Has Cesar turned over a new leaf?

[Maralynn]

Your dog will listen with the knowledge and anticipation there 'could' be something positive in it for them, in this case working the sheep.

In this case working sheep is a priviledge and reinforcing, listen up and control your impulses and you may get this priviledge.

 

No, I think the dog listens because the dog has been taught to listen. Sometimes I'll give Kipp a command that he knows and he'll just stand there. I'll say "no" and repeat the command and, lo and behold, he does it. He's not intimidated he just understands the word "no". As smart as these dogs are I do believe they understand the concept of "no".

 

I think the biggest problem with people using corrective type training methods is that they fall into the trap of OVER correcting their dogs.

 

I do agree with that!

 

I know a few dogs that I just cringe when I see their owners "correct" them. It's over-board and the dog didn't understand what was expected of it in the first place. It's like they go picking fights with their dog. But I also think a smart dog understands the difference between a fair and unfair correction. And I think that fair corrections will not damage a good relationship with your dog. Over-correcting and unfair corrections will.

 

Missy had shut down in her first home due to over correction. However, I can correct her without any damaging our relationship. I took time, built a relationship and taught her what I expected before I corrected her. And corrections are very, very few and far between because she doesn't need them.

[Eileen Stein]

OK, but say I am merely walking out in the pasture with several of my dogs. The youngest one might be anywhere from 7 weeks to 4 months. The sheep and cattle are out there, but I don't want the pup to go to them, as it's not time to work. So, if the pup starts to "sneak off," I will offer a verbal correction, "HEY! That'll do." So the pup then resumes hanging out with the other dogs, sniffing, chasing them, or whatever. I don't care what it does other than NOT go to the stock at that point. So, we're not working, and there is no stock reward there; I'm just asking it to not do a particular thing at that moment...

 

Your dog will listen with the knowledge and anticipation there 'could' be something positive in it for them, in this case working the sheep.

In this case working sheep is a priviledge and reinforcing, listen up and control your impulses and you may get this priviledge.

 

Sorry, that is not what's happening, and to me this is a good example of distorting reality to fit a theory.

 

The constant repetition of this dogmatic statement just sets my teeth on edge. Correction (punishment in conditioning terminology) absolutely changes behavior. I've seen it happen routinely, consistently, over and over again. I can't believe you haven't seen it too. So what's happening here? When the dog stops doing what you told it not to do, do you just define that as "suppressed behavior" rather than "changed behavior" because it wasn't accomplished through positive reinforcement? And because it's "suppressed behavior," it's bad, even though what you wanted all along was for the dog to stop doing it?

 

Lets put a shock collar on you, I will zap you everytime you move within a 10 foot radius... quickly you should learn NOT to move outside that radius. I will then decrease this distance down till I zap you everytime you move. I didn't 'change' your behavior I 'stopped it'. Everytime you get up to move now you will question it, I have successfully suppressed your desire to move.

 

And THIS is a perfect example of how the use of the term "punishment" slides from being a neutral behavioral term to being synonymous with cruel compulsion/retribution (or, in this example, outright sadism worthy of a Harry Harlow). Leave the shock collar out of it -- I certainly wasn't talking about correction with a shock collar. What about the punishment of saying "No" or stepping toward the dog or into its space? When the dog responds to that by desisting from the undesirable behavior, why is that "suppressed behavior" rather than "changed behavior"?

[mosstheboss2000]

While I DO consider my dogs to be absolute geniuses capable of abstract thought, I really don't give them that much credit to claim that they are thinking that far into the future. When we are out there to feed, fix fences, etc., we are not there to work stock, there is no stock work in the offing, we are just there to hang out and do odd non-stock chores, maybe for hours, and then we go back to the house. There is no "prize" being dangled in front of them that they are anticipating,

 

It is not about a 'prize' being dangled it is about being conditioned through repetition to understand that positive consequences come from actions... it may be something as simple as having freedom in the fields with you.

A valued reinforcer does not have to be a cookie it can anything the dog values.

I am using working sheep as a example because if the sheep are there the dog understands that this may be something they earn for their actions ie. behaving .

[mosstheboss2000]

Sorry, that is not what's happening, and to me this is a good example of distorting reality to fit a theory.

And THIS is a perfect example of how the use of the term "punishment" slides from being a neutral behavioral term to being synonymous with cruel compulsion/retribution (or, in this example, outright sadism worthy of a Harry Harlow). Leave the shock collar out of it -- I certainly wasn't talking about correction with a shock collar. What about the punishment of saying "No" or stepping toward the dog or into its space? When the dog responds to that by desisting from the undesirable behavior, why is that "suppressed behavior" rather than "changed behavior"?

 

It's just opperant conditioning folks....

 

Positive punishment occurs when a behavior is followed by an aversive stimulus, such as introducing a shock or loud noise, resulting in a decrease in that behavior this is a correction.

 

Negative punishment occurs when a behavior is followed by the removal of a favorable stimulus, such as taking away a child's toy following an undesired behavior, resulting in a decrease in that behavior.

 

It is suppressed because it is decreased or stopped... not changed. Changing a behavior would be rather then correcting my dog for jumping I would encourage a sit and teach the dog this is the behavior that gets them positive reinforcement which would increase the offering a sit rather then jumping. Negative reinforcement would be adding something adverse and having the dog understand that when they stop jumping this would stop. This again is training the dog through punishment but not encouraging behavior rather suppressing it because you are stopping all behavior.

This is why I said earlier if corrections or used it is very important they are followed with a positive.

We are lucky to work with a breed with such desire and drive.

Imagine a dog that if you kept stepping into it's space and saying NO just lay down rolled over and wagged it's tail and submissively peed everywhere? This dog certainly would make a good sheep dog would it?

 

When you fall in the trap of over correcting the only result we will have is a dog with suppressed behavior, who is afraid to try as they question.

Hey some people like having a dog like that.... I have heard it many times, a few good smacks or scuff shakes are not a bad thing teaches a dog to not be so soft. You want to them to question trying things you don't ask them to do. Again you may get away with this when working with a dog that is driven to do something.

[Shetlander]

It is suppressed because it is decreased or stopped... not changed. Changing a behavior would be rather then correcting my dog for jumping I would encourage a sit and teach the dog this is the behavior that gets them positive reinforcement which would increase the offering a sit rather then jumping.

 

That is true up to a point but there are also dogs who figure out on their own what to do without being taught an alternative behavior. Which was brought up a few pages back in this thread. That can happen too. The jumping is suppressed but the dog learns he is praised and petted if he keeps all 4 paws on the floor or if he sits (without being told to sit). So then you do have changed behavior, don't you? If we're not talking you standing there with your thumb on the e-collar trigger so the dog goes into a state of learned helplessness, afraid to move.

 

Hey some people like having a dog like that.... I have heard it many times, a few good smacks or scuff shakes are not a bad thing teaches a dog to not be so soft.

 

What I am hearing, and I think it makes sense is if a dog never runs into much in the way of frustration or being thwarted then you can have a dog that has little frustration tolerance or ability to work through a problem without continual reinforcement. I'm sure I'd rather have a dog wanting a treat every 30 seconds than cringing from my hand, but does it really have to be that extreme? If I don't believe in errorless learning (Susan Garrett doesn't either) that doesn't mean I'm scruffing or smacking my dog or he's afraid to try anything on his own.

 

I've seen some clicker trained dogs shut down extremely quickly when they ran into a stumbling block in training. They won't work through a problem but need to be led and coaxed. Dogs who can't perform in the ring because they never learned to go through an entire obedience/agility/rally/freestyle performance without being rewarded frequently. That's a hole in the training and shouldn't be held up as an example of Positive Reinforcement any more than brutal (and stupid) use of a shock collar should be considered a fair example of Positive Punishment.

[mosstheboss2000]

That is true up to a point but there are also dogs who figure out on their own what to do without being taught an alternative behavior. Which was brought up a few pages back in this thread. That can happen too. The jumping is suppressed but the dog learns he is praised and petted if he keeps all 4 paws on the floor or if he sits (without being told to sit). So then you do have changed behavior, don't you? If we're not talking you standing there with your thumb on the e-collar trigger so the dog goes into a state of learned helplessness, afraid to move.

 

Exactly...you don't have to 'ask' for a sit you are encouraging alternative behavior by rewarding it when offered . This is what I said IF you correct it is important to follow through with a positive. Most people who yell at their dogs for jumping but just ignore them when they get down still have a dog that jumps because they get their attention when they jump... positive or neg. it is attention and 'most likely' desired in this case which is why they are jumping up in the first place. OR the dog gets corrected enough it may just decide to avoid the whole situation altogether OR jump and run

 

What I am hearing, and I think it makes sense is if a dog never runs into much in the way of frustration or being thwarted then you can have a dog that has little frustration tolerance or ability to work through a problem without continual reinforcement. I'm sure I'd rather have a dog wanting a treat every 30 seconds than cringing from my hand, but does it really have to be that extreme? If I don't believe in errorless learning (Susan Garrett doesn't either) that doesn't mean I'm scruffing or smacking my dog or he's afraid to try anything on his own.

 

No. Susan Garrett would also say that if you having to correct you DO have a hole in your training!!! and you should be banging your head against the wall RIGHT! She wouldn't say to HANG your dog to let them know they are incorrect....or intimidate them to know they did something wrong.

 

I've seen some clicker trained dogs shut down extremely quickly when they ran into a stumbling block in training. They won't work through a problem but need to be led and coaxed. Dogs who can't perform in the ring because they never learned to go through an entire obedience/agility/rally/freestyle performance without being rewarded frequently. That's a hole in the training and shouldn't be held up as an example of Positive Reinforcement any more than brutal (and stupid) use of a shock collar should be considered a fair example of Positive Punishment.

 

I shouldn't of used the shock collar example ... I can tell you I have seen dogs that respond the same way to verbal corrections.

Not being able to work through a performance is a very good example of incompete training.

 

I think you can clicker train a dog but not necessarily teach it to shape and problem solve.

 

I am sure there are people that use clickers or marks for behavior but still use a lure or coax , even though they are using a clicker really they are not teaching them to work through problems.

[Shetlander]

No. Susan Garrett would also say that if you having to correct you DO have a hole in your training!!! and you should be banging your head against the wall RIGHT! She wouldn't say to HANG your dog to let them know they are incorrect....or intimidate them to know they did something wrong.

 

Yeah, Susan was a poor choice since she states emphatically she refuses to use positive punishment. But we're back to the extreme examples where positive punishment is equated with abuse.

 

I am sure there are people that use clickers or marks for behavior but still use a lure or coax , even though they are using a clicker really they are not teaching them to work through problems.

 

Ooh, another hot topic. I'm a big fan of lures but fade them very quickly (after a few reps). Bad, bad, bad according to many clicker trainers. But I look at lures as jump starts for the impatient trainer (me). My dogs still actively use their minds, work through problems and offer behaviors. The Lhasa is absurd about throwing behaviors at me in hopes of an impromptu training session. Well, ok, the Sheltie's only real offered behavior is to sit and look at me with a pained expression, clearly wishing I'd just tell her what to do. But I really feel that is due largely to her temperament rather than my ineptitude as a trainer. She's my cross-over dog who didn't cross over

 

Just because dogs think in terms of black and white, I don't know why we trainers sometimes fall into that trap. Punishment, abuse. Clicker training, bribery. Lure, dog no think. There really is a middle (reasonable, rational) ground for all those categories.

[mosstheboss2000]

Just because dogs think in terms of black and white, I don't know why we trainers sometimes fall into that trap. Punishment, abuse. Clicker training, bribery. Lure, dog no think. There really is a middle (reasonable, rational) ground for all those categories.

 

I agree there can be a middle ground... as for Cesar he is not it as far as I am concerned.

 

Punishment becomes abuse when it is continual and the behavior you are correcting does not stop 'regardless' to the level of your correction. I do alot of private work and group classes and I must say that because of shows like this people think that man handling and intimidating their dogs is okay.

It is all about the 'alpha' apparently.... it you poked and psst at me like he does to some of those dogs "I" would bite you!! To me this is a classic example of suppressing behavior and intimidation.

 

I had one guy with a dog last week that took it by the collar hung it up on it's back legs and tried to drag it out of class... this dog was terrified! The son handles the dog but as soon as the father came and approached the dog, tail went to it's stomach and it froze up. It refused to move for him so immdiately grabbed it up. He didn't get a foot before me and my assistant pounced!!!

Apparently someone else who had a Northern Breed told him this is how you handle them... Mmmm YEAH maybe if you are taking them to hook them to a sled and they will pull you down the mushers use this technique to move the dogs around by having them hop on their back legs... but not for a dog that is frozen on the spot???... what are people thinking... makes you wonder how this dog is handled at home with a response like this.

 

There is always the dog that learns and retains off a lure or that complies and is still happy go lucky with a owner that intimidates... I guess that is why there will always be that question of how do I teach my dog and everyone will have a bit of a different answer to the question!

 

I always tell people when seeking trainers to make sure that they don't do anything they feel uncomfortable about. This could be from training a behavior through correction, OR using lures to teach all behavior.

[kelpiegirl]

When I first started working Lucy, I was in for a bit of a shock, when it came to how important it is that a dog LISTEN to you. I didn't know that in order for me to get what I wanted out of her, when- even when it came against strong instincts, that I had to be #1. It is sometimes met with looks askance, but seriously, how many of us have dogs who chose to make all the right steps in learning sheepdog work? Once the dog knows what/how they should do something, and they respect you enough to listen to you, you don't need much more than a reminder. For instance- I send my dog out on a outrun- for some reason she either drifts in, or starts tight. I give her a corrective vocalization- (get out of that is what I use). Dog nary skips a beat. kicks out and finished nicely. I used to yell so much, not knowing how useless it is. I one time said to my friend "I can't yell anymore, I am getting a headache" He replied "don't yell then". AHHHH. Okay. So, now when said dog does something impish, I go to her, and move her off her sheep- the WORST scenario for her. Since I learned to not yell, but instead back up what I meant (I don't touch her) we have progressed exponentially. Dogs have to listen, and in order to listen, they do need to respect their handler. Repsect is achieved in my opinion by leadership that is fair, but firm. I do believe in the KISS principle for many things in life, and this is one of them

[Root Beer]

I am sure there are people that use clickers or marks for behavior but still use a lure or coax , even though they are using a clicker really they are not teaching them to work through problems.

 

Luring is a training tool just like any other, and it isn't the evil that many make it out to be. It has an important place, if used thoughtfully.

 

Example:

 

I taught Speedy to move laterally in front of me a long time ago. I actually didn't use luring to teach it - I shaped it.

 

But I found recently that his laterals have become crooked. To remedy this, I decided to isolate the correct straight sideways movement so he could practice it on a purely physical level. In order to do this, I wanted to remove the need for him to think temporarily.

 

I set him up sideways in front of me, put food on his nose and moved into him gently (very important here that me getting into his space is not perceived as a punishment!). Since he already knows the lateral movement he begins to move laterally right away as I cue the motion. I click and treat each correct straight sidestep. The food on his nose and where I am relative to him serves as an "anchor" to actually keep him from thinking a lot in this exercise.

 

The reason I chose a lure in this instance is that I want him to be able to practice the physical skill - much like a piano player practices scales. Scales don't teach a piano player to play an intricate musical composition, but they do give the musician the physical skills to do so. I use luring in training a lot much in the way that scales are used in music.

 

Doing this does not make him dependent on food, or the lure. After we have practiced the movement in this way for a period of time and physical fluency is improved (some call this muscle memory), he goes back to doing his laterals in front of me (no lure) and I click and treat for correct performance. I have found that using the lure in cases like this helps sharpen the precise physical skill so he can think through a performance on a different level.

 

Once he can move laterally without having to think about, I can start to change my position as he is moving and he is able to think his way through that step. Or, we can work on moving laterally at different paces, which the dog absolutely must think his way through.

 

Even when training a brand new behavior, I tend to use lures much longer than most - for some behaviors! I never lure at all when teaching a dog to back up, move laterally, to do paw work, and some other skills. I don't lure for impulse control exercises like Look at That. But for many skills like position (front, follow, heel, side), spins, sometimes leg weaves, and to introduce most Agility equipment, I use lures so the dog can be fluent in the behavior on a physical level before I begin working on the aspects of teaching that involve thought.

 

I have never found that prolonged use of a lure in the initial teaching stage, nor re-introduction of a lure to "sharpen" a physical skill later on has inhibited my dog's ability to think through problems, nor to perform behaviors on cue without food in performance. Actually, I have found the opposite to be true! Speedy and Maddie both can, and have, gone into the ring in competition without crumb of food on me, and give completely successful performances - many times! Dean is getting there! We haven't really been training together for long yet.

 

And my dogs are not robot dogs or lemon brains who don't know how to think through problems. Believe me - they do!

 

Lest I be misunderstood here, please understand that I am not saying that luring and a high rate of reinforcement should be used at every step of training! There are many things that I never lure, and there are many behaviors that I drop the lure for early.

 

I am simply saying that "if you lure too long, your dog will be dependent on treats" is misleading, at best, and it really debunks a training tool that can be quite powerful if used appropriately. In picking and choosing your training approach to a given training scenario, it's OK to incorporate a lures - even for a clicker trainer, which I most certainly am!

[mosstheboss2000]

When I first started working Lucy, I was in for a bit of a shock, when it came to how important it is that a dog LISTEN to you. I didn't know that in order for me to get what I wanted out of her, when- even when it came against strong instincts, that I had to be #1. It is sometimes met with looks askance, but seriously, how many of us have dogs who chose to make all the right steps in learning sheepdog work? Once the dog knows what/how they should do something, and they respect you enough to listen to you, you don't need much more than a reminder. For instance- I send my dog out on a outrun- for some reason she either drifts in, or starts tight. I give her a corrective vocalization- (get out of that is what I use). Dog nary skips a beat. kicks out and finished nicely. I used to yell so much, not knowing how useless it is. I one time said to my friend "I can't yell anymore, I am getting a headache" He replied "don't yell then". AHHHH. Okay. So, now when said dog does something impish, I go to her, and move her off her sheep- the WORST scenario for her. Since I learned to not yell, but instead back up what I meant (I don't touch her) we have progressed exponentially. Dogs have to listen, and in order to listen, they do need to respect their handler. Repsect is achieved in my opinion by leadership that is fair, but firm. I do believe in the KISS principle for many things in life, and this is one of them

 

The interesting thing about herding is that really we are mostly just shaping natural behaviors, building on natural responses. Especially a dog who has good instinct.

Again because we have a dog with such a drive to do this behavior we can get away with punishment(not saying shock collars) because of the instant high rate of reinforcement.

Because of this drive it means that we have to be even more consistant and follow through with our behaviors and what we ask. I without question believe leadership can be built without conflict.

[mosstheboss2000]

Luring is a training tool just like any other, and it isn't the evil that many make it out to be. It has an important place, if used thoughtfully.

 

I totally agree Christine! As we train we find things that are just easily lured.... I do find when a dog understands the concept of Behavior=Mark=Treat luring a couple of things is not a big deal if you fade away the lure. I have also seen dogs totally trained with lures who are brilliant!

 

Ian Dunbar says that the only way to teach classes is to lure behavior it gives

'most' everyone quick success and high rates of reinforcement both us and our dogs!

 

I think definitely utilizing all your training methods is helpful. For instance molding may sometimes create conflict or 'associated' with correction ie. Want my dog to sit I just physically push it into a sit. I 'personally' would not physically push my dogs into sits or pull them into my side I just don't do it.

BUT I might use a wall to help work my dogs sitting straight at my side and this also would be a example of molding a behavior.

[Root Beer]

I think definitely utilizing all your training methods is helpful. For instance molding may sometimes create conflict or 'associated' with correction ie. Want my dog to sit I just physically push it into a sit. I 'personally' would not physically push my dogs into sits or pull them into my side I just don't do it.

BUT I might use a wall to help work my dogs sitting straight at my side and this also would be a example of molding a behavior.

 

Molding is another technique that gets a bad name, and it definitely has to be used carefully, but I've had success with it.

 

I taught Dean to give paw using molding. He has no paw issues, so he didn't mind when I picked up his front paws. I needed to teach him to give paw almost instantly (odd circumstance), so I picked up his paw, clicked and gave a treat. After doing that just a few times, he was giving paw because he learned that having his paw in my hand was rewarding.

 

Speedy, on the other hand, hates having his paws handled - for him it would have bordered on traumatic had I tried to teach him to give paw that way. For him I shaped having him touch a big board with his paw, then a dowel rod. Once he touched the dowel rod on cue, I transferred the behavior to him touching my hand with his paw.

 

I've been told many, many times never to move myself so my dog is in position, but I've acutally taught position by doing just that! Another form of molding. I move to where my dog is standing in heel, for instance, and click and treat to show the dog that is what heel position looks like. Then I work on teaching the dog to move with me in heel. Only after that do I start to teach the dog to move into heel position. By then the dog understands heel and that tends to be pretty easy to do.

 

I use walls all the time to teach the dog to move and sit straight, too.

 

My rule of thumb with molding is that I only use it for behaviors that my dog doesn't mind being physically "manipulated" for (like lifting Dean's paw), or for behaviors where I move myself relative to the dog.

 

I rarely teach molding techniques in classes, though, because the individual dog (temperament, quirks, preferences) really needs to be taken into account - moreso than with luring or shaping.

[Bill Fosher]

Hey, Mosstheboss2000,

 

Before you damn correction, you should at least learn what it we mean by it and how it is used in training the sheepdog. Every example you have cited is not correction in the sense that sheepdog trainers mean it. For example, there's no way that hanging a dog can be a correction. It can't be timed right, and it certainly doesn't encourage the dog to think. The point of correction is to give the dog permission to do what's right, and discouragement from doing what's wrong. When I'm training a dog, I am not training behaviors. I am training thought processes and outcomes. There is some behavior involved in that, yes, but when I say "lie down," I don't necessarily have to see the dog on its belly to know that it understood and obeyed. I need it to take pressure off the sheep.

[mosstheboss2000]

Hey Bill

I may damn people that are 'correcting/punishing' their dogs such a hanging and continuing with no change in behavior.

I did not damn punishment, I understand how animals learn through consequence as I said this is just opperant conditioning.

I have worked my dogs and many fosters on sheep Bill as well as many other venues. I do understand that their drive to do this work reflects in the fact that they could take a fairly harsh 'correction' and maybe one that might shut them down in another venue, yet keep on truck'n as the consequence of continuing to work the sheep that is such a high valued reinforcer for them. Could you imagine if when my dog missed a weave pole I pullled one out threw it in front of them and yelled NO and stomped into their space! Clearly not going work is it?

 

When you say lie down and don't always mean lay right down the dog learns that if they don't at least 'steady' up there will be consequences, but when they do they always will get that reinforcer. This is my point if you are going to correct it is important to follow up with letting the dog knowing that are correct. In this case the only thing you have to do is let the dog continue to work.

I will say I have seen dogs work through some pretty heavy handed handlers just for their drive to work. But if you took that outside of this context you may have a obedient and respectfully dog doesn't mean that they are then going to do everything else for you with the gusto that they work their stock. That drive will also give you a dog that will still 'try' things which on stock is necessary... no one wants a mechanical dog.

 

The reality is that CM demonstrates something and says to the average person here run with it.. this is how you create a 'alpha' role in your dogs life.

 

I may click and shape my dogs, doesn't mean I am then permissive and would never say 'wrong'

I run a half way house for Border Collies Bill... we THRIVE on structure!!!

Cindy

[Bill Fosher]

What can I say, Cindy. You obviously know best.

[mosstheboss2000]

I definitely don't know it all and don't claim to know it all, I learn something everyday on a continual basis working, handling and training my dogs and other dogs. Of all breeds. And watching others do the same.

I do see the end results of dogs that have been man handled and corrected by people in a attempt to control them. I also see dogs that just take liberties because they have never been given boundries.

 

I realize you can not handle every dog in every situation the same way, if that were the case dog trainers would be non existent because reading a book would teach you how to work with a dog. But you do not have to be a rocket scientist to understand that if you are correcting a dog for a behavior and it is not stopping or decreasing you are being abusive. I don't care who you are or to what extent you are correcting the dog or where you are doing it.

IF you don't believe this then that is something that you have to live with.

 

And a dog driven to do something that they instinctively want to do is not going to give you the same response from a dog that is not working with this drive or even that same dog in a different situation.

 

Yes I do know what my personal boundries are and how far I would go and I think it is okay to voice personal opinion, sorry I didn't realize this wasn't a discussion board. I will not start hanging my dog because someones tells me it is okay. If there is something I am not it is narrow and close minded to the idea of something different and I think that is what I have said here although you seem to think that I have made a personal attack on people who 'correct' their dogs.. and seem to think you have to defend your actions of correcting dogs while working stock. Maybe you should read my emails again.

 

Cindy

Who is starting to think that a few days of deciding to post on the board of 'narrow mindedness' will be ending shortly...

[stockdogranch]

I will not start hanging my dog because someones tells me it is okay.

 

I must have missed that post. Which one of the narrow-minded ones said to do that?

 

A

[mosstheboss2000]

Replying to Has Cesar turned over a new leaf?.....

I never implied that people on this board hang their dogs... I implied that just because I watch someone on television does not mean that 'I' am going to start doing this.

I implied that Cesar doing these thing encourages people to do it because it is implied that he is 'the dog whisperer'.

And yes the average person see's this and says oh it is okay because CM says so... I know I deal with these people every day.

 

I can't help that fact that animals learn through opperant conditioning.. I didn't invent this folks, I didn't name it sorry if you don't like this term? ..call it what you will, process and consequence or common sense really it is all the same taking and giving of positives and negatives. I am not making this a person mission to damn anyone who dare correct/punish a dog or I would not be a believer in opperant conditioning...

 

I don't understand what the problem is here???........

[Eileen Stein]

Cindy, it became clear pretty quickly that you hadn't read this rather lengthy thread before posting to it. If you had, I don't think you'd have felt the need to explain operant conditioning to us.

 

I think it's bizarre that you apparently believe that a puppy (between 7 weeks and four months old, according to the poster) who is corrected with a "Hey!" when trying to sneak off to the sheep, desists not because the correction was effective but because the pup is thinking that if he is good and obeys he might get to work sheep someday. Therefore, it wasn't the PP of the correction that caused him to stop, but the PR of a reward that he is somehow supposed to intuit might come his way eventually if he obeys now. I also think it's bizarre that you apparently believe that any type of PP, including the mildest correction, stops all behavior on the part of the dog, instead of just stopping the behavior he's being corrected for. It's hard for me to imagine that you've never seen a dog corrected with a "No" or a step forward (for something like jumping up, for example) who simply stops doing the undesirable thing and sits or trots off to do something else, rather than being afraid to do anything at all or dissolving into a puddle of submissive pee, but your dog training experience is different from mine and anything's possible. This is a discussion board, and you're certainly allowed to state your opinion, but it isn't surprising to me that other posters might conclude from your posts that you're misunderstanding how training with correction works, on sheep or off, and try to explain it to you.

[mosstheboss2000]

Actually I did read the whole thread Eileen...

Did you?

 

Okay so the pup obeys and gets his freedom...

 

YES PP stops behavior Eileen, if we use enough of it out of context we WILL suppress behavior. This is proven. Why do you think people use punishment to STOP BEHAVIOR!!!!! Unfortunately alot of time they are not just stopping bad behavior.

 

Have I said or indicated in anyway that you should never say NO or step into a dog. READ WHAT I HAVE SAID.

 

I understand that herding instinct is a impulsive or instintive behavior and this is why I said when we are herding it is more like we are shaping behavior. I understand you don't teach instintive behavior through opperant conditioning it is already a fixed action. But I do think when you are teaching your dog to listen and learn opperant conditioning comes into play.

It is like saying that clicker work is classical conditioning but actually it quickly becomes opperant as you end up + ing or - ing. ie. click, reinforcer, neg mark ect..

 

Rather then bash me as I have NOT bashed you... why don't you educate me then Eileen, your are a highly educated woman.

[Bill Fosher]

Cindy,

 

Everything you have written in this thread indicates to me that you have no interest in learning -- only an interest in showing off your knowledge and implying that those who don't see it your way are ignorant, cruel, or both. You consistently go back to hanging dogs as if that is a common practice among those of us who are advocating the use of correction in training, and you seem to insist on the very narrow-minded view that all dog training is about specific behaviors, as opposed to helping the dog to learn how to think for itself within the boundaries of right and wrong.

 

Hard to have much of a discussion when one of the people has no interest in anything other than her own sclerotic thinking.

[Shetlander]

I do see the end results of dogs that have been man handled and corrected by people in a attempt to control them. I also see dogs that just take liberties because they have never been given boundries.

 

Right -- in both cases, it isn't the technique or even the philosophy that is bad, but rather the training.

 

But you do not have to be a rocket scientist to understand that if you are correcting a dog for a behavior and it is not stopping or decreasing you are being abusive. I don't care who you are or to what extent you are correcting the dog or where you are doing it.

IF you don't believe this then that is something that you have to live with.

 

Well, I've been told much worse about myself, but working with abused kids and hearing stories of horrible animal abuse, I guess I have a narrower definition what is abusive. I would say that if repeated corrections are not decreasing a behavior it could be abusive or it could be merely ineffective. If the punishment/correction is ineffective it might not even qualify as a punisher in the dog's mind. We've all seen dogs tune out what the owner/trainer (gasp -- maybe even ourselves) was saying or even doing.

 

What made my Shelties wilt doesn't even register with the Lhasa. I didn't mean to be punishing when I took my Shelties by the collar but they acted as though they were being terribly mistreated. Taking Quinn's collar gets his attention but doesn't seem to bother him. If I combine taking the collar with a light shake (not hanging, not jerking, not twisting, nonviolent, thank you very much) and say a few quiet, stern words, he does not like it and the behavior I'm addressing decreases, so I assume it is punishing. If I did the same to the Lhasa, he might think it was a game and want to play or he might simply ignore the "correction." In either instance, I wouldn't say I was being abusive if I persisted in my actions.

 

Not sure what it is I have to live with because I disagree with your statement. Hopefully, just a difference of opinions.

[Eileen Stein]

Actually I did read the whole thread Eileen...

Did you?

 

Yes, I did. In fact, if you read the thread you will have seen that I took part in it as it went along. I assumed that you had not read it because you seemed to ignore a lot of what had gone before. For example, you ignored the details people provided about the puppy being corrected for trying to sneak off to the sheep, and you ignored the analogy I had made earlier about why it wasn't the hope of sheep somewhere in the dim future that influenced the pup to respond to the correction: "All dogs know they will get fed come suppertime, but that doesn't mean the anticipation of supper plays any part in a dog's learning not to counter-surf by being corrected for counter-surfing." Do you agree with that or not? Usually when you engage in an ongoing discussion, you address the arguments people have made rather than just explaining to them some stuff that it's evident from what they are saying is not unknown to them.

 

Okay so the pup obeys and gets his freedom...

 

What is that supposed to mean? The pup already had his freedom -- he was running and playing freely along with his person and the other dogs. When he tried to sneak away to the sheep, he was verbally corrected. He then continued to enjoy the same amount of freedom he had before the correction. It's pretty hard to twist this into a PR situation.

 

Have I said or indicated in anyway that you should never say NO or step into a dog. READ WHAT I HAVE SAID.

 

Okay. In responding to my question, "Leave the shock collar out of it -- I certainly wasn't talking about correction with a shock collar. What about the punishment of saying 'No' or stepping toward the dog or into its space? When the dog responds to that by desisting from the undesirable behavior, why is that 'suppressed behavior' rather than 'changed behavior'?" you first defined positive and negative punishment, and then wrote:

 

"[behavior] is suppressed because it is decreased or stopped... not changed. Changing a behavior would be rather then correcting my dog for jumping I would encourage a sit and teach the dog this is the behavior that gets them positive reinforcement which would increase the offering a sit rather then jumping. Negative reinforcement would be adding something adverse and having the dog understand that when they stop jumping this would stop. This again is training the dog through punishment but not encouraging behavior rather suppressing it because you are stopping all behavior."

 

Stopping all behavior is obviously not a good thing. Of course, I disagree with you that I would be stopping all behavior. I would be stopping the behavior I didn't like, and permitting the dog to choose any alternative to that, rather than requiring him to do something (sit) that I don't particularly want.

 

You went on to say:

 

"We are lucky to work with a breed with such desire and drive.

Imagine a dog that if you kept stepping into it's space and saying NO just lay down rolled over and wagged it's tail and submissively peed everywhere? This dog certainly would make a good sheep dog would it?"

 

This suggests to me that you think rolling over and submissive peeing would be the expected result of correcting a dog by stepping ito its space and saying NO, at least if the dog was not a border collie. And I think it's fair to say that throughout your posts you have repeatedly equated punishment with shock collars, hanging a dog, and futility (i.e., you have to do it over and over again because it doesn't work and therefore it's abusive).

 

Rather then bash me as I have NOT bashed you... why don't you educate me then Eileen, your are a highly educated woman.

 

I didn't bash you. You said, "I don't understand what the problem is here???" and I tried to explain it as I saw it. In the course of doing that I strongly disagreed with some of the things you wrote, which is different from bashing.

[mosstheboss2000]

There is a difference to me with a dog that would SIT if told no for jumping and a dog that would walk away and go sniff to me walking away would be avoidance behavior. (which sometimes IS the better choice to make... ie I have a dog aggressive dog looking away and avoiding would be a good thing) but not something 'I personally' like to encourage... I see WAY to much of it already with dogs that come in because of bad handling.

 

Having not worked with abusive children but abused dogs, yes there are always kids and dogs that are resiliant and may just avoid not shut down with constant correction/punishment but I guess that I, ME this I state is a personal opinion.... still believe that this becomes abusive handling and there will be some consequence how extreme or how little. I tend to say to people 'bad handling' or 'man handled' as that seems to get less hairs up when talking to them.

 

Of course you can have your own personal opinion... has my enthusiam for training made me think you are being attacked? Seriously ?

 

Bill, it is unfortunate that you got this from my posts... I wasn't trying to show off my knowlege or Imply that anyone was ignorant. Believe it or not many people don't understand training principles is there something wrong with that to bring it to the light to share it with people who don't have it... if you can't take anything from it don't. After reading the thread I felt there were people that maybe would like this information.

Maybe someone appreciates the information. There are lots of people on this board that don't have that much experience with training and dogs. I actually think more then saying you can only train this way I talked about different methods you could use. Yes I gave my 'personal boundries' and things that I WOULD DO doesn't mean you can't take that imformation and create your own and I think that I said that. These are just things that I have learned from my experiences.

 

I know you can't learn to train a dog reading a book but I did think that a good understand of science and what you are doing is helpful to anyone making decisions on how to work with and traing their dog.

 

So I will just turn it all over to you guys then....

I am going out to work my dogs.

Enjoy the beautiful day.

Cindy