+R makes dogs "softer"??
- Thread starter lizzybeth727
- Start date
This makes me wonder if their expectations were very realistic. What is exactly is irritating to them? For people who aren't dog people, the most ordinary things in the world are annoying. Things like wagging a tail too enthusiastically, standing in the way, farting, the dog licking it's bottom, whining to be let out to potty at an inconvenient time, etc. I mean, service dogs are not robots. Yes, they are highly trained and obedient, and yes him barking is not okay (well, bottom licking on duty isn't either). But if they aren't able to handle him being a dog once in a while without resorting to yelling at him, were they really prepared to have a service dog?
Since none of the trainers in your program had this problem with him, and he never had this problem in all the different environments he's been in, I would think there is some issue with his current handling that is causing the behavior.
Since none of the trainers in your program had this problem with him, and he never had this problem in all the different environments he's been in, I would think there is some issue with his current handling that is causing the behavior.
Yes, maybe these two dogs should not have made the program. Keeping in mind that they didn't show these behaviors in the year that they were in training before these families took them, and keeping in mind that we do a multitude of evaluations including judging the dogs' reactions when we yell at them (though we don't yell at them during training), how would you suggest we determine that these dogs two dogs shouldn't have made it?
Again, we trained these dogs for a year teaching them boundaries and social behavior. Service dogs have to work in pet stores, toy stores, restaurants, parks.... I personally worked these dogs in these settings and had to teach them self control, patience, and compliance (as well as how to do complicated behavior chains necessary to their service work) with everything that distracted them. Had they not done this successfully with me, and had I not been confident they would do this successfully with someone less skilled and less abled than myself, I would not have placed them with those people. What else do you suggest I do to prepare them to live with humans?
We worked 1-on-1 with the recipient for five full days. We now have a trainer who workes with her in her home for at least 2 hours per week, usually more. Keeping in mind that we are a non profit and are funded 100% through private donations and private grants, what else do you suggest we do?
That's what we're doing, that's why I started this thread. My question, in my OP, was if there is a side-effect in +R training that would contribute to dogs being more sensitive. I wasnt' aware that you yourself had a lot of experience with +R training techniques and operant conditioning in general, but if you have any ideas about my OP, I'd love to hear them.
The president of our organization is staunchly pro +R. To the point where -P is out of the question for her. If I were to comply completely to that policy, IMO the dogs would take much longer to train and would not be nearly as reliable in the real world. Instead, the other trainers and I do use all four quadrants of operant conditioning to train dogs, though we do use +R and -P the most. Do you think I have a personal agenda, that I need to proove something at the risk of risking someone's life who depends on their dog??
Again, we trained these dogs for a year teaching them boundaries and social behavior. Service dogs have to work in pet stores, toy stores, restaurants, parks.... I personally worked these dogs in these settings and had to teach them self control, patience, and compliance (as well as how to do complicated behavior chains necessary to their service work) with everything that distracted them. Had they not done this successfully with me, and had I not been confident they would do this successfully with someone less skilled and less abled than myself, I would not have placed them with those people. What else do you suggest I do to prepare them to live with humans?
We worked 1-on-1 with the recipient for five full days. We now have a trainer who workes with her in her home for at least 2 hours per week, usually more. Keeping in mind that we are a non profit and are funded 100% through private donations and private grants, what else do you suggest we do?
That's what we're doing, that's why I started this thread. My question, in my OP, was if there is a side-effect in +R training that would contribute to dogs being more sensitive. I wasnt' aware that you yourself had a lot of experience with +R training techniques and operant conditioning in general, but if you have any ideas about my OP, I'd love to hear them.
The president of our organization is staunchly pro +R. To the point where -P is out of the question for her. If I were to comply completely to that policy, IMO the dogs would take much longer to train and would not be nearly as reliable in the real world. Instead, the other trainers and I do use all four quadrants of operant conditioning to train dogs, though we do use +R and -P the most. Do you think I have a personal agenda, that I need to proove something at the risk of risking someone's life who depends on their dog??
Does anyone else get a feeling that a lot of remarks made in the later part of this thread are just snideness? Or is just me?
I feel the questions Angelique asked initially were very fair, and very appropriate.
The original question was does +R make dogs "softer". I haven't seen anyone say it does, or feel it does, but some like me, feel it can allow some things to go unnoticed that would otherwise be uncovered in training regarding an individual dog.
and you've since said that you still test for that stuff, which then leads me to believe the recipients of these dogs had unreal expectations, or the assesment of the dogs was off.
or the expectation management of the recipient was not sufficient, or the pairing of dog from the foster home to the "real world" home wasn't correct.
Unless one of us has the intimate knowledge the OP has about the program and what was actually done in training or with the recipient of the dogs to prepare them, or how the match was made, or the specific problems the dog is having how would we know how to answer questions that are posed back?
I feel the questions Angelique asked initially were very fair, and very appropriate.
The original question was does +R make dogs "softer". I haven't seen anyone say it does, or feel it does, but some like me, feel it can allow some things to go unnoticed that would otherwise be uncovered in training regarding an individual dog.
and you've since said that you still test for that stuff, which then leads me to believe the recipients of these dogs had unreal expectations, or the assesment of the dogs was off.
or the expectation management of the recipient was not sufficient, or the pairing of dog from the foster home to the "real world" home wasn't correct.
Unless one of us has the intimate knowledge the OP has about the program and what was actually done in training or with the recipient of the dogs to prepare them, or how the match was made, or the specific problems the dog is having how would we know how to answer questions that are posed back?
Mmmmm roast beef CP. That's giving me ideas.
RTH. I think some of us interpreted the questions to be as they habitually are by this poster.....snide. There is a general, steady supply of comments about trainers who use science to train as people who have a "personal agenda" (this has been repeated many times). Another repetitive and insulting inference this poster has made over time is that dogs trained by people who do not use "Cesar Milan's" harsh and forceful methods do not prepare dogs for the "real" world....that dogs trained by applied veterinary behaviorists with advanced degrees or other trainers in these various venues are somehow in La la land and not in the "real" world and their dogs can't handle "real life." Is real life meant to be on the receiving end of harsh mistreatment by humans? It is never confirmed when asked what "real" life is.
To persitently imply that trainers who use minimal positive punishment in training animals are somehow living in an imagined, drug-like induced fantasy land, where science has no meritt and neither does clear demonstration or proof....is unmistakenly passive aggressive behavior. So surely you can see from where the intolerance comes.
The OP described already, I thought... how the dogs are observed in the homes, how the people are coached in the continued training of the dogs with continued visits to their homes etc. The vast majority of the dog owning public are idiots with dogs. Of course they have unrealistic expectations. It's rampant and it's the cause of dogs being euthanized by the billions every day. They expect dogs to be humans in fur coats and if they don't comply, they receive pain or fear. All the education in the world doesn't get through to most people. They run off emotion like a car runs on gas... and if the dog does something that makes them mad, they take it out on the dog. They remain stuck in the quagmire of the "show 'em whose boss" theory if they have a theory at all.
Take that one for instance: Is that for real? These dogs are some of the most highly trained dogs on the planet. What they are trained to do, by default requires that they have some social skills regarding boundaries. See....if I were a trainer of some of these dogs, I'd take exception to this insinuation that these dogs are not trained to have any boundaries...that they are not schooled to relate socially to or comply with trained instructions. It is patently obvious that they are. It's the recipients who screw them up sometimes...undo their training. There is a limit to the funds that can be continually churned out for these people who I don't know if they even pay for these dogs and their training. And there is a limit to what can be expected from another species. And I believe the organization does the best it possibly can.
You may find the questions fair and I will concede that some are indeed reasonable and fair....and without a "personal agenda." But as is customary, there are opportunistic, insulting jabs subliminally (or not so subliminally) slipped in there a plenty.
RTH. I think some of us interpreted the questions to be as they habitually are by this poster.....snide. There is a general, steady supply of comments about trainers who use science to train as people who have a "personal agenda" (this has been repeated many times). Another repetitive and insulting inference this poster has made over time is that dogs trained by people who do not use "Cesar Milan's" harsh and forceful methods do not prepare dogs for the "real" world....that dogs trained by applied veterinary behaviorists with advanced degrees or other trainers in these various venues are somehow in La la land and not in the "real" world and their dogs can't handle "real life." Is real life meant to be on the receiving end of harsh mistreatment by humans? It is never confirmed when asked what "real" life is.
To persitently imply that trainers who use minimal positive punishment in training animals are somehow living in an imagined, drug-like induced fantasy land, where science has no meritt and neither does clear demonstration or proof....is unmistakenly passive aggressive behavior. So surely you can see from where the intolerance comes.
The OP described already, I thought... how the dogs are observed in the homes, how the people are coached in the continued training of the dogs with continued visits to their homes etc. The vast majority of the dog owning public are idiots with dogs. Of course they have unrealistic expectations. It's rampant and it's the cause of dogs being euthanized by the billions every day. They expect dogs to be humans in fur coats and if they don't comply, they receive pain or fear. All the education in the world doesn't get through to most people. They run off emotion like a car runs on gas... and if the dog does something that makes them mad, they take it out on the dog. They remain stuck in the quagmire of the "show 'em whose boss" theory if they have a theory at all.
Take that one for instance: Is that for real? These dogs are some of the most highly trained dogs on the planet. What they are trained to do, by default requires that they have some social skills regarding boundaries. See....if I were a trainer of some of these dogs, I'd take exception to this insinuation that these dogs are not trained to have any boundaries...that they are not schooled to relate socially to or comply with trained instructions. It is patently obvious that they are. It's the recipients who screw them up sometimes...undo their training. There is a limit to the funds that can be continually churned out for these people who I don't know if they even pay for these dogs and their training. And there is a limit to what can be expected from another species. And I believe the organization does the best it possibly can.
You may find the questions fair and I will concede that some are indeed reasonable and fair....and without a "personal agenda." But as is customary, there are opportunistic, insulting jabs subliminally (or not so subliminally) slipped in there a plenty.
I read "snide" in those comments too, but I agreed with what they said. But the snide isn't from just one person
I can see why it comes from both sides honestly. I'm very comfortable with how I train the dogs I have. I'm extremely happy with my dogs and our relationship, that's all that really matters to me. But i'm pretty sure people don't like to be made to feel stupid or un-loving or caring no matter which "side" they're on.
oh, I agree, I could see the dig in that one too
like I said, there were more than one comment that just gave me an "off" feeling reading thru.
Lastly i'm not saying they do a bad job. I just gave my own little opinion and admittedly I don't know anything about their organization or how they do things. Even when we do everything "right" things can still end up, well, not how we want them to be. and that can really suck when you put in that time, energy and money only to have it blow up in your face with ungrateful people.
I can see why it comes from both sides honestly. I'm very comfortable with how I train the dogs I have. I'm extremely happy with my dogs and our relationship, that's all that really matters to me. But i'm pretty sure people don't like to be made to feel stupid or un-loving or caring no matter which "side" they're on.
oh, I agree, I could see the dig in that one too
like I said, there were more than one comment that just gave me an "off" feeling reading thru.Lastly i'm not saying they do a bad job. I just gave my own little opinion and admittedly I don't know anything about their organization or how they do things. Even when we do everything "right" things can still end up, well, not how we want them to be. and that can really suck when you put in that time, energy and money only to have it blow up in your face with ungrateful people.
I think every dog is an individual like any human and the training should be tailored to the dog to make him a happy confident worker. Some dogs need very gentle leadership and will turn sommersaults to please while others might need a bolder approach to show them that we mean business. Harsh punishment is never on my agenda for any dog.
Keeping in mind that dogs are animals, (not human, without our cognitive abilities or our moral values) do you really think that dogs turn summersalts to please....when there's nothing in it for them? Do they even know the reasons why we like certain things certain ways? And how do you think dogs know what we mean when we mean business? How is "we mean business" translated in a dog's mind? Do you think they know or are aware of the goings on in our minds....the parts of our thinking, the logical, thought out process that relates to "we mean business." ? I'm not sure I understand what this all means...How smart do you think dogs are? When we "mean business," what would you say is going through a dog's mind cognitively and morally? Does the dog think at all about what we value and either want to please and comply with what we see as valuable or flip us off and go be irresponsible and chase a squirrel, in spite of some peoples' expectations of morality from their dog?
Just pondering how a bolder approach....showing them we mean business is translated by a dog and what they're really learning. Or are they obeying and simply avoiding something without all that cognitive complexity?
Just pondering how a bolder approach....showing them we mean business is translated by a dog and what they're really learning. Or are they obeying and simply avoiding something without all that cognitive complexity?
First, how many training programs regardless of the method has 100% success rate with all of the animals??? None that I know of........
The other question is do you use the game 'Slap Da Baby' and have the foster start the game when the pups are tiny? That game could be very useful to you for toughening the dogs up for people yelling and possibly hitting them.
The other question is do you use the game 'Slap Da Baby' and have the foster start the game when the pups are tiny? That game could be very useful to you for toughening the dogs up for people yelling and possibly hitting them.
Doberluve when my dogs start jumping for joy when I get the training articles out then I assume they are enjoying the training and when they can't wait to obey a command I also assume they are enjoying it. I don't worry about what's going on in their minds or how they are translating it if they are that happy to train. My training will then be done in a happy joyful attitude same as they have. If by chance they decided to refuse a command and fool around, then my tone of voice would change to a serious deeper voice and they would instantly recognize that it's time to settle down and work seriously.
I train my dogs as individuals and I treat them as individuals without worrying if it's time to play Freud.
Can't be doing that bad since I've earned all my titles with all the dogs I've ever trained.
When the training is finished if I decide I want to study psychology the shelves in my library are full of books.
I train my dogs as individuals and I treat them as individuals without worrying if it's time to play Freud.
Can't be doing that bad since I've earned all my titles with all the dogs I've ever trained.
When the training is finished if I decide I want to study psychology the shelves in my library are full of books.
In addition to what Doberluv said, I'll just add: I found each question that Angelique asked to be insulting to either me personally or to my organization. Most of the questions she asked were already answered previously in this thread; and on top of that, she never indicated either personal experience with +R training or evidence that +R makes dogs "softer" like was the original question. I took her post to be nothing more than a dig on myself and my organization - like saying, "See, I told you +R doesn't work."
I feel like I kept my answers civil nontheless, but since it's been a few days and she hasn't answered my questions, I feel like that means she's not following this thread any more.
Now I've lost you.... which questions?? Is there something you want me to answer??
I feel like I kept my answers civil nontheless, but since it's been a few days and she hasn't answered my questions, I feel like that means she's not following this thread any more.
Now I've lost you.... which questions?? Is there something you want me to answer??
I wasn't critizing you Springtime. I'm not asking you to worry about if it's time to "play" Freud or to trouble yourself in any way. I am genuinely interested in what might be going on in their minds. It's something that I think about all the time....just what might they be capturing from us. It might be more than meets the eye since they've probably had a convergent evolution with humans. This is something I've done a fair amount of research on and some of what they understand from us and what they don't is up for scrutiny. However, so far as we know....at this point, it appears that they aren't as sophisticated as a lot of people assume. You aren't required to answer my post or join in about psychology of dogs. It was just something I felt like popping into the discussion. And some things you wrote prompted me or made me think of it. My dogs enjoy training time too just like you describe. They like to "obey" commands because they have a strong history of reinforcement for compliance. They don't enjoy obeying commands just for the sake of obeying. IMO of course.
:hail::hail::hail:
:hail::hail::hail:
If there's nothing in it for them, no. But for some dogs, being with the owner and having the owner pleased with them is sufficiently reinforcing.
The first time Ares nailed his sit at halt, I smiled such a huge smile. Not intending for that to be rewarding, but it was. I was so pleased with him. By the time he got treats for it, the timing was way too late for the connection between treats and sit at halt. That smile I gave, that immense happiness I showed him, was rewarding to him. I could see that in the way he looked back at me - he sat, I beamed and then he got proud of himself - puffed out his chest, sat a little taller, and was so intent on the next halt to get it right again.
Tyr absolutely finds training to be rewarding. But I don't think it's a desire to perform obedience commands, it's a desire to be with me, and he's learned that being with me includes obedience training. He is very much reinforced by social approval - mine or the other dogs, and he makes a lot of effort to receive inclusion both in his interactions with me and with the other dogs. Clear disapproval ~ ignoring, certain tones of voice, another dog snapping at him, etc. are very strong punishers for him. He can handle a light collar correction much better than he can handle being ignored. I am Tyr's strongest motivator. My praise can get him to ignore food and toys.
The first time Ares nailed his sit at halt, I smiled such a huge smile. Not intending for that to be rewarding, but it was. I was so pleased with him. By the time he got treats for it, the timing was way too late for the connection between treats and sit at halt. That smile I gave, that immense happiness I showed him, was rewarding to him. I could see that in the way he looked back at me - he sat, I beamed and then he got proud of himself - puffed out his chest, sat a little taller, and was so intent on the next halt to get it right again.
Tyr absolutely finds training to be rewarding. But I don't think it's a desire to perform obedience commands, it's a desire to be with me, and he's learned that being with me includes obedience training. He is very much reinforced by social approval - mine or the other dogs, and he makes a lot of effort to receive inclusion both in his interactions with me and with the other dogs. Clear disapproval ~ ignoring, certain tones of voice, another dog snapping at him, etc. are very strong punishers for him. He can handle a light collar correction much better than he can handle being ignored. I am Tyr's strongest motivator. My praise can get him to ignore food and toys.
- Joined
- May 22, 2009
- Messages
- 33
- Likes
- 0
- Points
- 0
I find these views to be supremely ignorant. Science is an inductive approach that is based on evidence. It is the objective standard by which we obtain new knowledge.
Steve White who has trained police dog for 30 years doesn't seem to think so. I don't know how much more "real" you can get when facing the barrel of a gun or being beaten by a suspect and still doing the job you were trained to do. And these principles are applied by other police and military units. What can get more "real" than that... all their objections fall before this fact.
When you want to train a "real" dog, you don't call Millan or his dominance crowd, you call Steve White and his clicker.
Did +R make my SchutzIII dogs soft? Not in the least and it also did not make my new dog with his recently acquired Brevet soft. I expect that in he will prove equally "hard" when we trial for our first FR leg and PSA trial.
Steve White who has trained police dog for 30 years doesn't seem to think so. I don't know how much more "real" you can get when facing the barrel of a gun or being beaten by a suspect and still doing the job you were trained to do. And these principles are applied by other police and military units. What can get more "real" than that... all their objections fall before this fact.
When you want to train a "real" dog, you don't call Millan or his dominance crowd, you call Steve White and his clicker.
Did +R make my SchutzIII dogs soft? Not in the least and it also did not make my new dog with his recently acquired Brevet soft. I expect that in he will prove equally "hard" when we trial for our first FR leg and PSA trial.