggesting that if you do not phase them out at some point during training the dog will never learn the meaning of the request word.
I suggest to all my clients that after they teach the dog to respond to verbal commands without hand cues they then teach the dog to respond to hand cues without verbal commands. This brings the hand signals back in after the dog has learned the verbal commands as well to provide more versatility for dog and owner.
Dr. Dunbar did not criticize clicker training. He skimmed over it because it is not the subject of the thread. Clicker trainer is a fantastic option and I believe them to be equally successful. I PERSONALLY find lure-reward training is faster if the dog is highly motivated by food, and clicker training more successful on dogs that are more praise-motivated (because you find yourself without a lure)
Apologies. Perhaps I wasn't sufficiently clear. I don't mean to phase out the use of hand-signals entirely, but rather to phase out the necessity of hand-signals. It is really easy to phase out the food lure because dogs learn hand-signals so quickly and they are so easy for the dog to understand. We then use the hand-signals (hand lure movements) as lures to teach the dog the meaning of verbal commands. The ultimate goal of training is to teach the dog to respond to verbal cues. Hand-signals are brilliantly effective but the dog cannot see them if your back is turned, or if the dog's back is turned and he is thirty yards away chasing a squirrel. So I like to check that the dog will respond to verbal commands only. However, in the course of the day, I still continue to communicate via signals.
I barely mentioned shaping (with or without clickers) because the topic was about lure/reward training. I would most certainly use shaping techniques when trying to train difficult-to-lure behaviors, or when working with an unfamiliar species. However, for teaching basic manners — simple stuff like come, sit, down, stand, rollover, stay etc., lure/reward training would be my default with all-or-none reward training being second choice.
Why NOT hand signal AND vocal cue?
Why would you want to phase out the hand signal? Dogs definitely CAN learn both the cue and the signal, just as they can also learn a whistle cue. A dog that responds to a vocal cue, a hand cue and/or whistle is one whose owner is not "damned" to only elicitng a successful recall within vocal range - and what if you can not scream your come at a distance? Why NOT still have a good hand cue/whistles in your dog's repertoire, which then allows to acheive long distance and even blind recalls, sits and downs? IMHO, it doesn't take much more time or effort to teach and then train a vocal, hand AND whistle cue for "sit", "come" and "down", especially when the advantages of flexiblity of compliance in any environment is thereby ensured.
I'm also rather disappointed, how you dismiss clicker training so brusquely. Clicker Training doesn't rule out lure/reward. You made it sound as if Clicker Training only consists of shaping and capturing. Shaping and capturing or two of the four main techniques of CT which also include luring and targeting, but there are many instances in which shaping or capturing are actually much quicker and more efficient than lure/reward.
I hope you're not aiming at splitting and setting +R/-P camps into rivalry situations which is not at all necessary. I'd hope you'd be more for optimizing all methods of +R/-P training, not villainizing one in favor of another, for they are, after all related in technique and goals.
I don't believe that Dr
I don't believe that Dr Dunbar is suggesting you should teach your dog never to obey hand signals again; I think he is merely suggesting that if you do not phase them out at some point during training the dog will never learn the meaning of the request word.
I suggest to all my clients that after they teach the dog to respond to verbal commands without hand cues they then teach the dog to respond to hand cues without verbal commands. This brings the hand signals back in after the dog has learned the verbal commands as well to provide more versatility for dog and owner.
Dr. Dunbar did not criticize clicker training. He skimmed over it because it is not the subject of the thread. Clicker trainer is a fantastic option and I believe them to be equally successful. I PERSONALLY find lure-reward training is faster if the dog is highly motivated by food, and clicker training more successful on dogs that are more praise-motivated (because you find yourself without a lure)
Attentive Canine Training
Apologies. Perhaps I wasn't
Apologies. Perhaps I wasn't sufficiently clear. I don't mean to phase out the use of hand-signals entirely, but rather to phase out the necessity of hand-signals. It is really easy to phase out the food lure because dogs learn hand-signals so quickly and they are so easy for the dog to understand. We then use the hand-signals (hand lure movements) as lures to teach the dog the meaning of verbal commands. The ultimate goal of training is to teach the dog to respond to verbal cues. Hand-signals are brilliantly effective but the dog cannot see them if your back is turned, or if the dog's back is turned and he is thirty yards away chasing a squirrel. So I like to check that the dog will respond to verbal commands only. However, in the course of the day, I still continue to communicate via signals.
I barely mentioned shaping (with or without clickers) because the topic was about lure/reward training. I would most certainly use shaping techniques when trying to train difficult-to-lure behaviors, or when working with an unfamiliar species. However, for teaching basic manners — simple stuff like come, sit, down, stand, rollover, stay etc., lure/reward training would be my default with all-or-none reward training being second choice.