elle

walking him into a left teaches him that you don't want him in front of you and that you do want him to follow at your side (a loose definition of heel) as there is no way for him to still have an undefined position in relation to you (no heel) and be able to walk in front of you if you turn left...

this gives the dog an idea of what you want from him in relation to you -- which is the premise of teaching heel position (though it is often done in other ways than this). cutting him off is forcing him into heel position and thus teaching that not remaining in heel position is incorrect.

these are subtle differences, but to the dog they are everything. this method (a variation on the koehler method) is a way of teaching a dog to heel. actually, for many years it was the preferred way to teach a dog to heel -- put him on a leash and drag him along with you no matter which way you go until he learns it is better to heel with you than try to veer off.

from what you've described - the willingness of your dog to do what you want, his quick response to relatively mild corrections - he sounds like a pretty soft dog that is willing to please. thus, doing this enough probably will teach the dog a rough version of "heel" position.



i'm not confused as to what you are trying to explain -- i'm trying to explain to you that what you want from your dog is a very difficult thing to teach to a dog. in order to perform a behavior, most dogs need to understand both what is desired and what is not desired. the minute rules you want your dog to follow: walk free but don't walk in my path are not compatible.

you teach the dog to not walk in undesirable places and have thus defined where the desirable places are (even if its not the same position as traditional heel, it is the same thought process on the dog's part which is likely the part your handler wants you to avoid -- they don't want the dog to have a preconceived notion about where/how to walk).

and all this being said, i still think its ridiculous that people think dogs can't be trained in obedience and conformation all at the same time. people severely underestimate the dog's ability. your dog knows when he is out for a walk with you on his normal collar and leash and when he is in the ring on a show lead with a handler. dogs can comprehend that different rules apply in different situations.

God, I'd love it from an obedience standpoint if I taught my dog a heads-up competition heel and he automatically applied that to "everytime I walk with mom I strut beside her"! But the truth is, my dog heels like a champ when we're working/in class/in the ring/etc (great attention, great position), but when we're not working and I haven't asked for anything he defaults to the behavior he came with: choking himself at the end of the leash. His heel command is "strut" - his command for not choking himself at the end of the leash is "with me" - if i don't tell him either of those, free game, do what you want. Dogs are much more discerning than people give them credit for - there is no reason a dog can't learn how to walk one way when on a walk with you and another way in the ring.



But I digress, I've gotten off topic. My original point was you either put rules to something or you don't - dogs like to generalize when it comes to specific behaviors, it is hard for them to understand that they can be free to hang around your left side as long as the leash isn't tight *and* as long as they don't walk in front of you. The more "don'ts" you add, the more the dog becomes confused about what the "do" you want is - unless you teach them what the "do" is in explicit terms they understand (eg reward). You seem reluctant to want to teach the dog the "do" - which is fine, but the more "don'ts" you are adding, the more you are defining a specific behavior anyway. So isn't it easier for the dog if you just cut to the chase as show him what you do want?

__________________

Lydia & Bowie's Under Pressure, CD RA CGC