What is the best method of....

[silverpawz]

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.

I find it upsetting that some are so quick the blame the owner all the time. Sometimes it IS the dog. Sometimes the DOG doesn't respond well to a certain method up to a certain point. If you've never come across a dog that would rather do some "better" as Melenie stated, instead of responding to you, then thank your lucky stars. You've hit the doggie jackpot.

But that is not the case for a lot of owners.

 

[kalija]

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

Thanks for the link, I will read it when I have more time later, on my way out right now. I guess I didn't mean to say that positive reinforcement doesn't work at all - I just meant that it does not seem to work with THIS dog, without some kind of stronger reinforcer.

 

[skyeboxer]

Melanie,

May I ask what were your next steps with Khana? I have read many of your posts on another forum and know you are very much on the side of positive training. I have no doubt you thought long and hard about how to deal with Khana's unreliable recall. Would you mind to share how you laid the new groundrules and how Khana responded to the change?

 

[RD]

Melanie, nice post and good point. I agree with Rubylove, that's been the best argument I've heard so far.

Honestly, I think the people who doubt that dogs do things to please their owners have never met a Border Collie. Dakota would bend over backwards for ME, not for what I have to give him. He loves treats too, but if I want to teach him a new command, I've realized that all I need to do is give him a hug and a belly rub when he gets it right. I have a very close relationship with him and perhaps this is why, but to him, my approval is a reinforcer. He has been the world's easiest and most fun dog to train because he wants approval soooo badly!

I also have a dog like Melanie's Khana. Ripley, quite plainly, doesn't give a rat's ass what I'm doing or what I have for him. Sometimes food rewards are good enough for him, but most of the time if there's something he wants to do, I'm chopped liver. He is independent and willful to the extreme and over the course of 3 years I have been unable to get 100% reliability from him - anywhere. I know this makes it sound like I'm a very crappy trainer, but to the contrary I have been able to take extremely hyper, ill-behaved shelter dogs and have them beautifully behaved and well-versed in basic obedience within a couple weeks. I'm far from a professional but for an amateur trainer I'm not too shabby. I'm sure I could get better results with mild physical aversives in addition to the pure positive training, but Ripley also has a very unstable temperament and I worry about the effect the correction would have on him. Plus he's tiny and fragile. I've just forced myself to be content with what responsiveness I *do* get from him, and keep him on leash and under control whenever we leave the house.

I don't think appropriately delivered collar corrections are cruel or abusive. I choose not to use them because I feel I can achieve the same or better results without inflicting pain on the dog. I also prefer not to "nag" at my dog with corrections as so many people do. Little light leash pops that are nothing more than an annoyance. I feel that if a dog does something that requires a leash correction, it should be significant enough to leave some impact on the dog, whether it be startling or painful. I certainly do not condone extremely painful or horrifying corrections but I'm just being realistic in my observation that most corrections rely on either startling or pain.

I don't see a need to use corrections while training my dogs and I certainly wouldn't dream of using them on shelter dogs or someone else's dog. I do agree with Melanie that they have their place, occasionally, but that place is with experienced trainers and a very small percentage of dogs. Not with Joe Shmoe, little Muffy and a choke chain.

 

[Jynx]

all I can say is "WOW" LOL,,nice debate, and I will say I agree with melanie, silverpawz and whatz..

I'm curious, and forgive me if this has been asked or posted before, I dont recall it,,does anyone posting mind sharing what, if any titles, they've achieved with their own dogs and what training method you may have used on that particular dog?
Diane

 

[Doberluv]

Honestly, I think the people who doubt that dogs do things to please their owners have never met a Border Collie.

The dogs I have, especially my Doberman looks like he's saying, "what do you want me to do next? I'm willing and waiting." This is what he was bred to do, to work for his owner.

But, think about it for a minute.....what good does it do a dog to please their owner? Do you think dogs first became domesticated because they were seeking out some human to please? Pleasing their owner is how they become pleased, how they survive.

Bottom line: They need to please themselves....and in order to please themselves, they need to please their owner or work for their owner. In a direct sense, they do not have an inherent desire to please, unselfishly their owner. They probably aren't thinking about our emotional state of mind in connection with them. "am I pleasing her by doing this. Is this making her happy?" More likely, "Am I going to get what I need if I do that? Like all the good stuff I always get?"

And of course, being social animals, they love to be with their owner and have a rich array of emotions. But when people think dogs just love their owner and they should do and understand all these human things because they love and want to please their owner.........and the dog doesn't do all these things because he hasn't been trained, the owner blames the dog and calls him stubborn and bad. Then the dog receives any number of aversives.

 

[silverpawz]

Jinx, I'll bite.

I have three Collies. One has his UCDX and we're working on Utility exercises. I use a combonation of mild, fair corrections and positive rewards. I'd say my ratio with him is about 80% positive training, and 20% corrections. (with him it's a verbal correction that most often works, but I have been known to give him a tap to get his attention, use a light leash pop, and he was trained with the ear pinch to retrieve on the flat. I've since abandoned the idea of the ear pinch. It worked well with him and he has a happy and reliable retrieve, but I've been able to get the same results on other dogs without using it. It works, but I feel bad doing it. So I don't anymore.)

He is very advanced in his training and at this stange he rarely needs a correction for anything anymore. Attention and willingess to work even around distarctions is not a problem with him, so I knoe if he's not doing something right, he just doesn't get it yet and I have to find a better way to show him what I want. That's a lot different that having a dog ignore you to run off an sniff the ground.

The other Collie girl has her UCD. She was trained much the same way as the first one. With a combonation of positives and corrections. I'd say my ratio with her is about 95% positive and 5% corrections. She's a very soft dog and she doesn't have the temperament to take a strong correction without slinking down and pinning her ears back. So I only use verbal with her, a hand clap, body blocking, placeing, etc.

Bear has his CGC and he's working on UCD training. I use 100% positive training with him, I've never phycically corrected him with a collar pop because he just doesn't need it. He's a BC mix, he LIVES to be with me and nothing is better for him. There is no distraction he would choose over me and that is not something I trained. He's just that way. If he was in the mddle of a herd of deer with me on one side and the deer on the other, he'd choose to come when I called every single time instead of chaseing the deer.

I've actually had a chance to test this once when we were walking in the wooded trail behind the house.
This makes it super easy to train him for trials and such becasue he's very focused on his job regardless of what's going around him. So there's no need for phycial corrections with him.

All three dogs are happy to work with me, they all have great attention, and I honestly can't say that one is better trained or more reliable that the other due to the methods used or not used. They have different personalities and therfore I trained them all differently.

 

[IliamnasQuest]

Doberluv, we're actually on the same page when we're talking about dogs and wanting to please - we're just looking at it from a bit different angles. I agree fully that they want to please only because it suits their purposes - pleasing us pleases them and gets them what they want. But regardless of why, the dogs with a high level of "pleasing" are easier to train because their focus is more naturally on their humans.

However - I also agree that too many people think that dogs should just do things because they should want to please their owners. This is a huge mistake in training. Dogs work in order to get something they want. If it's a dog that isn't really interested in your praise, then you have to back up that praise with something they DO want in order to supply the dog with the reinforcement it needs. People who don't do that are really not training. And falling back on corrections just because they have a dog that doesn't automatically want to please them is a bad thing, in my eyes. This is one of the reasons why I don't advise people to use corrections online. It's natural human tendency to want to correct because they see the problems but fail to see the good things - and so the problems get the attention but the dogs don't get reinforced for all the good things they do. So much can be turned around if a person is willing to really observe their dogs and reinforce whenever the dog is doing something they like (such as laying quietly while you're watching TV).

But even though you don't find me recommending physical corrections to people on a forum like this doesn't mean I don't use the occasional correction. I think people need to be careful in the use of corrections because they can truly backfire and create relationship problems with your dog. I've been there and didn't even realize it at the time (thought I had the best relationship possible). I absolutely believe in positive reinforcement and training with a ton of reinforcement, patience and consistency. It WORKS.

By the way, if someone is having no success with positive reinforcement, then they need to find someone well-versed in it to help them out. It's likely that there's a problem with timing, or reinforcing the wrong things, or not using things that the dog truly finds reinforcing. I truly believe that positive reinforcement works on EVERY dog. I've even used it on cats, horses and a wolf successfully. But it doesn't necessarily work to the same level of reliability for every animal. And that's the crux of the argument in this thread. While there are people who may have never used a physical correction, I think it's wrong to say "physical corrections are NEVER necessary and should NEVER be used".

If that's true, then Trick is in a huge amount of trouble because she uses a TON of physical corrections on Khana (who mostly shrugs them off). Khana is a tough girl, tougher than most dogs and yet with a sweet personality. She's definitely an enigma at times.

skyeboxer - I hesitate to explain the steps I used with Khana on a public forum like this. I don't recommend that anyone run out and do this. Believe me, I agonized over this. I contacted people who understood chows and were strong believers in positive reinforcement and asked their advice - and explained what we had done to that point and what I was considering. Not one of them could suggest anything I hadn't already tried, and they understood my dilemma. It took me MONTHS before I decided to try the aversive method. And I used a shock collar. I bought a new one with 100 levels of shock and I tested it on myself FIRST. I used the lowest possible level that would get any reaction (a flick of an ear) and I went through a set of pre-planned exercises to show her exactly how to turn off the aversive. We started on a long line. I never used the collar strictly as a correction (as in turning it up high to zap her when she didn't perform to my liking). It was a very structured training method and I hated doing it. I bit my lip so hard I had bruises. It's not in my nature to want to cause my dogs discomfort.

But I'll tell you exactly WHY I decided to do it. Yes, I could have kept her on leash for the rest of her life. But here is a young dog who is extremely active (surprisingly so for her breed). Without running and playing and leaping, she gets tense and frustrated. She starts picking on the other dogs to the point of leaving wounds on them (little wounds, but still .. ). Dora lost half the hair on her tail from Khana pulling on it. All of my other dogs are older - the next one is seven years older than Khana. So it was obvious that Khana really needed this exercise.

I live in an area where there are no fenced areas for dogs to go and play in. I have a fenced area but it's limited in size. She couldn't get enough exercise in the yard or on a long line. So when I accepted that she needed off-leash exercise, I then had to either accept her running off or find a way to stop it.

Accepting her running off wasn't a good solution, not only because of traffic (although I lived way off of the beaten trail at the time) but because of the moose and other wildlife. Khana has no fear and would run up to a moose - and I've seen the damage a moose can put on a dog. It's not pretty.

So I made a very difficult choice and one I wouldn't have made if I could have trained her fully using only positive reinforcement. I put in the time and effort for well over a year to teach her a solid recall and MOST of the time it worked. But MOST is not ALL ..

Anyway .. enough of that. I think there IS a place for physical corrections, but it shouldn't be the basis of your training. I probably use upwards of 95% all positive in my training and that's very effective most of the time.

Melanie and the gang in Alaska

 

[IliamnasQuest]

I'm curious, and forgive me if this has been asked or posted before, I dont recall it,,does anyone posting mind sharing what, if any titles, they've achieved with their own dogs and what training method you may have used on that particular dog?
Diane

I'll share mine although I don't believe that a lack of titles means a lack of knowledge or experience. Titles are only for those people who enjoy doing the competition. But, like winning any sports competition, it IS a way to prove your ability. I will say that my drive to compete lessened when I went to positive reinforcement training. My relationship with my dog became the most important thing to me and competing just became less important (not that you can't have a good relationship and still compete). I just found other ways to enjoy my dogs. I was also going through a number of changes in my life (i.e. divorce, suicide of friend, death of father, etc.) and that all put a hold on my showing. So, for me, the highest titles were achieved back when I was training with a more corrective style - but I also had the time and the inclination to show at that time, too.

Basic timeline - started showing in 1989 - training probably 50/50 reward/compulsion. By 1994, when Dawson and Lady were in the middle of earning their titles, I was leaning much more toward positive - probably 75% positive at that point. By 1996 when Trick came to me, I was nearly 100% positive and Trick received very little in the way of corrections for the first couple of years. Kylee was re-trained using more positive methods before we went into agility (about mid-CDX). Dora and Khana were trained with very high levels of positive reinforcement and very low levels of correction.

Dawson, GSD: AKC UD, ASCA CD w/2 HIT's.
Lady, Aust. shep.: AKC UD w/Dog World Award for novice scores (all above 195), ASCA CD w/2 HIT's, ASCA Honor Dog (all scores over 195) and #6 ASCA Novice Aussie for national rankings, STDs (Started Trial Dog, sheep).
Kylee, Chow: AKC CDX, 2X top AKC chow in obedience - Delaney ratings (took 7 firsts and 3 seconds in open level, classes up to 25 dogs), NA and NAJ; ASCA/UKC/CKC CD's, NADAC NJC and NAC; schutzhund BH.
Dora, Chow: AKC NA and NAJ, one leg toward CD.
Trick, GSD: AKC/CKC/ASCA CD's, scores up to 197; AKC NJP NAP, RA, 2 legs toward RE, one perfect score so far.
Khana, Chow: AKC RN, 1 leg toward RA. First time in ring scored 98 for first place, outdoor show on grass (I was proud of that with this very distractable dog - and this was pre-shock collar).

I will say - competition was easier when the dogs had more fear of consequences. It gave them more reason to do what I wanted regardless of the distractions. Dawson had his CDX - with some pretty darn good scores - at just over two years of age. But a high level of punishment is just not worth it to me. I truly regret some of the things I was taught to do - and chose to do - back in the "old days".

Melanie and the gang in Alaska

 

[Jynx]

thanks silver and congrats on your accomplishments.

Mel, no I wasn't asking this question nor thinking that lack of titles was lack of knowledge or trainability. I know you have a ton of titles, and you should be proud of every single one of them as I know you are especially with those strong willed chows!!! I honestly don't think I would have the patience with a chow or a breed of that nature..I love my "easy trainer, willing" herding dawgs *vbg*
Thanks for sharing.
Diane

 

[skyeboxer]

Melanie,

Thank you for your answer. I can imagine how much soul-searching went into your decision and in the long run, much as you hated to do it Khana will have a safer yet freer life (if that made sense).

While I want to be 100% in the positive camp I can see where the minimal use of carefully considered and mild as possible correction could be a life saver.

I also don't get the impression that those who are advocating some use of aversives here are talking about beating the dogs up with a stick or hauling on a choke chain every five minutes though this did become clearer towards this end of the thread. Perhaps if I may say there has been a bit of defensiveness on both sides which has murkied up the topic instead of shedding light on specific practises?

We are all here because we love our dogs and this has been a very interesting thread to read.

I would certainly love to read more cases like Melanie's from both sides where a problem was resolved using a particular approach. For example, years ago my old GSD was tormented by two horrible children. All his life thereafter, he suffered from anxiety near kids and never got over this apart from with children in the family.

How would you have dealt with this?

 

[oose]

OK....I appreciate all of your comments and I respect each and every one of your opinions...thank you. I also thank you for the book recommendation and have read about half. Now I am going to give my opinion on the some of these posts and the book.

I neither trust nor believe anyone who says either NEVER or ALWAYS. Nothing in life is so concrete to happen the same every time. I can not for the life of me understand why some people are so hell bent on their method of training not to accept other and how they do things.

The way some people rant reminds me of when someone gets touched by god. They seem they feel compelled to have to go up to everyone and tell them what they have to do or where they need to go. I know I asked the question and again appreciate the answer but it just reads that way.

The book is written very well. It is easy to understand and makes sense. She does over use the word anthropomorphism and panacea but no biggie there. The only thing which does bother me about the book is how she down plays every other type of training and theories.

Using words to describe others training as mumbo jumbo and antiquated methods of the 50's is for lack of words irresponsible. Training of any sort should be a building experience learning from the past. This type of writing style is a form of reverse psychology. If you say that everyone else is wrong then what you say has to be right. Again this falls into my never and always theory. I am still going to finish the book, after you get past the first 30 pages of negative putting down other styles there is some good meat and information.

Training is a personal preference and one should always put the least amount of stress on a dog as possible. If you can get your dog to react the way you want using treats or motivators then why not? If you can not then other methods may be needed.

 

[Doberluv]

:yikes:

 

[silverpawz]

??? I don't get it, doberluv. What are you shocked about?

 

[Angelique]

I haven't posted much lately, but I do read through almost every day.

This is a very interesting discussion. opcorn:

 

[otch1]

I won't comment on "method". That thread's been started under several different titles, since I joined Chaz, several months ago. (And it almost always becomes a heated debate! Sending some female trainers running for chocolate or a cocktail, the males just lifting a leg on posts at times Lol! Long story, see "Calling All Trainers" thread) I believe if you had an opprtunity to take a private with the trainers here... identified so far as Dr2, Iliamnasquest, Alex, BTLk-9, CanadianK9, myself and...? a few more of us that train for a living. My apologies if I left you out. Anyway, if you had a private with each of us, you'd probably find that we're all a bit different in our approach, handling skills and level of experience. You'd probably find that we all have varying educational backgrounds and opinions, as a result. But all of us are very passionate about what we do. All of us has something to offer. And hopefully, we all have the same goal. To be an advocate for dogs and teach others how to obtain a better relationship with their canine companions.

 

[otch1]

P.S... and Doberluv, if I could get you to take a break from that beautiful area you live in, I'd train with you at my kennel anytime!!

 

[Doberluv]

You mean it???? Could I be your pro-bono project? After all, just think of the good you'd be doing for dogs if you could bring me up to speed. I need all the help I can get. I'd love it! You see....with this beautiful area, I tend to not work with my dogs enough. We run and play too much. LOL.

 

[otch1]

Don't need my help, you need the dogs and I've got them!! That last sentence... not nice. Rub it in!

 

[Doberluv]

LOL. You give me more credit than is warrented, trust me. I need more practice with other dogs and someone to mentor me. Thank you for your generous words though.