What is the best method of....
- Thread starter oose
- Start date
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2006
- Messages
- 587
- Likes
- 0
- Points
- 0
Doberluv, you asked Why use corrections? Here's why.
I see dogs who have never "had" to do anything, have only ever been given the 'choice' with 'purely positive methods', lose it when they're made to instead of choosing to. Not a desirable effect and not what I'm going for.
A correction can mean different things, it's not just a collar pop. Those are infrequently used here, hardly ever with my own dogs because they don't need it, and only on client dogs when the situation warrents it. Which is not often. But it does happen.
I might use placement instead for example if the dog doesn't sit on command, this is a 'correction' since it's positive punishment but it's far from being harsh or hostile with the dog. Being made to sit calmly with placement can speed along the learning process. Very useful. Use it a lot paired with rewards. Produces a happy and willing dog.
The argument can be made 'well you shouldn't have said sit unless the dog was %100 reliable already, you didn't practice enough, you didn't shape it correctly, you didn't, you didn't, you didn't." and to that I say....get real. Life happens, distractions happen, some folks would never make it out the front door if they had to wait to say every cue untill thier dog was reliable.
This is where placement is useful. Gives you something to do in order to help the dog along, and lets you use your commands when you need them instead of waiting untill they're perfect before you can utter the word SIT.
I can't count the number of times people have asked me if I clicker train an when I say yes, but it's not ALL we do, I can almost hear a sigh of relief. People get frustrated with purely positive because of the lack of consequences, they get frustrated because by nature we humans have to DO something in order to help a situation along if it hits a roadblock. Using gentle placement for certain commands gives them something they can do to help the dog learn and lets them see progress around actual distractions much faster.
Faster equals happy clients, and happy clients equal dogs that stay in their current home. That's why I use them, because they make it clearer for the dog and make it faster for the owners. People don't want to spend three months shaping their dog not to jump or ignoreing the dog by turning away while their back or legs get scratched up. It's just not practical.
There's learning theory, and then there's the real world.
Haven't ever had someone hang up after I've said I use other methods aside from positive. Not ever. That says a lot right there.
I see dogs who have never "had" to do anything, have only ever been given the 'choice' with 'purely positive methods', lose it when they're made to instead of choosing to. Not a desirable effect and not what I'm going for.
A correction can mean different things, it's not just a collar pop. Those are infrequently used here, hardly ever with my own dogs because they don't need it, and only on client dogs when the situation warrents it. Which is not often. But it does happen.
I might use placement instead for example if the dog doesn't sit on command, this is a 'correction' since it's positive punishment but it's far from being harsh or hostile with the dog. Being made to sit calmly with placement can speed along the learning process. Very useful. Use it a lot paired with rewards. Produces a happy and willing dog.
The argument can be made 'well you shouldn't have said sit unless the dog was %100 reliable already, you didn't practice enough, you didn't shape it correctly, you didn't, you didn't, you didn't." and to that I say....get real. Life happens, distractions happen, some folks would never make it out the front door if they had to wait to say every cue untill thier dog was reliable.
This is where placement is useful. Gives you something to do in order to help the dog along, and lets you use your commands when you need them instead of waiting untill they're perfect before you can utter the word SIT.
I can't count the number of times people have asked me if I clicker train an when I say yes, but it's not ALL we do, I can almost hear a sigh of relief. People get frustrated with purely positive because of the lack of consequences, they get frustrated because by nature we humans have to DO something in order to help a situation along if it hits a roadblock. Using gentle placement for certain commands gives them something they can do to help the dog learn and lets them see progress around actual distractions much faster.
Faster equals happy clients, and happy clients equal dogs that stay in their current home. That's why I use them, because they make it clearer for the dog and make it faster for the owners. People don't want to spend three months shaping their dog not to jump or ignoreing the dog by turning away while their back or legs get scratched up. It's just not practical.
There's learning theory, and then there's the real world.
Haven't ever had someone hang up after I've said I use other methods aside from positive. Not ever. That says a lot right there.
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2006
- Messages
- 587
- Likes
- 0
- Points
- 0
Exactly. However, the act of making the dog sit by placement can be considered by some as positive punishment.
Many also object because you're not letting the dog 'figure it out' on his own, or you're using 'force' by placing him gently. Apparently to some practically anything that involves touching the dog is 'force'. Which is think it ridiculous.
Many also object because you're not letting the dog 'figure it out' on his own, or you're using 'force' by placing him gently. Apparently to some practically anything that involves touching the dog is 'force'. Which is think it ridiculous.
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2006
- Messages
- 1,083
- Likes
- 0
- Points
- 0
While I believe strongly in the use of positive reinforcement, I do believe there is a place for physical corrections.
Sitting back and reading this thread, I can see why people get so irritated with those who promote positive training (and I've been in that position, I fully admit it). There's seems to be a certain amount of "holier than thou" attitude when someone says that corrections are NEVER necessary and they would NEVER use them. It creates the feeling that anyone who does use a physical correction of any kind is just pond scum.
Just giving my gut feeling when I read all of this - and I got the same feeling on a previous thread about scruff shaking.
I've been training seriously since 1988. I started with a lot of correction, and that was definitely wrong. It created a fear relationship with the dogs.
I went to purely positive. My dogs LOVED me - but there was definitely a lack of consistent obedience with the dogs. It wasn't as easy to compete, that was for sure. Positive reinforcement training is a beautiful thing, but when the dog has no sense of consequence and something better comes along, you're going to lose the focus.
Now, before someone objects to that .. there are dogs that can be trained by positive reinforcement to the point where they think there is nothing better than doing what their owner wants. In those cases, you're not going to lose the focus of the dog because "something better" never comes along. Generally I've found that these are dogs that are of breeds who want to please their owners anyhow. My shepherds fall into this category, which is why Trick can be off-leash ANYWHERE and I trust her. I can heel her through town alongside of a four lane highway and I don't have any fear that she'll go out into traffic. We work regularly in the parking lot of a busy store, with her off-leash. This is the type of dog that doesn't need much in the way of corrections.
But when you have a dog that has an extremely strong level of independent thought, it's a whole different ball park. All three of my chows fall into this category. I have a huge background in training. I've studied and practiced and used my techniques on hundreds and hundreds of dogs. I've trained and shown to nearly 30 performance titles. One of my chows was the #1 chow two years in obedience in the U.S., and earned over 130 Delaney points in open level obedience (beating goldens, border collies, labs, etc.).
I train as far as I can with positive training with the chows. But the only way I've found to make them dependable off-leash is to fall back on some physical corrections. I know, I had the option to not ever let them off-leash. But if we're talking being able to train dogs using all positives, if it truly works as some claim then ALL dogs should be able to be trained to the same level of reliability using positives, and that's just not true. Overall, you are not going to get the same reliability off-leash with a chow using all positives than you are a German shepherd. It's just not as natural for the chow to want to please.
My young chow knows close to 70 commands consistently, and all were trained initially with positives. But off-leash outdoors? I spent 16 months doing a positive recall with her. EVERY time she came to me, she was reinforced and praised and treated. We started with little short recalls and played the recall game over and over. I ran from her and hid so she could find me. I used her meals, flavored with tasty meat, and worked on recalls both indoors and out. We did recalls everywhere - at home, at the lodge, in town, at classes, etc. She does a GORGEOUS competition recall where she leaps into the air and hits the ground running. It looks amazing.
And then she hit adolescence going into maturity and decided that there were places she had to explore. At unpredictable times she'd take off. I went back to a long line, re-trained her to a different command using all positives, best treats I could find, etc. After two straight months of this, I tried off-leash again and mid-play she tucked her butt and hauled off into the woods. Calling her didn't even result in a glance back.
So here's the positive trained dog who has had everything done right to this point - now we're at 18 months of training. I weighed my options carefully and felt I had the following options: never let her off-leash again, or give her some sort of consequence to the action of running off.
By the way, the total number of times she ran off was FOUR. It wasn't a hugely developed habit, but I was afraid she'd take on a moose when she ran off or someone would pick her up and keep her (she's so darn CUTE and friendly). I didn't want her hurt or lost.
I didn't just add in a correction when she ran - I went through a carefully planned set of exercises to teach her that there was a consequence and she could choose to avoid the consequence by responding to me quickly. It was very effective and because it was used sparingly, I have seen NO averse effects to our relationship.
I would love to believe that "no physical corrections" would work with all dogs, but in my experience that's just not true. It may work with a large number of dogs. I went through a lot of anguish over the choice to do this, but I also realize that if I'd done it earlier it would have been even better.
I live with a pack of bitches - four at this point - and there are things I do that others may consider physical corrections. If I'm walking across the floor, I run into them if they choose not to get out of my way. They HAVE to know to move. I have an auto-immune disease that attacks my joints and if I'm flared and trip over a dog, I'm in for a world of hurt (as are they, when I land on them!). I can't always see them to tell them to move. I suppose I could figure out a way to reinforce them for every time they move, but that would be extremely difficult given the circumstances here. So I take the lazy way out and I bump them out of the way with my legs. They don't yelp .. it's not designed to hurt .. but it's definitely a physical correction. If I'm clipping nails and my dog decides to get up and move, I push the dog back down and say "knock it off, I'm almost done". That's another physical correction.
I'm sorry if I insult anyone, but to say "there's NEVER a place for physical correction" is naive and wrong in my eyes. I don't recommend physical corrections for general day-to-day training and I never get on an online forum and say "your dog needs a big pop with a prong collar on". But I also never say "physical corrections are absolutely bad" because I'd be a hypocrite if I said so. I think almost everyone at some time uses a physical correction, and that correction does not have to equal abuse or pain.
Melanie and the gang in Alaska
Sitting back and reading this thread, I can see why people get so irritated with those who promote positive training (and I've been in that position, I fully admit it). There's seems to be a certain amount of "holier than thou" attitude when someone says that corrections are NEVER necessary and they would NEVER use them. It creates the feeling that anyone who does use a physical correction of any kind is just pond scum.
Just giving my gut feeling when I read all of this - and I got the same feeling on a previous thread about scruff shaking.
I've been training seriously since 1988. I started with a lot of correction, and that was definitely wrong. It created a fear relationship with the dogs.
I went to purely positive. My dogs LOVED me - but there was definitely a lack of consistent obedience with the dogs. It wasn't as easy to compete, that was for sure. Positive reinforcement training is a beautiful thing, but when the dog has no sense of consequence and something better comes along, you're going to lose the focus.
Now, before someone objects to that .. there are dogs that can be trained by positive reinforcement to the point where they think there is nothing better than doing what their owner wants. In those cases, you're not going to lose the focus of the dog because "something better" never comes along. Generally I've found that these are dogs that are of breeds who want to please their owners anyhow. My shepherds fall into this category, which is why Trick can be off-leash ANYWHERE and I trust her. I can heel her through town alongside of a four lane highway and I don't have any fear that she'll go out into traffic. We work regularly in the parking lot of a busy store, with her off-leash. This is the type of dog that doesn't need much in the way of corrections.
But when you have a dog that has an extremely strong level of independent thought, it's a whole different ball park. All three of my chows fall into this category. I have a huge background in training. I've studied and practiced and used my techniques on hundreds and hundreds of dogs. I've trained and shown to nearly 30 performance titles. One of my chows was the #1 chow two years in obedience in the U.S., and earned over 130 Delaney points in open level obedience (beating goldens, border collies, labs, etc.).
I train as far as I can with positive training with the chows. But the only way I've found to make them dependable off-leash is to fall back on some physical corrections. I know, I had the option to not ever let them off-leash. But if we're talking being able to train dogs using all positives, if it truly works as some claim then ALL dogs should be able to be trained to the same level of reliability using positives, and that's just not true. Overall, you are not going to get the same reliability off-leash with a chow using all positives than you are a German shepherd. It's just not as natural for the chow to want to please.
My young chow knows close to 70 commands consistently, and all were trained initially with positives. But off-leash outdoors? I spent 16 months doing a positive recall with her. EVERY time she came to me, she was reinforced and praised and treated. We started with little short recalls and played the recall game over and over. I ran from her and hid so she could find me. I used her meals, flavored with tasty meat, and worked on recalls both indoors and out. We did recalls everywhere - at home, at the lodge, in town, at classes, etc. She does a GORGEOUS competition recall where she leaps into the air and hits the ground running. It looks amazing.
And then she hit adolescence going into maturity and decided that there were places she had to explore. At unpredictable times she'd take off. I went back to a long line, re-trained her to a different command using all positives, best treats I could find, etc. After two straight months of this, I tried off-leash again and mid-play she tucked her butt and hauled off into the woods. Calling her didn't even result in a glance back.
So here's the positive trained dog who has had everything done right to this point - now we're at 18 months of training. I weighed my options carefully and felt I had the following options: never let her off-leash again, or give her some sort of consequence to the action of running off.
By the way, the total number of times she ran off was FOUR. It wasn't a hugely developed habit, but I was afraid she'd take on a moose when she ran off or someone would pick her up and keep her (she's so darn CUTE and friendly). I didn't want her hurt or lost.
I didn't just add in a correction when she ran - I went through a carefully planned set of exercises to teach her that there was a consequence and she could choose to avoid the consequence by responding to me quickly. It was very effective and because it was used sparingly, I have seen NO averse effects to our relationship.
I would love to believe that "no physical corrections" would work with all dogs, but in my experience that's just not true. It may work with a large number of dogs. I went through a lot of anguish over the choice to do this, but I also realize that if I'd done it earlier it would have been even better.
I live with a pack of bitches - four at this point - and there are things I do that others may consider physical corrections. If I'm walking across the floor, I run into them if they choose not to get out of my way. They HAVE to know to move. I have an auto-immune disease that attacks my joints and if I'm flared and trip over a dog, I'm in for a world of hurt (as are they, when I land on them!). I can't always see them to tell them to move. I suppose I could figure out a way to reinforce them for every time they move, but that would be extremely difficult given the circumstances here. So I take the lazy way out and I bump them out of the way with my legs. They don't yelp .. it's not designed to hurt .. but it's definitely a physical correction. If I'm clipping nails and my dog decides to get up and move, I push the dog back down and say "knock it off, I'm almost done". That's another physical correction.
I'm sorry if I insult anyone, but to say "there's NEVER a place for physical correction" is naive and wrong in my eyes. I don't recommend physical corrections for general day-to-day training and I never get on an online forum and say "your dog needs a big pop with a prong collar on". But I also never say "physical corrections are absolutely bad" because I'd be a hypocrite if I said so. I think almost everyone at some time uses a physical correction, and that correction does not have to equal abuse or pain.
Melanie and the gang in Alaska
Melanie, that's got to be about the best argument I have ever seen with a valid, rational and logical explanation for reasons for occasional use of physical correction to get a message across. I feel that this particular viewpoint needed some better illumination, especially to people like me who are wholly on the `positive' side of the fence.
I am new to training and still learning, and am firmly in the positive camp and know I will stay there. However, whilst I intend to learn and practice and formulate my own methods, the input of knowledge and experience such as yours cannot be quantified in terms of its value. Thank you.
I am new to training and still learning, and am firmly in the positive camp and know I will stay there. However, whilst I intend to learn and practice and formulate my own methods, the input of knowledge and experience such as yours cannot be quantified in terms of its value. Thank you.
While I believe strongly in the use of positive reinforcement, I do believe there is a place for physical corrections.
Sitting back and reading this thread, I can see why people get so irritated with those who promote positive training (and I've been in that position, I fully admit it). There's seems to be a certain amount of "holier than thou" attitude when someone says that corrections are NEVER necessary and they would NEVER use them. It creates the feeling that anyone who does use a physical correction of any kind is just pond scum.
You know Melanie, I can only be who I am and do what I do. I really DO NOT use physical aversives in training. If you'll read back you'll actually see who began with the defensive behavior you'll find that I NEVER begin having to defend WHAT I ACTUALLY DO until others changed the tone. This thread began with a very good exchange. My first "holier that thou"
statement came when I stated that it was irresponsible to recommend physical correction in this forum. I ABSOLUTELY STAND BY THAT and I think you're well aware of why that is.
Using words like 'holier than thou' and pond scum'.....What do you and everyone else want me to say. I train EVERY breed and work with EVERY imaginable behavior problem and I do it successfully WITHOUT physical correction. And yes, even emergency recall with difficult breeds such as sight hounds..
I too began using physical correction, I did Schutz for goodness sakes in the late 70's and early 80, that was just about ALL that the groups that I worked with did. It was horrible. I did my best to evolve and continued to use aversives, while milder..with more and more positive reinforcement and found a beautiful difference in the dogs that I worked with.
I have never said that I use NO AVERSIVES, but rather NO PHYSICAL AVERSIVES...I do it very successfully and will not say otherwise...what do people want me to say???
Also, this is not about a dogs desire to please...not by a long shot. That's statement is something that you'll never hear me use for a reason. Nor is it about my desire for my dogs love, although I do admittedly want my dogs to love me and feel safe with me. Dog's do what works for them, certainly not what they think makes us happy.
Consequence does not have to mean something physical either. I use negative reward, short sessions, and I keep a few cards behind my back for when adolesence strikes so that I don't have to resort to physical correction. I give these tools to clients in puppy class with the "heads up" that they must anticipate and plan for this developmental stage that can shake training up to varying degrees and be very challenging at times.
Consequence by definition is really cause and effect, not cause and punishment. It's something that a dog can predict, period.
Again, I will not say that I use physical correction when I don't or that in some cases it's necessary when I find that in my own professional experience it is not. I find it very disheartening that anyone, particularly you, would chalk this up to a holier than thou attitude......
Sitting back and reading this thread, I can see why people get so irritated with those who promote positive training (and I've been in that position, I fully admit it). There's seems to be a certain amount of "holier than thou" attitude when someone says that corrections are NEVER necessary and they would NEVER use them. It creates the feeling that anyone who does use a physical correction of any kind is just pond scum.
You know Melanie, I can only be who I am and do what I do. I really DO NOT use physical aversives in training. If you'll read back you'll actually see who began with the defensive behavior you'll find that I NEVER begin having to defend WHAT I ACTUALLY DO until others changed the tone. This thread began with a very good exchange. My first "holier that thou"
statement came when I stated that it was irresponsible to recommend physical correction in this forum. I ABSOLUTELY STAND BY THAT and I think you're well aware of why that is.Using words like 'holier than thou' and pond scum'.....What do you and everyone else want me to say. I train EVERY breed and work with EVERY imaginable behavior problem and I do it successfully WITHOUT physical correction. And yes, even emergency recall with difficult breeds such as sight hounds..
I too began using physical correction, I did Schutz for goodness sakes in the late 70's and early 80, that was just about ALL that the groups that I worked with did. It was horrible. I did my best to evolve and continued to use aversives, while milder..with more and more positive reinforcement and found a beautiful difference in the dogs that I worked with.
I have never said that I use NO AVERSIVES, but rather NO PHYSICAL AVERSIVES...I do it very successfully and will not say otherwise...what do people want me to say???
Also, this is not about a dogs desire to please...not by a long shot. That's statement is something that you'll never hear me use for a reason. Nor is it about my desire for my dogs love, although I do admittedly want my dogs to love me and feel safe with me. Dog's do what works for them, certainly not what they think makes us happy.
Consequence does not have to mean something physical either. I use negative reward, short sessions, and I keep a few cards behind my back for when adolesence strikes so that I don't have to resort to physical correction. I give these tools to clients in puppy class with the "heads up" that they must anticipate and plan for this developmental stage that can shake training up to varying degrees and be very challenging at times.
Consequence by definition is really cause and effect, not cause and punishment. It's something that a dog can predict, period.
Again, I will not say that I use physical correction when I don't or that in some cases it's necessary when I find that in my own professional experience it is not. I find it very disheartening that anyone, particularly you, would chalk this up to a holier than thou attitude......
I agree.
This "love thy owner" panacea is a myth. I do not agree that dogs do things to please their owner. And I think that is the very fulcrum from which dogs and humans stop connecting anywhere near their potential...where dogs get unfair and confusing messages, where communication breaks down and becomes incongruous and illogical.
This "love thy owner" panacea is a myth. I do not agree that dogs do things to please their owner. And I think that is the very fulcrum from which dogs and humans stop connecting anywhere near their potential...where dogs get unfair and confusing messages, where communication breaks down and becomes incongruous and illogical.
I just read over this whole thread, and I'm kinda new here I guess, haven't posted that much, but as a non-professional trainer this is a confusing topic.
I have 2 dogs. My GSD, Dutchess, is 11 years old. When I got her at 18 months she was on the way to the humane society because she destroyed her owners entire house. She couldn't sit, stay, heel was a joke. I never heard of positive methods at the time. I went to the library and picked up a couple of books, one by the Monks of New Skete - How to be your Dogs Best Friend,
the other was Good Dog, Bad Dog by Mordecai Siegal and Mathew Margolis. Both use corrections, and both are no longer recommended by people who use positive methods, I've noticed. But it was all I knew at the time. The result? Dutchess is a model of good behavior. A dog who was completely untrained and unsocialized has been completely turned around.
On the other hand, my 11 month old puppy Zuki, who has thus far only been trained using positive methods (clicker, treats, etc) is a complete train wreck! Maybe some of you are right, and I am just not doing it correctly, but I for one, have dug out my old copies of those books and started re-reading, in hope of finding an answer. I'm sorry, but this dog just seems to need something else. We are at the point now where my husband wants to send him to resident training somewhere. I need results NOW not another 2 years from now. So what do you tell owners when they have genuinely tried positive methods and its just not working? I'm not saying anyone is wrong or right, just that in my experience I can not deny that corrections worked for one of my dogs, and she seems none the worse for it. I'm not talking about beating your dog with a stick - but we did use a prong collar, at first and she did get leash corrections. It just seems like if you resort to a leash pop you are abusing your dog in some opinions here. I'm starting to feel, in some cases a correction is needed for some dogs. I mean, in some cases its the lesser of 2 evils, when you consider how many dogs are dumped off at the shelter. Dutchess for one, surely would have had trouble getting adopted at the shelter, I would be very surprised if she wouldn't have been euthanized there. She would not have passed their temperament tests for sure.
Just the ramblings from a dog owner torn and still on the fence.....carry on!
I have 2 dogs. My GSD, Dutchess, is 11 years old. When I got her at 18 months she was on the way to the humane society because she destroyed her owners entire house. She couldn't sit, stay, heel was a joke. I never heard of positive methods at the time. I went to the library and picked up a couple of books, one by the Monks of New Skete - How to be your Dogs Best Friend,
the other was Good Dog, Bad Dog by Mordecai Siegal and Mathew Margolis. Both use corrections, and both are no longer recommended by people who use positive methods, I've noticed. But it was all I knew at the time. The result? Dutchess is a model of good behavior. A dog who was completely untrained and unsocialized has been completely turned around.
On the other hand, my 11 month old puppy Zuki, who has thus far only been trained using positive methods (clicker, treats, etc) is a complete train wreck! Maybe some of you are right, and I am just not doing it correctly, but I for one, have dug out my old copies of those books and started re-reading, in hope of finding an answer. I'm sorry, but this dog just seems to need something else. We are at the point now where my husband wants to send him to resident training somewhere. I need results NOW not another 2 years from now. So what do you tell owners when they have genuinely tried positive methods and its just not working? I'm not saying anyone is wrong or right, just that in my experience I can not deny that corrections worked for one of my dogs, and she seems none the worse for it. I'm not talking about beating your dog with a stick - but we did use a prong collar, at first and she did get leash corrections. It just seems like if you resort to a leash pop you are abusing your dog in some opinions here. I'm starting to feel, in some cases a correction is needed for some dogs. I mean, in some cases its the lesser of 2 evils, when you consider how many dogs are dumped off at the shelter. Dutchess for one, surely would have had trouble getting adopted at the shelter, I would be very surprised if she wouldn't have been euthanized there. She would not have passed their temperament tests for sure.
Just the ramblings from a dog owner torn and still on the fence.....carry on!
Kalija,
Here's a link you might be interested in. It is in regards to rally O, a dog sport. However, it is absolutely applicable to training in general. If a dog owner says that positive reinforcement doesn't work then that owner is missing something and should take the opportunity to learn more about it. It isn't slower. I find that teaching a puppy to sit by luring is much faster than pushing his rear down. Dogs tend to a law of physics and that is to go against pressure....to press back. Force tends to not give a dog the opportunity to think. Thinking exercises the brain and helps a dog learn HOW to learn better. Another behavioral law is that dogs have a desire to give a correct response to avoid punishment. But the desire to give a correct response to earn a reward is stronger. This has great bearing on training. I'm not pushing this book...never read it. But scroll down and read the exerp. It's a good explanation.
You have to realize that trainers in all venues of dog training, all kinds of sports, duties like service dogs, search and rescue, therapy...movie actor dogs, circus dogs....use positive training devoid of physical aversives. A lot of them use clicker training. To say that it doesn't work means only that it doesn't work for some people who may not have learned all the tools available with learning theory. It's like me saying, "algebra formulas that everyone is raving about and uses don't work." Well....they don't. I can't make them work. LOL.
http://www.alpinepub.com/product_info.php?ref=9&products_id=104&affiliate_banner_id=9
Here's a link you might be interested in. It is in regards to rally O, a dog sport. However, it is absolutely applicable to training in general. If a dog owner says that positive reinforcement doesn't work then that owner is missing something and should take the opportunity to learn more about it. It isn't slower. I find that teaching a puppy to sit by luring is much faster than pushing his rear down. Dogs tend to a law of physics and that is to go against pressure....to press back. Force tends to not give a dog the opportunity to think. Thinking exercises the brain and helps a dog learn HOW to learn better. Another behavioral law is that dogs have a desire to give a correct response to avoid punishment. But the desire to give a correct response to earn a reward is stronger. This has great bearing on training. I'm not pushing this book...never read it. But scroll down and read the exerp. It's a good explanation.
You have to realize that trainers in all venues of dog training, all kinds of sports, duties like service dogs, search and rescue, therapy...movie actor dogs, circus dogs....use positive training devoid of physical aversives. A lot of them use clicker training. To say that it doesn't work means only that it doesn't work for some people who may not have learned all the tools available with learning theory. It's like me saying, "algebra formulas that everyone is raving about and uses don't work." Well....they don't. I can't make them work. LOL.
http://www.alpinepub.com/product_info.php?ref=9&products_id=104&affiliate_banner_id=9
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2006
- Messages
- 1,083
- Likes
- 0
- Points
- 0
dr2little and Doberluv -
While I was aware that my post would probably draw disagreement from you both, in all honesty I don't think either of you were the one I was thinking of who was using "NEVER". I'd have to go back and see which post it was that hit me that way and I just don't have time right now.
I respect both of you and am thankful that there are people out there promoting positive training like you do (and like I do). But these threads that end up sounding like a person is cruel beyond belief just because they use an occasional physical correction just get to me at times. I don't believe in using corrective collars for basic training (and you should have seen the arguments on another forum about shock collar training - two "professionals" were on there trying to say that shock collar training was the kindest training and they used it for every behavior, starting with the puppies at four months old). There are places to argue against physical corrections, but I just don't see in this particular thread that the arguments going on are viable because it's one group trying to make another group feel guilt for an occasional physical correction. And, sorry, but I'm not going to feel guilty and I'm not going to be hypocritical and claim I never put my hands on my dogs in a corrective way. Sometimes I do. It's minor, it's over quickly, my training isn't based on corrections, and it can be weeks or even months between physical corrections. But they DO happen, and the whole concept of "NEVER" makes it sound like anyone who does use corrections is a bad bad person.
Like I said, I've been training a long time and yes, there ARE dogs that want to please their owners more. They do it BECAUSE IT WORKS FOR THEM - but it's a natural trait, bred into them, to want to do what ever it is that their owner wants to do. Sorry, but I find that to be a fact. It's one of the huge differences between German shepherds and Chows. People are always wanting to change the terminology, make things sound so scientific .. but it doesn't change the reality, and the reality is that Trick hangs around me with this "what'd'ya want me to do for you NOW??" attitude, and Khana glances at me with a "yeah, I'll get to you when I have time" attitude. Anthropomorphizing? Definitely. But it's also true. I've simply put their basic inherent attitudes into human terms. When you have a dog like Trick, training is SO DARN EASY. When you have a dog like Khana, all those positives are a wonderful thing but when she doesn't feel like doing it - or something else comes along that is interesting - well, all those positives are not important enough to her for her to make the choice to do what I want when what SHE wants is something else.
To say that all positives work means to me that you can train EVERY dog to the same level of consistency on the same basic exercises (things that all dogs can physically perform). If you can get one dog to consistency off-leash then you should be able to get all dogs to consistency off-leash if the all positive concept works. I'm not sure that's what you're saying, though.
What exactly would you have done with Khana after all of those months of consistent, proper recall training? Remember I'm no beginner to training. I put in a huge effort from the time Khana was 9 weeks old to teach her an off-leash recall. It appeared to be successful until she got old enough to decide there were better things to do. I'm not one of these "stay at home" trainers, either. My dogs go everywhere and I train everywhere. I was consistent, rewarding, and positive at all times until I decided I needed a consequence, and a simple consequence of "NO" or "EHT" was useless as she knew perfectly well that she could just keep on running. I'd love to hear the all positive method of solving this problem.
By the way, when I talked about the "holier than thou" attitude, I wasn't describing anyone as actually HAVING that attitude. I was just explaining how it appeared and felt as I read through the entire thread from beginning to end. I'm SURE that no one meant to come across that way. But that's how it felt, and I know that I have done the same thing and made people feel that way in the past (and may very well do it again in the future). When you're adamant about something it can come across badly.
Anyway, I'm off to a obedience run-through to see how distracted Khana will get in a new place .. trials are coming up in March, hopefully we'll be ready!
Melanie and the gang in Alaska
While I was aware that my post would probably draw disagreement from you both, in all honesty I don't think either of you were the one I was thinking of who was using "NEVER". I'd have to go back and see which post it was that hit me that way and I just don't have time right now.
I respect both of you and am thankful that there are people out there promoting positive training like you do (and like I do). But these threads that end up sounding like a person is cruel beyond belief just because they use an occasional physical correction just get to me at times. I don't believe in using corrective collars for basic training (and you should have seen the arguments on another forum about shock collar training - two "professionals" were on there trying to say that shock collar training was the kindest training and they used it for every behavior, starting with the puppies at four months old). There are places to argue against physical corrections, but I just don't see in this particular thread that the arguments going on are viable because it's one group trying to make another group feel guilt for an occasional physical correction. And, sorry, but I'm not going to feel guilty and I'm not going to be hypocritical and claim I never put my hands on my dogs in a corrective way. Sometimes I do. It's minor, it's over quickly, my training isn't based on corrections, and it can be weeks or even months between physical corrections. But they DO happen, and the whole concept of "NEVER" makes it sound like anyone who does use corrections is a bad bad person.
Like I said, I've been training a long time and yes, there ARE dogs that want to please their owners more. They do it BECAUSE IT WORKS FOR THEM - but it's a natural trait, bred into them, to want to do what ever it is that their owner wants to do. Sorry, but I find that to be a fact. It's one of the huge differences between German shepherds and Chows. People are always wanting to change the terminology, make things sound so scientific .. but it doesn't change the reality, and the reality is that Trick hangs around me with this "what'd'ya want me to do for you NOW??" attitude, and Khana glances at me with a "yeah, I'll get to you when I have time" attitude. Anthropomorphizing? Definitely. But it's also true. I've simply put their basic inherent attitudes into human terms. When you have a dog like Trick, training is SO DARN EASY. When you have a dog like Khana, all those positives are a wonderful thing but when she doesn't feel like doing it - or something else comes along that is interesting - well, all those positives are not important enough to her for her to make the choice to do what I want when what SHE wants is something else.
To say that all positives work means to me that you can train EVERY dog to the same level of consistency on the same basic exercises (things that all dogs can physically perform). If you can get one dog to consistency off-leash then you should be able to get all dogs to consistency off-leash if the all positive concept works. I'm not sure that's what you're saying, though.
What exactly would you have done with Khana after all of those months of consistent, proper recall training? Remember I'm no beginner to training. I put in a huge effort from the time Khana was 9 weeks old to teach her an off-leash recall. It appeared to be successful until she got old enough to decide there were better things to do. I'm not one of these "stay at home" trainers, either. My dogs go everywhere and I train everywhere. I was consistent, rewarding, and positive at all times until I decided I needed a consequence, and a simple consequence of "NO" or "EHT" was useless as she knew perfectly well that she could just keep on running. I'd love to hear the all positive method of solving this problem.
By the way, when I talked about the "holier than thou" attitude, I wasn't describing anyone as actually HAVING that attitude. I was just explaining how it appeared and felt as I read through the entire thread from beginning to end. I'm SURE that no one meant to come across that way. But that's how it felt, and I know that I have done the same thing and made people feel that way in the past (and may very well do it again in the future). When you're adamant about something it can come across badly.
Anyway, I'm off to a obedience run-through to see how distracted Khana will get in a new place .. trials are coming up in March, hopefully we'll be ready!
Melanie and the gang in Alaska