What is the difference between come and let's go?

Existing draft · inherited source review / recall

The lessons distinguish returning to the handler and remaining until release from a directional cue to move along.

Existing synthesis: verified transcript-format and timestamp repairs applied where supported; remaining source and content review is still required. 17 distinct quotation selections do not fully match the current transcript. Transcript matching is not independent audio verification. This is a evolving synthesis.

On this page · 23 sections

Answer

In the cue system described in these lessons, come asks for a return to the handler; let’s go asks the dog to move along or change direction. The trainer explains the distinction in King’s lesson and describes the problem with a recall that becomes a fly-by (3bqg175QFSA, 38:44–38:55).

The arrival is only part of the taught recall. The handler also explains what the dog should do near the person and which signal ends the request. In another King recording, the trainer uses a change of direction to explain when he would choose let’s go instead (vxn1_xHg6VM, 11:00–11:33). Watch the complete sequence: where the dog starts, which cue is given, where the dog goes and what follows the arrival.

Some owner lessons also distinguish an informal invitation from a formal cue. Roxy and Ramsey’s first owner lesson discusses that choice (z5Wm7r2lSCI, 28:20). The distinction belongs to the vocabulary and expectations being taught in that household. It does not mean every owner should adopt two similar-sounding cues without instruction.

The useful principle is to make the request and its ending understandable. A dog’s name, praise word or movement cue may have a particular meaning in an individual program. Ask how those words work together in your own lesson rather than assuming the word alone tells you what has been taught. The recordings illustrate the trainers’ explanations; they do not establish that one confused repetition permanently determines a dog’s future response.

Owner takeaway

Write down the cue for returning, the cue for moving along, and the release signal taught for your dog. Ask your trainer to show what counts as completing each request. When you watch an example, keep the return, the pause near the handler and the release together in your observation.

Across the cases

King

King's file carries the longest single teaching block on this anywhere in the corpus, and it is the command his trainers call his best. The distinction is defined, demonstrated both ways, and justified by the moment it will matter: you are usually saying come because you want him not to be over there, so a recall that has blurred into a movement cue is gone exactly when you need it. The same sessions add two things no other dog's file states so plainly. First, his name is a recall - caught live when somebody says it just to get him to look up, which is a handler error demonstrated at the instant it happened. Second, how far he may range is handed to the family as a dial they set rather than a standard the program installs: an invisible bubble, as big as they like, with a recall every time he crosses it. And it is paired with a warning about the opposite mistake, heeling the whole walk, which the same handler calls a boring walk for the dog.

people will use come like it's let's go and that messes up the recall right
Watch at 38:44 ↗ · Current transcript match · Audio confirmation pending

Okay, King come, and then he comes, but his come is, he goes by me. Right? Like a let's go.
Watch at 38:55 ↗ · Current transcript match · Audio confirmation pending

we're walking and then i change direction i go this way now king let's go that's when you use let's go right you don't use come then
Watch at 11:00 ↗ · Current transcript match · Audio confirmation pending

so the important thing is to not mix the two
Watch at 11:33 ↗ · Current transcript match · Audio confirmation pending

Quotation held: its full wording does not match the current transcript. Preserved-track provenance is recorded in the private audit.

Quotation held: text matches, but timestamp or full-span transcript confidence still needs review.

Louie

Louie's park session is the clearest statement in the corpus of what the recall is actually for, and it works by naming the failure owners accept without noticing: the dog comes, gets praised, and immediately goes back to what he was doing. The handler says outright that this negates the purpose of the recall, because the situations the command exists for are precisely the ones where you needed the dog away from something. So the recall is defined to include staying with you, and a separate command carries the other meaning - and he gives a positional rule for choosing between them: behind you, let's go, so he catches up; in front of you, the recall, unless you are turning back, in which case let's go again. He also names the check-in radius that sits around both, at fifteen to twenty feet.

so if they're behind me I'm gonna use a let's go so they catch up if they're in front of me unless I'm changing direction and turning back I'm not gonna use let's go I'm just gonna use the recall
Watch at 06:04 ↗ · Current transcript match · Audio confirmation pending

so about 15 to 20 feet at most they kind of stop and like check in and they might go sniff something but they kind of stay within that radius whether they're behind me or in front of me
Watch at 05:51 ↗ · Current transcript match · Audio confirmation pending

Quotation held: text matches, but timestamp or full-span transcript confidence still needs review.

Lola

Lola's file is where the ending of the recall is specified. The fault is described as a behaviour dogs do when they are almost trained: they come up, keep going, wrap around and come back - and the line where it becomes a problem is when they pass the handler's side. What is wanted is a recall that stops in front and finishes with a sit, and the house rule stated in another session is blunt about it: the come always ends in a sit. Her go-home lesson keeps the formal and informal recalls apart by name, and the same week's lesson makes the most consequential technical distinction in this whole family of ideas - whether the collar is a penalty for a behaviour or a reinforcement for an ignored command, which depends entirely on whether a let's go came first.

and I don't care if it's like in the front or to the side it's mainly like once they pass the side that's typically where it's a problem
Watch at 08:51 ↗ · Current transcript match · Audio confirmation pending

So, that's what Kelton was talking about. There's like the informal recall, which is just like, "Hey, come here." And then there's like RG come, which is like that has to be reinforced.
Watch at 27:33 ↗ · Current transcript match · Audio confirmation pending

Quotation held: text matches, but timestamp or full-span transcript confidence still needs review.

don't punish because she didn't do anything to get punished for instead you just go like oh come on let's go if she then continues to fixate the last thing and go harder then you and punish
Watch at 37:56 ↗ · Current transcript match · Audio confirmation pending

Sage

Sage's sessions hold the most precise version of the recall's ending and the cleanest statement of the formal-versus-informal rule. On come, she comes all the way in; no particular position is required, but she stays in the small area by the handler - even forty-five seconds later - until the release, and if she drifts she is told and brought back. On 'okay' the handler actively encourages her out, because clarity runs both ways: a dog can be left standing there not daring to leave. The go-home lesson gives the other half as an owner rule: he will not say her formal name-and-come unless he is prepared to make it happen, so he uses an informal 'come here' with encouragement instead - and the cost of getting it wrong is put in three words, then it becomes optional.

normally what i'll do is like again it's all about clarity so if i say you know like say come or Ramsey come and then they get here and they stay there for a second and then I say okay and they just they they don't leave I go okay and I go go go I'll encourage them I'm like get out of here like you're free
Watch at 23:01 ↗ · Current transcript match · Audio confirmation pending

And this is an informal recall because I don't want to have to reinforce it.
Watch at 39:15 ↗ · Current transcript match · Audio confirmation pending

If you're going to say a formal command like calm down, say whatever it is, you got to reinforce it afterwards. So like if she doesn't do it, you got to like make sure she does it somehow, right?
Watch at 39:19 ↗ · Current transcript match · Audio confirmation pending

What is that? Want to go check it out? Let's go. Sage, come on. Let's go see what's making all that noise.
Watch at 08:33 ↗ · Current transcript match · Audio confirmation pending

Kodak

Kodak's file supplies the mechanism the rest of the corpus assumes. Two recalls, and the difference is an obligation rather than a word: 'come here' moves the dog and costs nothing, 'come' obliges you to enforce it the moment it leaves your mouth. The reason to keep the weak one available is stated in full - a command you give and fail to enforce becomes optional, whatever the dog did to avoid it becomes his permanent answer to pressure, and he will come to believe that evasion is the solution to pressure itself. The handler then does it on camera, choosing the weaker cue because he did not want another repetition of the recall at that moment but did want the dog to give a stranger space. The same passage is repeated almost word for word in a second, viewer-facing session.

and they will think that is the solution to the pressure and you cannot allow that
Watch at 17:03 ↗ · Current transcript match · Audio confirmation pending

if you don't want to have to reinforce it which i didn't right there i didn't want to do another rep of the recall because i didn't think it would be beneficial at that point to do it but i did want him to give this guy plenty of space
Watch at 17:09 ↗ · Current transcript match · Audio confirmation pending

now an example of a formal recall would be kodak come and see now that i've said that i'm obligated to reinforce it if he doesn't come all the way to me
Watch at 17:24 ↗ · Current transcript match · Audio confirmation pending

And the reason that you might not give the actual command sometimes is because if you give the actual command, you must reinforce it. You must negatively reinforce it. It is not optional. you can never let commands become optional right
Watch at 4:24 ↗ · Current transcript match · Audio confirmation pending

Deuce

Deuce's file is where the two commands get their most practical workout and their loosest criterion. 'Come' fails against a retriever he has fixated on; 'let's go' is what breaks the fixation, and from then on the cue is the people tool - repeated dozens of times across a crowded stretch while almost no other command is used. The criterion is then relaxed explicitly, which owners routinely get wrong: he does not have to run in the handler's direction, he only has to stop fixating. The warning to the family is the one the handler says he gives everybody - do not use the two interchangeably - with the failure named concretely: say come while you are walking away and the dog gets confused. And his recall is never allowed to end loose: a sit is chained onto every repetition until his brain equates the two, which is checkable three weeks later when he drops into it by himself.

horrible deuce hey you're fixated okay there we go sounds like we're gonna have to work on some fixation issues deuce let's go let's go deuce let's go yeah there we go good let's go let's go
Watch at 10:53 ↗ · Current transcript match · Audio confirmation pending

interchangeably use let's go and come i haven't seen you do that a ton but it's just something
Watch at 26:24 ↗ · Current transcript match · Audio confirmation pending

with the dogs if every single time he sees a person you say let's go he starts to be like okay
Watch at 27:41 ↗ · Current transcript match · Audio confirmation pending

So, what we're doing there is every time I give him that recall, I tell him to sit right after.
Watch at 08:46 ↗ · Current transcript match · Audio confirmation pending

Quotation held: its full wording does not match the current transcript. Preserved-track provenance is recorded in the private audit.

Stormie

Stormie's first in-program lesson teaches the pair side by side to her owner and then explains what the finished behaviour in the published videos actually is. Come means stop in front of me and stand there; let's go means unfixate and move along in my general direction. Then the part worth copying: the cue is given every single time they walk past a dog, so that the dog begins predicting it - which is why the result looks like a dog who does not care about other dogs, when what it is is a dog who has learned what happens next. Her go-home lesson uses the same cue as the answer to another animal instead of a correction, with the order of operations spelled out and the reason attached: a collar that arrives while she is running towards the animal teaches her the animal is bad news.

and i don't like her recall it's kind of hard to it's hard to train a recall in the room so that's again what i'm doing but a recall kind of looks like this if i go stormy come right and again she doesn't know it but she has to stop right here and stand in front of me
Watch at 12:23 ↗ · Current transcript match · Audio confirmation pending

go and then she immediately unfixates and follows along and it's the same thing with the dogs if i say let's go every single time we walk by a dog her brain starts to go well every time we walk by a dog he says let's go i'm going to predict it this time and so it just looks like a seamless i don't care about the dog okay right
Watch at 13:08 ↗ · Current transcript match · Audio confirmation pending

so I didn't like a recall when you say come right she actually has to come up and plop in front of you whereas the let's go is like a directional thing
Watch at 25:45 ↗ · Current transcript match · Audio confirmation pending

i tell people the dogs probably will test you when they see like other animals right so what you do to reinforce that is you give them the let's go and you don't want to hit the e-collar just when they start running the reason for that is if they if you hit the e-collar while they're running towards another animal what you can accidentally do is build a version so they learn that that thing's bad it's dangerous
Watch at 36:17 ↗ · Current transcript match · Audio confirmation pending

Roxy

Roxy's household is the one where the failure is diagnosed from the outside. Both trainers explain the pair independently at the first in-program lesson, the full command list is given as six words plus the release, and the informal 'come here' is marked as deliberately unenforced while 'Roxy, come' is enforced hard. Then the diagnostic story: on follow-up visits owners tell him the dog is not listening, he watches them, and they are using the commands interchangeably. Her own sessions supply the criterion in one line - the whole point of coming is that you come and you stay in my circle - reported about a repetition where she did not.

Quotation held: its full wording does not match the current transcript. Preserved-track provenance is recorded in the private audit.

sit down place heel come let's go
Watch at 28:35 ↗ · Current transcript match · Audio confirmation pending

Quotation held: its full wording does not match the current transcript. Preserved-track provenance is recorded in the private audit.

she went, like, all the way over there, and I wasn't done, like, commanding her, and I said, eh, come, and she, like, looked back i was like come and she slowly came up and then she like she didn't stop by my area which you know the whole point of coming is like you come and you stay in my circle
Watch at 18:07 ↗ · Current transcript match · Audio confirmation pending

Quotation held: text matches, but timestamp or full-span transcript confidence still needs review.

Bullet

Bullet's file demonstrates the formal-informal switch twice in one session, minutes apart, and names each one as it happens - which is the cheapest possible teaching of it. In a second session the informal cue is used to call him off another dog without spending the command at all. His walk session explains what the pair is for in practical terms: with a taught let's go and a taught recall the leash becomes a legal formality you never have to lock, which is the argument for the whole vocabulary in one sentence. And the two are swapped on purpose for reasons that have nothing to do with obedience - out of a heel into a let's go, because the handler did not want the leash caught under a tyre.

All right, I'm gonna actually do a formal recall
Watch at 09:17 ↗ · Current transcript match · Audio confirmation pending

Leave Savage alone. Bullet. Good boy. That's not a recall. It's informal, right? Good boy. Cuz I don't want to do a command right now.
Watch at 01:39 ↗ · Current transcript match · Audio confirmation pending

legal purposes you can have it on and never lock it so it's just an attachment bullet let's go
Watch at 11:02 ↗ · Current transcript match · Audio confirmation pending

so I switched him into a let's go out of the heel because I didn't want to get his leash stuck under a tire
Watch at 39:27 ↗ · Current transcript match · Audio confirmation pending

Dutchess

Dutchess's is the version taught to owners on their own question, and it is the most compact definition in the corpus: one word means come to me and sit right by me, the other means we are walking this way, move in my general direction without coming in. Her sessions use both throughout and keep them distinct, with let's go doing a specific diagnostic job - the first line of one session gives it to test whether she is fixating. Her file also holds the release rule that makes the recall's ending enforceable at all: get up before the release word and the command is broken, not finished.

Looks like it's fixating. So, let's see what happens if I give her Let's go.
Watch at 00:20 ↗ · Current transcript match · Audio confirmation pending

We're just going to be testing out all the commands and trying to basically communicate with her like she's a train dog. Let's go.
Watch at 00:22 ↗ · Current transcript match · Audio confirmation pending

Quotation held: its full wording does not match the current transcript. Preserved-track provenance is recorded in the private audit.

Zeus

Zeus's go-home lesson gives the distinction with the mechanism by which misuse destroys the recall, and demonstrates both. The rule is absolute in one direction: never say come while you continue walking, because come means he comes to you and he is there. His sessions also show the cue doing its non-punitive job - when he stalls on the line, the answer is let's go first, before any correction, and only a brace-and-pull earns the marker. And one session catches the words getting crossed between two handlers, which is the everyday version of the whole problem: one of them says let's go where the other would have said okay, and the dog answers the other one.

Quotation held: text matches, but timestamp or full-span transcript confidence still needs review.

Quotation held: its full wording does not match the current transcript. Preserved-track provenance is recorded in the private audit.

Let's go handsome dog. Hi Judy-chan, there you go, Zeus, Zeus, let's go, good boy, let's go, Zeus, eh eh, let's go, eh eh, let's go, come on, good boy, let's go
Watch at 00:39 ↗ · Current transcript match · Audio confirmation pending

Finn

Finn's file holds the line the existing site page is built on, and the reason it mattered for this particular dog: he is already in a unique state of mind and does not need to be confused. It is taught to the owner as a demonstration rather than a definition, and in the sessions the two cues are used distinctly without being explained - let's go to move off after a release, come for the recall repetitions. The same lesson adds the rule that protects the word for a nervous dog: one cue, a beat, and no stim stacked on each repetition.

Quotation held: its full wording does not match the current transcript. Preserved-track provenance is recorded in the private audit.

Quotation held: text matches, but timestamp or full-span transcript confidence still needs review.

bo

Bo's handover separates the two by function - let's go as the redirection cue, come as come to you and ideally finish in a sit - and pairs it with a named, deliberate omission from the whole command set: they never use 'stay', because an implied stay removes the repetition that confuses dogs. That is what makes the release word carry the recall's ending in this method. Both cues are in the inventory given to bystanders in a second session, where the recall is worked with the collar being introduced as reinforcement and the level is announced out loud.

And then he'll sit because ideally he comes straight to you and sets
Watch at 26:35 ↗ · Current transcript match · Audio confirmation pending

You don't have to say stay ever. I don't know if you noticed that, but we don't use stay.
Watch at 28:01 ↗ · Current transcript match · Audio confirmation pending

Yeah, I turned it up slightly there because I thought he would probably ignore me. So that was on like a 35 or 40. I'll probably leave it on about a 35 right now just to, since there's a lot of distractions around, maybe a 40
Watch at 6:06 ↗ · Current transcript match · Audio confirmation pending

Luna

Luna's first in-program lesson names and demonstrates the pair for her owner, defines each against the other, and gives the same warning the Deuce lesson gives - that people accidentally interchange them and the dog gets confused. Her sessions then show let's go used as the redirect on a live distraction, which is exactly the use her go-home lesson recommends in place of a heel or a correction: a child on a bike arrives, the cue goes in, and the outcome is allowed to be the last thing that happens in the session.

All right. So, right here, I'll show off a command we've been working on. So, it's a let's go. So, a recall is like when she runs up to me and then stops, whereas a let's go is directional.
Watch at 03:54 ↗ · Current transcript match · Audio confirmation pending

a directional thing. Um, and I say that because it's important to know the difference because people can accidentally uh interchange them and then not use them, right? And the dog gets confused, right?
Watch at 04:06 ↗ · Current transcript match · Audio confirmation pending

So what I'm gonna do is I'm gonna give her the, let's go. She was interested, but I got another person coming through.
Watch at 05:51 ↗ · Current transcript match · Audio confirmation pending

It's actually really good to end the session out with. I know you see people with them, but she can't act on it, right?
Watch at 06:11 ↗ · Current transcript match · Audio confirmation pending

Dolce

Dolce's contribution is the cleanest instance of the informal ask in the corpus, and it is declared afterwards rather than before: she did not disobey a command, because he did an informal recall on purpose - he knew she probably did not want to go that way and did not feel like making her, having just asked her for a lot. The rule behind it is stated as an argument about currency: if you are not prepared to back it, do not command it. Her whole command set is German, and 'let's go' runs alongside it in English as the informal move-on, which is why the two categories are visibly separate in her sessions.

Quotation held: text matches, but timestamp or full-span transcript confidence still needs review.

Yeah because I I just did the conditioned punisher before I just did uh uh before when the other guy was passing and she did that but this time Um, this time I got her for it because she needed, um, she needed to get a little bit more reinforcement there.
Watch at 16:16 ↗ · Current transcript match · Audio confirmation pending

Source excerpts

so i'll kind of like i'll demonstrate how the let's go works okay um there's let's go and there's come right and those are two commands and a lot of people don't use them right and they mix them up and then they confuse the dog and he doesn't need to be confused right at all he's already in a a unique state of mind he doesn't need to be confused
Watch at 10:11 ↗ · Current transcript match · Audio confirmation pending

people will use come like it's let's go and that messes up the recall right
Watch at 15:05 ↗ · Current transcript match · Audio confirmation pending

Quotation held: text matches, but timestamp or full-span transcript confidence still needs review.

Quotation held: its full wording does not match the current transcript. Preserved-track provenance is recorded in the private audit.

whereas the let's go is a directional thing where it's like stormy let's go and we're just going to kind of move in this like general direction it's more of just like a hey you're fixated on something
Watch at 12:45 ↗ · Current transcript match · Audio confirmation pending

the recall is often misused by owners because they accept something that kind of negates the purpose of the recall. The purpose of the recall is that now they're back and they're with you.
Watch at 03:42 ↗ · Current transcript match · Audio confirmation pending

the issue is that very often they will let the dog come to them and then go back to what they were doing. So like the dog came, but they didn't come and stay with you, which is problematic because if the dog is off leash and you're recalling them because you need them away from a certain thing, you need them come to you and kind of stay with you.
Watch at 04:12 ↗ · Current transcript match · Audio confirmation pending

So there's a different command if you just want them to move along with you or go in the direction you're going and they can fly right by you afterwards. and that's let's go
Watch at 04:35 ↗ · Current transcript match · Audio confirmation pending

she's doing this thing where like when I'm training a recall when they're almost done this is one thing they do and it's where they'll come up to you and you'll be like recall right and they keep going and they keep going and then they like wrap around and come back right what you want is like a recall that they come up to you and then it stops there and then like a sit is at the end of it
Watch at 05:11 ↗ · Current transcript match · Audio confirmation pending

at worst they have to come to you and just wait for further instruction and then like if you said come even if they like 45 seconds later you're still standing there they should stay there yeah they shouldn't like leave the area they should be right in here yeah they should be right in this area and then you use the release command so you say okay and then they're ready they're they're good to go they know they can leave
Watch at 22:36 ↗ · Current transcript match · Audio confirmation pending

which you know the whole point of coming is like you come and you stay in my circle
Watch at 18:24 ↗ · Current transcript match · Audio confirmation pending

Quotation held: its full wording does not match the current transcript. Preserved-track provenance is recorded in the private audit.

if you give the actual command, you must reinforce it. You must negatively reinforce it. It is not optional. You can never let commands become optional, right? Because whatever thing they did to avoid doing the command, they will repeat in the future right they will do it again and again and again and again because it works
Watch at 16:37 ↗ · Current transcript match · Audio confirmation pending

This is an informal recall, so I'm not reinforcing it.
Watch at 07:22 ↗ · Current transcript match · Audio confirmation pending

So I'm not going to say save com because then I'd have to make sure she came, right? Because otherwise she might be like, well, so I don't always have to come if he says no, you know what I mean? Right. Um, then it becomes optional.
Watch at 39:34 ↗ · Current transcript match · Audio confirmation pending

Quotation held: its full wording does not match the current transcript. Preserved-track provenance is recorded in the private audit.

Quotation held: text matches, but timestamp or full-span transcript confidence still needs review.

Quotation held: its full wording does not match the current transcript. Preserved-track provenance is recorded in the private audit.

He doesn't have to, like, freaking run in my direction as long as he stops fixating.
Watch at 00:56 ↗ · Current transcript match · Audio confirmation pending

i stress to everybody because if you say come while you're going this way the dog get confused
Watch at 26:27 ↗ · Current transcript match · Audio confirmation pending

Quotation held: its full wording does not match the current transcript. Preserved-track provenance is recorded in the private audit.

You're mixing yours up today. So the come always ends in a sit.
Watch at 04:49 ↗ · Current transcript match · Audio confirmation pending

And eventually after I give him that recall over and over, okay, and I tell him to sit, what happens is his brain like equates the two together.
Watch at 08:54 ↗ · Current transcript match · Audio confirmation pending

How the trainers explain it

The stated mechanism is about what the word predicts. A cue used for two different outcomes stops predicting either, so the dog is left guessing - 'they mix them up and then they confuse the dog' (JvNqp0YKO7M 10:11) - and the cost is paid in the one situation the recall exists for, which is when you need the dog away from something (3bqg175QFSA 39:45). The recall's ending has its own mechanism: the command is defined to include staying, because a dog who touches base and resumes has given you nothing you can use (G-c3ofWH0HA 04:12), and the release word rather than the dog's own judgement is what ends it (AJpjdMolHEI 22:36) - which is also why this method never uses 'stay' at all (Rse9I-CW35g 28:01). The formal-informal split rests on a claim about extinction and avoidance: a command you fail to enforce becomes optional, and whatever the dog did to avoid it is what he will do again, because it worked - and he will generalise it into a solution to pressure (acb6qFCsYww 16:34, 17:03). So an unenforced cue is not neutral, it is training. The last mechanism is prediction as a positive tool: given the same cue every single time a dog appears, the dog starts predicting it, and what the viewer then sees is a dog who looks indifferent (60YpxVWYv20 13:08). What is inferred rather than said: the corpus never addresses the tension between telling families that mixing two clearly different words ruins both, and then handing them two words that differ by one syllable - 'come' and 'come here' - with opposite obligations. Nor does anyone say what happens when a household member uses the name as an attention noise in a house where the name is a recall; it is caught once, apologised for, and never followed up.

Differences to review

What ends the recall - arriving, or a sit.

First perspective

A sit, every time. The recall is not allowed to end loose, so the sit is chained onto every repetition until the dog offers it uncued, and in one household the rule is stated flatly: the come always ends in a sit.

So, what we're doing there is every time I give him that recall, I tell him to sit right after.
Watch at 08:46 ↗ · Current transcript match · Audio confirmation pending

You're mixing yours up today. So the come always ends in a sit.
Watch at 04:49 ↗ · Current transcript match · Audio confirmation pending

she's doing this thing where like when I'm training a recall when they're almost done this is one thing they do and it's where they'll come up to you and you'll be like recall right and they keep going and they keep going and then they like wrap around and come back right what you want is like a recall that they come up to you and then it stops there and then like a sit is at the end of it
Watch at 05:11 ↗ · Current transcript match · Audio confirmation pending

Second perspective

No position is required. The dog comes all the way in and stays in the small area by the handler until the release - standing, sitting or lying down, it does not matter - and the criterion is the area and the release word, not the posture.

at worst they have to come to you and just wait for further instruction and then like if you said come even if they like 45 seconds later you're still standing there they should stay there yeah they shouldn't like leave the area they should be right in here yeah they should be right in this area and then you use the release command so you say okay and then they're ready they're they're good to go they know they can leave
Watch at 22:36 ↗ · Current transcript match · Audio confirmation pending

Quotation held: its full wording does not match the current transcript. Preserved-track provenance is recorded in the private audit.

How to read this comparison

Two clear house rules, never put side by side. Bo's handover sits between them - 'ideally he comes straight to you and sets' - and Bo's own file elsewhere is the one that insists some arrivals must carry no demand at all, which is a third position again. The practical consequence for a family is whether a standing dog in front of them counts as a completed recall, and the corpus answers that both ways.

Whether the dog's name is a recall.

First perspective

It is. In one household hearing his name means come over, so saying it to get his attention is spending the recall - caught live as a handler error the moment it happened.

Quotation held: its full wording does not match the current transcript. Preserved-track provenance is recorded in the private audit.

Second perspective

It is an address, not a command - the prefix that tells one dog of two that the next word is for him, and, in one owner lesson, the cue for getting a dog to disengage from a person without spending anything.

Quotation held: its full wording does not match the current transcript. Preserved-track provenance is recorded in the private audit.

Say her name. Okay. Yeah. Just say her name. So going to she should be just like cruising along indifferent to people.
Watch at 36:29 ↗ · Current transcript match · Audio confirmation pending

How to read this comparison

Both practices are in use and both are coherent on their own; what does not exist anywhere is an instruction to families about which one their dog was trained on. A household that treats the name as an attention noise in a dog trained the first way is spending the recall dozens of times a day without knowing it.

What 'let's go' actually requires.

First perspective

Movement towards the handler, loosely - move in my general direction, or come to me and sit right by me on one telling, or catch up if you are behind.

Quotation held: its full wording does not match the current transcript. Preserved-track provenance is recorded in the private audit.

so if they're behind me I'm gonna use a let's go so they catch up if they're in front of me unless I'm changing direction and turning back I'm not gonna use let's go I'm just gonna use the recall
Watch at 06:04 ↗ · Current transcript match · Audio confirmation pending

Second perspective

Nothing except disengagement. The dog does not have to move towards the handler at all; the success criterion is that he stops fixating.

He doesn't have to, like, freaking run in my direction as long as he stops fixating.
Watch at 00:56 ↗ · Current transcript match · Audio confirmation pending

whereas the let's go is a directional thing where it's like stormy let's go and we're just going to kind of move in this like general direction it's more of just like a hey you're fixated on something
Watch at 12:45 ↗ · Current transcript match · Audio confirmation pending

How to read this comparison

The looser criterion is stated by a handler working a dog whose problem is fixation, and the tighter one by a handler teaching a dog with no impulse-control problem, so it may be a deliberate per-dog setting. Nobody says so. It matters because a family holding the tight criterion will correct a dog who has in fact done what the other handler asked.

What the current concept page says, against what the corpus now supports.

First perspective

The existing page text: 'Let's go' means move with me, 'Come' means come to me, they are different commands, and handlers who use them interchangeably teach the dog that neither means anything in particular. Its quote is given as 'There's "let's go" and there's "come", right? Those are two commands. And a lot of people don't use them right, and they mix them up, and then they confuse the dog. And he doesn't need to be confused at all.', sourced to Finn's JvNqp0YKO7M at 10:16 and attributed to Connor.

so i'll kind of like i'll demonstrate how the let's go works okay um there's let's go and there's come right and those are two commands and a lot of people don't use them right and they mix them up and then they confuse the dog and he doesn't need to be confused right at all he's already in a a unique state of mind he doesn't need to be confused
Watch at 10:11 ↗ · Current transcript match · Audio confirmation pending

Second perspective

Right as far as it goes, and it stops at the vocabulary. Four things are superseded. First, the page's headline quote is tidied - punctuated, capitalised and trimmed - and the verbatim line runs on past where the page ends it, with the clause that explains why it mattered for this dog. Second, the page says nothing about the recall having an ending, which is the half owners actually break: the dog who arrives, is praised and resumes, and the specific fault of passing the handler's side. Third, it says nothing about formal versus informal, which is the corpus's own answer to the problem the page names - a handler who decides before calling whether he will enforce it does not wear the word out. Fourth, the criterion for 'let's go' is narrower on the page than on film: in two dogs' files it requires nothing but disengagement. The attribution to Connor is consistent with the Finn synthesis, which reaches it by third-party evidence rather than by the transcript naming him.

the issue is that very often they will let the dog come to them and then go back to what they were doing. So like the dog came, but they didn't come and stay with you, which is problematic because if the dog is off leash and you're recalling them because you need them away from a certain thing, you need them come to you and kind of stay with you.
Watch at 04:12 ↗ · Current transcript match · Audio confirmation pending

if you give the actual command, you must reinforce it. You must negatively reinforce it. It is not optional. You can never let commands become optional, right? Because whatever thing they did to avoid doing the command, they will repeat in the future right they will do it again and again and again and again because it works
Watch at 16:37 ↗ · Current transcript match · Audio confirmation pending

He doesn't have to, like, freaking run in my direction as long as he stops fixating.
Watch at 00:56 ↗ · Current transcript match · Audio confirmation pending

How to read this comparison

Recorded rather than resolved; rewriting the page is the owner's decision and the id and URL are kept either way. The tidied quote is the one item that should be corrected regardless of what else changes, because the shape it is in now is not on the track.

Questions and answers

What exactly does each word mean?

The recurring distinction is destination versus direction. In King’s lesson, come means returning to the handler’s area and remaining there (vxn1_xHg6VM, 11:15). Let’s go asks the dog to move along with the handler rather than necessarily finish at that close destination. Louie’s trainer illustrates choosing between the cues according to the dog’s position and the handler’s direction (G-c3ofWH0HA, 06:04). Exact finishing positions and release words should come from the dog’s own lesson; not every example asks for the same posture.

Quotation held: its full wording does not match the current transcript. Preserved-track provenance is recorded in the private audit.

so if they're behind me I'm gonna use a let's go so they catch up if they're in front of me unless I'm changing direction and turning back I'm not gonna use let's go I'm just gonna use the recall
Watch at 06:04 ↗ · Current transcript match · Audio confirmation pending

Does it really matter if I mix them up?

Consistent meanings help the dog distinguish the two requests. King’s trainer explains that a recall may be needed to bring the dog away from somewhere it should not remain (3bqg175QFSA, 39:45). Roxy’s trainer reports seeing owners use the cues interchangeably on follow-up visits (z5Wm7r2lSCI, 28:57). Those accounts explain why the distinction matters in this program. If a response changes, compare the words, movement and expected finish rather than assuming cue confusion is the only possible cause.

Quotation held: text matches, but timestamp or full-span transcript confidence still needs review.

Quotation held: its full wording does not match the current transcript. Preserved-track provenance is recorded in the private audit.

i stress to everybody because if you say come while you're going this way the dog get confused
Watch at 26:27 ↗ · Current transcript match · Audio confirmation pending

My dog comes when I call but then wanders off. Is that a recall?

No, and this is the half most owners have never been told. The recall is defined to include staying: the dog stops in front of you and stays in the small area by you - even forty-five seconds later, if you are still standing there - until the release word, and if he drifts he is told and brought back. The specific fault to watch for is the dog who comes up, keeps going, wraps around and comes back, and the line where it becomes a fault is when he passes your side. One household's rule is that the come always ends in a sit; another requires no position at all, only the area and the release. Either way, the thing that ends the recall is your word rather than his decision - and when you release him, tell him to go, because a dog who was once told off for leaving early will stand there waiting.

and I don't care if it's like in the front or to the side it's mainly like once they pass the side that's typically where it's a problem
Watch at 08:51 ↗ · Current transcript match · Audio confirmation pending

at worst they have to come to you and just wait for further instruction and then like if you said come even if they like 45 seconds later you're still standing there they should stay there yeah they shouldn't like leave the area they should be right in here yeah they should be right in this area and then you use the release command so you say okay and then they're ready they're they're good to go they know they can leave
Watch at 22:36 ↗ · Current transcript match · Audio confirmation pending

normally what i'll do is like again it's all about clarity so if i say you know like say come or Ramsey come and then they get here and they stay there for a second and then I say okay and they just they they don't leave I go okay and I go go go I'll encourage them I'm like get out of here like you're free
Watch at 23:01 ↗ · Current transcript match · Audio confirmation pending

What is the difference between 'come' and 'come here'?

An obligation. 'Come here' is an invitation that costs nothing if it is ignored; 'come' is a command, and the moment it leaves your mouth you owe the dog enforcement. The reason to keep the weak one available is spelled out: a command you do not enforce becomes optional, whatever the dog did to avoid it is what he will do again because it worked, and he will come to treat that evasion as the answer to pressure in general. So a handler who does not want to spend a repetition uses the informal form on purpose - one says out loud afterwards that the dog did not disobey a command, because he never gave one. The practical version for an owner is to decide before you open your mouth: if you are not going to go and make it happen, say 'come here'.

Quotation held: its full wording does not match the current transcript. Preserved-track provenance is recorded in the private audit.

now an example of a formal recall would be kodak come and see now that i've said that i'm obligated to reinforce it if he doesn't come all the way to me
Watch at 17:24 ↗ · Current transcript match · Audio confirmation pending

So I'm not going to say save com because then I'd have to make sure she came, right? Because otherwise she might be like, well, so I don't always have to come if he says no, you know what I mean? Right. Um, then it becomes optional.
Watch at 39:34 ↗ · Current transcript match · Audio confirmation pending

My dog stares at other dogs on walks. Which word do I use, and when does the collar come in?

The cue first, and this order is the most consequential technical point in the corpus for a nervous dog. If you correct while he is fixating on the dog, with no command given, the pressure attaches to the dog he was looking at, and what he learns is that other dogs are dangerous. If you say let's go and then correct, the pressure attaches to not listening. Those are, in one handler's words, two very different worlds - and another puts the timescale on the damage: he does not want the dog coming back in a year as a nervous case. The instruction owners are given is to say let's go every single time they pass a dog, so the dog starts predicting the cue, and only to back it if she ignores it.

So like there's what he's describing is a difference between negative reinforcement and a penalty. Right? So one is pressure to do a command. The other one is a penalty for a bad thing they did.
Watch at 37:30 ↗ · Current transcript match · Audio confirmation pending

You don't want to build, like, unnecessary nervousness and fear because I don't want Stormy to come back a year from now and be a nervous case.
Watch at 37:21 ↗ · Current transcript match · Audio confirmation pending

go and then she immediately unfixates and follows along and it's the same thing with the dogs if i say let's go every single time we walk by a dog her brain starts to go well every time we walk by a dog he says let's go i'm going to predict it this time and so it just looks like a seamless i don't care about the dog okay right
Watch at 13:08 ↗ · Current transcript match · Audio confirmation pending

Shouldn't I just keep him in a heel so he can't get into trouble?

The trainers argue against it, and the argument is about the dog's day rather than about obedience: hold him in a heel for the whole walk and you have given him a boring walk. The heel has a job - temporarily keeping him close while something specific is happening, a crowd, a passing cyclist, a narrow pavement - and outside that the pair of cues is what does the work, with the dog free to sniff and explore in between. One handler puts the same point as a practical consequence: with a taught let's go and a taught recall, the leash stops being a steering wheel and becomes a formality you never lock.

Quotation held: text matches, but timestamp or full-span transcript confidence still needs review.

but if you use it for things right um heel is very useful it's useful in my opinion for temporarily keeping him close to you while something else is happening that you need him close to you for right so like crowded area
Watch at 41:08 ↗ · Current transcript match · Audio confirmation pending

legal purposes you can have it on and never lock it so it's just an attachment bullet let's go
Watch at 11:02 ↗ · Current transcript match · Audio confirmation pending

Teaching outline

objective

The handler can use two movement cues and two recalls without spending either: declaring before each call whether it is formal, holding the recall until the release, and choosing let's go rather than come whenever the dog is only required to move along.

prerequisites

What do I do when my dog ignores a command?

How does my dog know when he can stop?

My dog ignored me and then came back - can I tell him off?

Can a word go bad for my dog?

demonstration

Source at 11:02 ↗