Trainer dilemma

What did you not agree with? If you're happy to share?

Well the long line in the house is talked about in lots of magazines and books but I never did that with Cooper.

As for the the NILF (Nothing In Life is Free) I do agree, it worked really well for Cooper who was and still is a little play monster and if we didn't set rules he would have been bugging us to play all the time.

The NILF training can be as simple as e.g Cooper loves carrot and in the evening he will ask someone for one when they go to the fridge. So he is not getting his own way he has to work for it. So a few sits, lays, stands and waits and then the raw carrot is his.

I have found that it works very well and Cooper doesn't just expect stuff to be given to him or for him to get his own way all the time.

It can also be done at meal times, the dog has to sit and wait before they get an OK to eat their food. It's all part of the same idea.

I think with any training classes teachers may give advice which you can decide which to use and which to leave. As long as they don't get pushy with it then carry on going. Some just like to pass their ideas on.

The trouble with NILIF is that dogs will learn to automatically sit or lie down or go through a lot of automated behaviours which to me is not necessaily woking for something.  I would rather the dog learned to give me a steady calm eye contact.

I have never used an indoor line either. But stepping on a long line outside (or getting somebody else to) proved beneficial at times

Strict is not necessaily bad, set up good rules and you can relax some of them later.

Hopefully you will let us know how things went.

Good luck and good fun!

NILF is useful, I make jasper sit before a treat or sometimes incorporate tricks into play time but sometimes I will just throw his toy for him.

The problem with NILF is when it goes too far, a lot of dominance trainers believe that NOTHING in life is free.
If the dog wants a drink, it had to earn it. If the dog wants to lie on its bed, it had to earn it. Which I know you would never ever do, just sometimes it is taken to extremes!

I do agree partly with NILF, but I think it is too easy for people to misuse.

The premack principle is very simlar. I think its explained very well here.

life.familyeducation.com/dogs/pet-training/47296.html?page=1

I think the NILF thing is very good, and has its uses but a good dog in the wrong hands may become a bad dog.

I have considerable reservations about adopting rigid training regimes (like NILF) and much prefer a sort of 'pick and mix' approach. The foremost requirement is to know your dog really well and read widely about different training techniques. I suppose training classes can be a very good thing provided that the trainer does not employ a 'one size fits all' approach: obviously different dogs have different personalities and characters and need techniques tailored to their specific needs. This is common sense. But may not be feasible in large training classes - probably depends, also, on how much you are prepared to pay for individual attention! I think elements of NILF are essential in training dogs - there are many aspects of dog training where permitted activities should be dependant on the dog providing an appropriate response before being allowed the desired activity (or rewarded - the same thing!). How rigidly this is employed will, surely, depend on your knowledge of your individual dog.