Priorities in training

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 20 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #41719
    dlskidmore
    Participant

    I see around here a lot of people have the attitude that one should do the most possible learning hands-on with someone doing exactly what you wish to be doing. In my prior training experience, I break down the training very differently:

    1. Take care of the biological needs of this animal
      • Food
      • Shelter
      • Exercise
      • Grooming
      • Medical Care
    2. Take care of the emotional needs of this animal
      • Social groupings
      • Pack/Herd order
      • Stability
    3. Learn the motivations of this animal
      • What pleases it?
      • What displeases it?
      • What lines should not be crossed as they break trust?
    4. Build a relationship with the animal
      • Spend time with the animal
      • Become the obvious and primary provider of biological and emotional needs
    5. Acclimation
      • Human Contact
      • Basic Handling
      • New environments
      • Scary objects
      • Equipment/Tools you are training for
    6. Molding (Teaching by demonstration, such as directing by harness)
    7. Classic Conditioning (Teaching by reward/punishment)

    The exact task you are training for matters very little. The principles of seeing how the animal thinks, not asking more than it is capable of, and the basics of training methodologies is pretty much the same for every task. Only the selection of proper equipment varies by the species and task (sometimes even the individual), and at the equipment selection phase the hands-on advice from and expert is helpful.

    Is training herbivores really that different than training carnivores that my thinking is out of line?

    #60597
    Tim Harrigan
    Participant

    I don’t know. Do you think that herbivores and carnivores might be hard wired by evolution in fundamentally different ways? Why do you think it is such a challenge for most everyone to train draft animals in particular?

    #60605
    dlskidmore
    Participant

    The particular biological and emotional needs and motivations differ greatly I am sure. This is why I’ve been depending heavily on my dairy buddy for learning this, but classical conditioning works on every species, and from everything I’ve read so far, molding and acclimation work the same way for both predators and carnivores.

    Folks have been advising me to go straight to getting time practicing the whole package at once, instead of learning each layer in succession. I don’t get how it would be a good idea to touch a plow even under a master’s guidance when I have only a rudimentary understanding of the creature pulling that plow. Shouldn’t the learning process start on the other end?

    This is about training a handler, not just training an animal. An animal will never surpass the abilities of the handler.

    #60590
    Carl Russell
    Moderator
    dlskidmore;18833 wrote:
    … I don’t get how it would be a good idea to touch a plow even under a master’s guidance when I have only a rudimentary understanding of the creature pulling that plow. Shouldn’t the learning process start on the other end?….

    I couldn’t agree more.

    However, the point about learning how to use the plow is that you also need to have an understanding about the work that you will be training the animals to perform. Working with any animal is about conditioning, but it is also about leadership.

    Using draft animals that whoa, back, stand, etc. is important, but if you lead them into work that you are un-experienced with, or nervous about, then your leadership will be compromised, and they will not perform as well. They will only work as well ans the handler.

    The other part about spending time with those that are doing what you want to do, is that you become conditioned. You will learn to see the response and demeanor that you should expect.

    Certainly find a way to learn as much as you can about the animals, but don’t dismiss the value of learning the work at the same time.

    Carl

    #60603
    Matthew
    Participant

    @dlskidmore 18833 wrote:

    An animal will never surpass the abilities of the handler.

    Never under estamate the intelligence of a animal. A well broke team will teach you more in a day than you could learn in a year reading books and talking to people. Working animals does not require a PH.D, more important than learning what to do with animals is learning what not to do. You need to think how that animal is thinking and as a teamster see a situation before it is a problem. A horse I use to drive was a good horse he was not a horse for a green teamster but most of the things that would excite him were predictable crossing a muddy spot in a field a catch bason on the road the key to keeping him quiet was to see something that got him excited be for he did and get him up on the bit. If you drove with a slacked line and he got a few steps ahead of you you might have a run away. I have also met a teamster that loved horses but horses didn’t love him he had no sence and it showed. He could not get horses to do anything he wanted and he would blame the horse not himself.

    #60595

    You need to think how that animal is thinking and as a teamster see a situation before it is a problem.

    this is important, think ahead!
    But your imagination can only provide you with clues if you had a chance to get some lecturing from a seasoned team and a teamster, both willing to share experiences; only with enough background will you have a chance to build on your own practical know-how; theory is crutches…
    “listen” closely to what the animals say, often enough I found myself thinking, they had told me long before, I just didn’t understand 🙁

    #60591
    Carl Russell
    Moderator
    Matthew;18835 wrote:
    Never under estamate the intelligence of a animal. A well broke team will teach you more in a day than you could learn in a year reading books and talking to people. Working animals does not require a PH.D, more important than learning what to do with animals is learning what not to do. You need to think how that animal is thinking and as a teamster see a situation before it is a problem. A horse I use to drive was a good horse he was not a horse for a green teamster but most of the things that would excite him were predictable crossing a muddy spot in a field a catch bason on the road the key to keeping him quiet was to see something that got him excited be for he did and get him up on the bit. If you drove with a slacked line and he got a few steps ahead of you you might have a run away. I have also met a teamster that loved horses but horses didn’t love him he had no sence and it showed. He could not get horses to do anything he wanted and he would blame the horse not himself.

    While I agree with a lot of what Matthew wrote I do take some issue with the well-worn assumption that experienced animals can “teach” us anything.

    I agree that we should never underestimate the intelligence of an animal. When we reduce our expectations for their capabilities, then we are asking for under-performing animals. However, animals while extremely perceptive, will not lead in the work that is expected of them. If the best broke team was in the hands of a complete novice, it would only be a matter of time before they were only performing at the capability of the novice teamster.

    I whole-heartedly endorse the self-learning process. I bought a horse and went logging. I learned a lot. I learned a lot because I was working with the horse, but I was not taught by the animal.

    The teamster must take full responsibility for leading the process. Working with other experienced people is an extremely valuable expenditure of time. Learning how an effective teamster leads his or her animals is huge.

    I would spend time with a couple of mentors, then go back in the woods and struggle to do what they did. Learn how the animals think, but learn how people lead them into working environments, and you will never have to be on the look out for possible problems.

    The worst trap you can run into with working animals is trying to second guess what they are going to do. The next worse trap is thinking that your animals know what they are doing better than you do.

    Know your work, know what you expect from your animals, and know that they look to you for guidance and you will work through every unexpected situation as if it didn’t exist.

    Carl

    #60604
    Matthew
    Participant

    Carl I agree with you 100% and I did not intend for some one to go out and buy a team and expect the team to teach them to harness hitch and drive. I do think you need to work hands on with a mentor with or with out your own team to practice with at home. The main point I am tring to make is learning to be a teamster is the most important part of working animals. You just have to understand the way they think, act and react. That in my opinion cant be learned from a book it can only be lerarned from spending time with the animals. A book might show you how a harness is supost to be put on a horse but will not prepare you for putting a collar over a horses head that has never had it done before. You can sit on a wagon yell gee and haw pull the lines right and left but that dose not make you a teamster a monkey could probably be trained to do this you need to understand the animal you are working. I was in my buddys barn the other morning at morning milking, his father is in the prosess of selling the development rights to the state, wen a surveyior came in waving a roled up set of maps over his head. Needless to say he had never been around cows and thare was quite the comotion in the barn that morning.

    #60606
    dlskidmore
    Participant

    @CharlyBonifaz 18837 wrote:

    theory is crutches…

    I agree that theory not backed up by practice is useless. I see this frequently in the dog training world, that many of the new schools are based on theory and scientific studies in isolated environments that produce only short term unreliable results that don’t hold up in real world applications. However, a firm study of theory can be a very valuable addition to practical experience, and can be acquired by the inquiring mind prior to it being practical to start the hands-on work. I know when I read about the theory of classical conditioning and behavior modification theory, and then look back at a world war I era training manual, I can see that theory being applied before it had that name. I can understand why the old school method works, and understand how to correctly modify the method for the temperament of an individual animal or a task not covered in the book.

    My dogs are well-trained at the things I put in the correct effort to train, and my only mentor is online. All the local schools are based on a different method than what I use. After getting unsatisfactory results under an instructor, I did my own studying and my own training.

    @Carl Russell 18843 wrote:

    If the best broke team was in the hands of a complete novice, it would only be a matter of time before they were only performing at the capability of the novice teamster. … Know your work, know what you expect from your animals, and know that they look to you for guidance and you will work through every unexpected situation as if it didn’t exist.

    This recalls my #1 rule of dog training: Know thy dog. This is also why in the dog training world you hardly ever use an experienced animal to train the handler. If you train the handler slightly ahead of the animal, you won’t risk backslide on the skills of the animal. (Besides the fact that dogs work for the individual, and have to go through minor retraining with each new handler.)

    @Matthew 18844 wrote:

    You just have to understand the way they think, act and react. That in my opinion cant be learned from a book it can only be lerarned from spending time with the animals.

    I think we agree on some level here, but I still have the tendency to separate the layers of knowledge. I see book learning and hands-on time as equally important, and I would prefer to learn theory before practice. My quest for book learning does not seem very welcome here.

    #60592
    Carl Russell
    Moderator
    dlskidmore;18845 wrote:
    ….. I still have the tendency to separate the layers of knowledge. I see book learning and hands-on time as equally important, and I would prefer to learn theory before practice. My quest for book learning does not seem very welcome here.

    Don’t take it that way. We all need to learn our own way. I have a couple of dog-eared work horse books that I read before I bought my first horse, and have referred to many time over the years. Everyone is built differently, needing to know things in different ways.

    Just be aware that when you do start learning from a mentor, that you don’t keep saying, “I know, I read that in a book”:D

    Carl

    #60601
    mitchmaine
    Participant

    read every word you can find, and listen to everyone saying anything they will about whatever subject you are interested in. when something makes sense, try it. if it works, do it. anything else, forget it and move on.
    mitch

    #60596

    theory is crutches…

    not meant to be negativ; sometimes it needs crutches to get going; it is in my view only a basis, a basis even to be turned back to if problems arise…..

    #60598
    Tim Harrigan
    Participant
    dlskidmore;18845 wrote:
    …I still have the tendency to separate the layers of knowledge. I see book learning and hands-on time as equally important, and I would prefer to learn theory before practice. My quest for book learning does not seem very welcome here.

    I am usually on board with theory and I have a pretty systematic approach to most problem solving and learning. It is an important part of understanding how a system should work. In this case, though, the challenge is not in separating layers of knowlege but in the integration of knowledge. What I find most interesting about books on training horses and oxen is not what is in the books but what is not in the books. Pretty much most of the really important stuff. This is not to demean the authors, there are just too many things that have to come into play in just the right way and at just the right time to capture in words.

    I guess one reason I decided to work with cattle is that I liked them and I had been around them a lot having a background in dairy. So I thought I understood cattle behavior fairly well…. I had a lot to learn. You can learn to work and train horses and oxen without the theory, but you will not have a meaningful understanding of the theory without working the animals. So I guess for me, it is not that the theory is not welcome, it is just not particularly interesting apart from actually working the animals.

    #60600
    Andy Carson
    Moderator

    I, for one, actually like your chart and it seems to make sense to me in general. You might want to be careful about what lessons you and the animal might learn when it is not trained and/or not working. The food will be different, for example, as will probably the foot care. It’s hard to imagine how one would even provide exercise for an animal without some degree of training and work. Likewise, maintaining a leader position would be difficult without some training and work helps alot here as well. Of course, to do any training you have to have an idea of what pleases and displeases the animal. Trust is an important thing also, but for an animal to trust that you won’t attack it in the field is easy… Them trusting you to handle them in close quarter doing things that are unusual to them is much more of an accomplishment, but that requires training as well. Trusting that strange objects won’t hurt them is the same way. You won’t get much desensitisation done without leaving the pasture… The point is that even though it is interesting to understand these aspects of animal care, all these aspects are all so integrated into working animal care that I do not believe there is much value in working on some aspects at the expense of others. To use a dog example, I really doubt there would be much learned by a dog owner who decided to lock a border collie up in an apartment (giving it no training and no job) and simply spending time in the apartment to learn what a dog is like. My brother had a border collie with no job and he mostly learned mostly how to cope with the neurotic and erratic behavior that comes from having a working animal with no job. Is this a fair assessment of these working animals??? At minimum, I think everyone would agree the dog needs a walk (and preferably some sheep to herd), but even a simple walk takes training if your animal weighs 5-10 times as much as you! I know some of the absolute worst horses that I have dealt with were ones that had no job. Mine gets alot of attention but still gets little hot if she’s off work for more than 2 days in a row. I know it’s not exactly the same case, but I really believe working animals need to be worked to display thier true charactor.

    #60602
    mitchmaine
    Participant

    well said, tim. another point mentioned many times, but still important to remember, is that the beast has its own brain, and while you are busy trying to figure it out, it is doing the same thing. there’s a million of them and a million of us, making the number of combinations so great, that writing the book is pretty clearly impossible. or predicting the problem, treatment, and outcome tough anyway. arm yourself with as many tools as you can and treat each situation differently. best case, if you haven’t drove or handled animals too much, buy one or two that are so broke the amishman’s 10 year old kid drives them. wait, that kid has more experience than most of us. change that to your 10 year old kid.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 20 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.