Uncle Matty question

My friend taped Uncle Matty on PBS in 1999. I just saw the tape. He uses the choke collar a lot for different problems. He also believes that you don't need to use treats to get the dog to do what you want. I wouldn't do it his way but I am curious what you all think of his methods.

I seldom used treats to train Riot with. I wanted to build his prey drive for when he does Search and Rescue sessions - we ONLY use tug toys for that type of training.

Toy training I have found to be MUCh more effective in every day life situations.
Our Shelties are treat trained and they are little hellians until they see treats - THEN they are little angels about anything you ask of them.
Where as Riot likes treats, but he doesn't bend over backwards for them. He'd prefer a good old squeaky toy anyday to it.

I dont see why a choke collar is "that" popular as well. Its the #1 leading cause of trechea problems in dogs. I trained Riot with a flat nylon collar and then I used the choker when he was old enough and then when he kept pulling - I didn't want to injure his neck so I went to a Halti - he used it 4 times I took it off and tried his choker again and he hasn't pulled since.

http://www.clickersolutions.com/reading.htm

If you click this link you'll see the books that are catagorized as NOT RECOMMENDED..... All of Uncle Matty's books fall under that catagory for his lack of knowledge and heavy handed methods.
Like Summer said, toy training can be fantastic but unfortunately MOST breeds are not motivated enough by a toy and food reward (which is of course faded when behaviors have been proofed) works best for the majority of dogs.

It really depends on the dog when deciding food or toy for positive reinforcement as well as the age of the dog you're training. Tug toys are almost never used during the early stages of trainin (8 weeks - 12 weeks), but some of the working and herding breeds are motivated enough by toys to transfer from food reward to toys after about 12 weeks.

I don't agree with his lack of flexability to train dogs differently. Every dog problem has one solution to him and that's a correction (much like Ceaser). Honestly, he reminds me a lot of purely positive trainers who believe that ANY correction is abuse, he just believes that ANY reward or food is wrong. Same inflexibility, different method.

I don't believe that such extremes on EITHER side of the fence is beneficial to dog training. I prefer a more middle of the road approach, but that's just me.

I agree with Silverpawz. Inflexibility slows the training process. I've had a lot of dog owners come to me because their last trainer wouldn't allow training collars, or another wouldn't allow food reward. Flexibility is what keeps us in business! We never stop learning all that animals have to teach us and not all methods and equipment work for all dogs. I make it a rule not to critisize other trainers methods, especially in print. (I've put my foot in my mouth a few times in my early days of training. Lol) As for Mathew Margolis...I've done a television program he's also done and audiences love him, he's funny, very charming and markets himself well. While I won't comment on method, overall he has helped clients gain control of their dogs and for a lot of owners, that's all their looking for. Have a great day everyone!

I'm one of the trainers who does not allow pinch or choke collars in class...food rewards, absolutely.
Through the years, I've found that the use of aversives cause more problems than they solve, so I show my clients a better, safer way for both dog and owner. I do not make anyone feel bad when I see one of these tools used but rather show them why I work without them and how it's done. I support my clients throughout their training without these tools and have great success. I have never had an owner go back to aversives after learning how to train without them.
As far as inflexibility is concerned, I used to use various aversives years ago, the same tools that many trainers still use today and I no longer use them because I've learned how to train without them. My decision not to use them came from experience on both sides and far more success on the side void of aversives. I honestly can not imagine why I would ever reintroduce them to any training program, private or group, even with my most severe cases.

Honesty is what keeps me in business, that and a total committment to the dogs and owners I work with for however long it takes. I have no problem answering honestly about how I feel about someones methods on here, especially when the person the OP asked about reaches so many novice owners. I too find him funny and personable but do not agree with his use of punishment, and after all...this is a forum and opinions (ALL) are important....weather I agree or not..

There are many trainers in this city, some I recommend and some I don't, but I do not discuss their methods or give my opinions on any I do not recommend. That's where my foot remains planted firmly on the ground...I too hate the taste of FOOT.:yikes:
It's up to the client to find his/her best fit. Some will feel more comfortable with me and some will want to go with a trainer who's methods are the polar opposite.

Choke collars are ok but you have to keep an eye on your dog more to make sure they dont accidently strangle themself. Treats should only be used for bid accomplishments such as housebreaking.

what makes you think that? how do you determine what should be rewarded and what shouldn't?

in my own personal little world, if the dog likes food rewards, food rewards are appropriate for any behavior you'd like the dog to repeat.

And that's certainly your choice. However I hope you realize that that point of view is indeed being inflexible.

Purely positive is not going to work for every single dog/owner team, if that were the case there would be no reason to even have this discussion as trainers worlwide would all be firmly on the PP side.

Aversives only cause problems if the one administering them is doing it wrong.

We all do what works for us. If you feel your way works, by all means have at it. The rest of us will do the same.

I"m right there with ya, different dogs, different roads to travel.

A well put statement about there being "two sides to the coin". I respect your opinion. About my comment, "flexibility is what keeps us in business"... your reply "honesty is what keeps you in business", I just want to referance Silverpawz' statement again about some trainers being inflexible on either end of the spectrum. "Using ANY correction is abuse or food during training is wrong". That sentence is what prompted my comment about being flexible, especially when dealing with different disciplines. Puppy classes, beyond basics, utility work, behavioral modification, tracking, schutzhund training, ect. My belief being there is no "one way" to train all dogs, and not all equipment is effective or safe for all dogs/breeds/all ages. I should have directed this in a more specific manner to Dirk. "Uncle Matty doesn't believe you have to use food to get a dog to respond." He's right, he doesn't need to use food Dirk, but this is why he uses a chain instead. dr2little knows what I mean by that I'm sure. Not a critisizm of Mathews method though, as I use haltis, prongs, light chains, martingale collars and regular buckle collars in my basic obedience classes. All dogs start on a regular buckle collar, using food reward in my classes, until it's determined the owner may need additional control in a group setting. For their safety and the dogs. At comp. level we do not need this equipment. On the otherhand, in the conformation ring, I would not be comfortable taking my 12 to 16 month unaltered working breed male into the ring with 10 others unaltered males and then stacking them nose to tail, knowing they were all on loose buckle collars. So, my belief is flexbility is a must when training all breeds/ages and different disciplines. I'm glad your methods work for you dr2little and I have a feeling both of our programs are equally as successful, with loyal clients who trust us, regardless of our different methods. Have a nice evening.

hi again... I meant to slip that last post in under dr2littles, for her to read. I was slow... (or talking too much! lol) Off topic, I notice you have a Griffon and you're in Calgary. Is yours one of Maggie Blackburns by chance? I've admired her dogs for years, and spoke with her about one, years ago. Yours' is very handsome. I notice you have toys and mixed breeds, I have working and herding breeds (and my lap dog, a min poodle) I believe our breed choices and different areas of training also influence our opinions on methods, as well. Just a thought.

I do know Maggie, but Amos and Lola are both breeder neglect rescues and not from Maggie's dogs. Thanks for saying my boy is handsome...I have to agree and his personality is to die for.

My choice of dogs has nothing to do with my training, although it's not the first time that someone has questioned that with respect to my experience and choice of training methods.

I train all breeds and many difficult dogs, no different than any other experienced trainer. I'd love company tonight , I get to visit a mastiff/rotti X who can't leave his house without a muzzle....he also outweighs my by about 60 lbs., a Vet referral like many of my more difficult cases. I work with so many Vets. due to my success record, not because I'm soft and cuddly in my approach. The fact that I don't presently own a "capable breed" says very little about me as a trainer or why my methods are what they are. If I have appeared cookie cutter in my approach to training and behavior cases, nothing could be farther from the truth. I do have to ask though, why is it that Jean Donaldson, Ian Dunbar and the like who have also abandoned aversives, seem to be clipping along with more success than ever. I don't use physical aversives, but I do not train all dogs alike.

Whoa. Grumpy today?

This, right there is the problem I have with many of your posts. No, I'm not following you around and purposely trying to stir the pot, but I can't look away and not respond either when something like that is posted. It implies that thos of us who use aversives are simply uneducated and that's far from the truth. I don't appreciate a holier then thou, if you don't train PP you're not 'moving with the times' attitude.

THAT is what I'm responding too, NOT the fact that you use positive methods. It would be impossible for me to care any less about how you train dogs. Your methods are not what I take issue with, I don't know how I can make that any clearer.

Believe it or not, I have plenty of friends that use PP. We get along just fine, but then again they aren't implying that I'm uneducated or that I 'don't know better' in all of our conversations either. Maybe that's why we can have decent discussions on training and then go for coffee afterwards...

You have had a problem with me from the beginning, go back and see who threw the first rock in the playground silver. I even tried at one time to strike some kind of common ground with you but for some reason you just weren't having it. It's amazing to me how you can throw your little jabs left, right and centre but....ya, I'm the grumpy one. Maybe try looking back a few threads, I'm so done!!!!!

Fine. Take your ball and leave the playground.

If you want to believe I'm throwing jabs at you for no reason then so be it, but that's not how I see things. I don't poke people with sticks just for the heck of it.

Obviously it's too hard to imagine that you might be coming across a certain way in your posts that annoys the HECK out of those of us who don't use PP.

But no...it's allllll me. Sure.

ETA: Are you serious? This was not a jab. I simply ment that it doesn't bother me what methods you OR anyone else uses.
I think you're trying a little too hard to find jabs...

I have read a couple of his books and I'm not fond of his methods at all.

I don't like to use physical punishment in training. Both of my dogs are very reward-oriented and, to them, punishment is only a speed-bump on the road to getting what they want. A yank on a choke chain will slow them down, but I find that it doesn't teach them much. I used to train with leash corrections and as soon as they got a correction, they'd start looking for a way around the correction that didn't involve stopping the rewarding behavior entirely. They didn't learn what I wanted them to do by trying to avoid the correction. All they learned were ways to outsmart me in order to get what they wanted. They DO learn what I want them to do by being rewarded for it.
I find that the drive for certain rewards is greater than the drive to avoid punishment. If people use punishment, it's usually just little yanks or "no"s to discourage a dog from pursuing a BIG reward (chasing a rabbit, stealing food, etc). Let's say there's a ham in front of a Labrador Retriever. The dog is straining to get to the ham, just DYING for a taste. The owner gives the leash a yank and says "no" every time he gets close to the ham. Speed bump. It slows him down a little, and might prevent him from touching the ham, but it won't take his focus off of that ham. Now, if you teach him a "watch me" command and show him that the way to get some of that ham is to pay attention to the handler? That dog's eyes won't leave his handler.
Having an obedient, attentive dog is all a matter of redirecting attention, encouraging/reinforcing good behavior and allowing the bad behavior to extinguish; I find that physical correction isn't necessary in order to achieve this.

Oh, and one other thing about physical corrections . . . This is really hard for me to explain, LOL so if it makes no sense, I apologize. With both reward and punishment, timing is important. However, even if timing is right, dogs might make associations with things that are completely irrelevant to what you are training for. I was watching my trainer work with a little Doberman puppy in Lucy's puppy class. She was teaching this pup to "leave it" and inadvertently rewarded the pup for sniffing the ground. By the end of the session, the pup was "leaving it" beautifully -- by taking her nose away from the treats and banging it on the ground repeatedly. :lol-sign: It was adorable, and eventually that was faded out when she wasn't reinforced for it.
Now, apply that to punishment. Let's say a dog jumps up on its owner. The owner yanks the dog into a "down" position for jumping up, yells "no" at it and rolls it onto its back. What if the dog doesn't apply the punishment to the act of jumping up? What if it applies the punishment to greeting its owner? Imagine the owner repeating the punishment over and over again, because the dog just isn't "getting it". The dog may be very hesitant to ever greet its owner again.

If a mistake is made in positive training, it can be remedied easily and the dog goes through no stress. If a mistake is made in punishment-based training, a dog can be ruined. I think that's what I like best about it as a novice trainer - I can screw up and the dog doesn't have to pay for my mistake.

Perhaps professional trainers can use aversives with great success, but I don't think it's a very good idea to teach novice owners/trainers to use the same methods. That's like putting a teenage driver in a racecar. Just begging for disaster.

/rant. phew.

O.K. ... I opened a can of worms here! And we lost sight of the topic as a result. "Uncle Matty". I didn't mean to suggest that a trainer using strictly buckle collars and food reward in their programs, isn't effective. I specialize in behavioral modification of aggressive dogs in my in-house program, so have formed certain opinions on training these types of dogs. Not dominant or unruly dogs. Dogs that have very serious behavioral disorders, some having attacked their owners, having killed another dog, some that come to me on medication, ect. Love Ian Dunbar, as you'll see from my previous posts. His was one of the first workshops I took many years ago, really enjoyed him and yes, he has changed over the years. And yes... certain pieces of equipment in the wrong hands can do great harm, as well. Everyone has very valid points on this thread. Having said this, I'm sure no one was suggesting that trainers who use certain equipment are abusive to their charges, or are using poor judgement in teaching students about different types of equipment, either. I think it's very easy to misinterpret a response put in print, and that seems to be what's happening here. I believe I may have thrown the first stone, "I get a lot of client coming to me from trainers who won't use, ect, ect" My apologies. From the sounds of it, we all have something important to contribute and hopefully can redirect some of this "energy" toward individuals more deserving of it. Hell... where's that guy who bred his 8 mo. old Chi when you need him !!? Ha! Have a good night guys.

That is the reason why it there is this "revolution" in dog training. The concepts aren't new the methods aren't new, they aren't "better", they aren't more "effective", its not a matter of "knowing better so you'll do better", they are SAFER. Suggesting that people that may use an aversive or not are uneducated etc, well, keep thinking what you want. I can give you more conversations i've had with the people referenced her most often, McConnel, Dunbar etc., research from current books done by some of the most respected animal behaviorists of the day, that talk about the pro's and con's of all types of training, when they can be used, how they should be administered, their effectiveness in certain situations, etc, but sadly, i've done it before and usually it just gets ignored, or it must be "outdated".

back to the quote above, using positive only can cause stress in an animal too. I've seen my share of animals that have some interesting displacement behaviors thru the misapplication of "positive" methods. Not doing that correctly can give a neurotic dog, although, you are correct, hammering on a choke chain all day will give a much uglier relationship than not clicking and treating at the right time.