CALLING ALL BEHAVIORISTS!

[beachdogz]

Before putting in that kind of time, I'd try clipping on the lead to load her up, then drive her to something she really enjoys.

 

You know, that could work. The rescue site posted that my dog loved car rides. Well, after she took the ride home with me, taking her from the only home she had every known to a new home with strangers, she ran from the open door of the car and hated to get in it. I used food, toys, anything I could, but it didn't change her mindset. Then, we started dog obedience classes...which she LOVES. And now, getting her in the car is no problem at all! I never would have thought of that as a solution, but it did work for my dog.

[Root Beer]

You know, that could work. The rescue site posted that my dog loved car rides. Well, after she took the ride home with me, taking her from the only home she had every known to a new home with strangers, she ran from the open door of the car and hated to get in it. I used food, toys, anything I could, but it didn't change her mindset. Then, we started dog obedience classes...which she LOVES. And now, getting her in the car is no problem at all! I never would have thought of that as a solution, but it did work for my dog.

 

It definitely could be as simple as that and it's definitely worth trying first.

 

I'm curious about something, beachdogz - when you used food, toys, etc, did you try to use them to lure her to the car, or use them to reward her in the car, or did you release her away from the car to the food, toys, etc.? I've been paying attention a lot lately, not only to the reward, but to the place where the reward is given and the effect that has on changing the dog's mindset, so I'm just interested "for the sake of art", so to speak!

 

I've been working with someone lately whose dog hates to get in the car and she tried and tried loading her dog up to go fun places - the park, dog class, etc., and it made no impact on the dog's willingness to get in no matter how many great places she took her. The dog apparently didn't associate ending up at a good place with loading up at home. It's great when it works and I would always try that first, of course - since it is simplest. In this particular dog's case, more work was needed, so that happens sometimes, too.

[beachdogz]

It definitely could be as simple as that and it's definitely worth trying first.

 

I'm curious about something, beachdogz - when you used food, toys, etc, did you try to use them to lure her to the car, or use them to reward her in the car, or did you release her away from the car to the food, toys, etc.? I've been paying attention a lot lately, not only to the reward, but to the place where the reward is given and the effect that has on changing the dog's mindset, so I'm just interested "for the sake of art", so to speak!

 

 

Interesting questions.

 

I tried two of the three. I used both toy and food (on separate occasions) to lure; and then I used both (separately and on separate occasions) to reward while in the car. Neither seemed to help. I did not even think to try the third (releasing her away from the car and reward). Would that not be rewarding her for getting out of the car, not in?

 

You know, I have always been of the mindset that conditioning works when the dog can associate the act and the reward immediately. I have attributed that to the fact that I never believed that dogs can reason on the level that we can; they learn by classical or operative conditioning. So I would have thought it impossible for the dog to associate going to a fun place as a reward for getting in the car. I would have told you, "no way. it'll never work that way because the dog can't reason."

 

Yet, it worked with my dog and...I can't take a lick of credit for it. In fact, until Eileen posted that, I hadn't realized that actually was the "turn around". I had given up on the food and toy rewards and decided to just let this ride itself out. But when I read her post, I realized that was the pivotal moment that got my dog in the car willingly. It was after the third class. From then on, the car was no longer an issue.

 

These two dogs I own now have made me rethink what I used to believe. I believe my first dog understands words and sentences in a way none of my other dogs ever did (and I've had a lot of dogs.) And this Border Collie...well...I'm gonna get in a LOT of trouble with my other dog friends for saying this. But I am beginning to believe that this breed is way smarter; has way more reasoning power; and are more phenomenal than any breed I have ever owned or worked with.

 

I've been working with someone lately whose dog hates to get in the car and she tried and tried loading her dog up to go fun places - the park, dog class, etc., and it made no impact on the dog's willingness to get in no matter how many great places she took her. The dog apparently didn't associate ending up at a good place with loading up at home.

 

That's probably because she doesn't have a Border Collie!!!

[Shetlander]

I did not even think to try the third (releasing her away from the car and reward). Would that not be rewarding her for getting out of the car, not in?

 

I did something along these lines with my Lhasa's fear of the teeter. I'd reward heavily for being on the teeter (at first it was simply having two paws on the teeter), then I'd take him off before he became frightened, with all rewards (treats and praise) stopping at the same time. This fairly quickly built up a focus on the rewards rather than worrying about the teeter. Pretty soon he was running up it as quickly as he could to keep me from ending his fun. I then helped a bit with controlling the drop for him -- treating all the time and making sure to get him off if I had the slightest suspicion that he might become nervous.

 

I came across this approach on a list where a battle was raging over whether this was negative reinforcement. I ended up thinking it was but truly I was more interested in the fact that it worked for my dog. He no longer needed to work through his fears and the teeter started to only have good associations.

 

 

QUOTE

I've been working with someone lately whose dog hates to get in the car and she tried and tried loading her dog up to go fun places - the park, dog class, etc., and it made no impact on the dog's willingness to get in no matter how many great places she took her. The dog apparently didn't associate ending up at a good place with loading up at home.

 

 

That's probably because she doesn't have a Border Collie!!! laugh.gif

 

Or that dog could have some motion sickness/fear of the ride itself. After 10 years with a sea-sick Sheltie, I can say that while she is thrilled to visit with her friends when we arrive at a destination, she still dreads getting into a car. And that is with a medication that has stopped her vomiting for the past year.

[Root Beer]

Interesting questions.

 

I tried two of the three. I used both toy and food (on separate occasions) to lure; and then I used both (separately and on separate occasions) to reward while in the car. Neither seemed to help. I did not even think to try the third (releasing her away from the car and reward). Would that not be rewarding her for getting out of the car, not in?

 

I used to think that, but it turns out that it will not.

 

Like Shetlander, I used this technique with Dean with the teeter, and I still do when he gets nervous about it if it tips too quickly for his comfort level. If he jumps off the teeter, I immediately cue him back on, but cue him off as soon as his feet hit the board (instead of having him complete the exercise) and then release him to tug. This has never failed to change his attitude - every time I cue him off and release him to play he suddenly wants to do the teeter and the we can train.

 

It's one of those things you have to try to believe, and it's amazing to see it work. And I've found it can work very fast, too.

 

These two dogs I own now have made me rethink what I used to believe.

 

That's been my experience, too, and it is so interesting! It's liberating, too, because I don't have to worry anymore about reinforcing fear or normal dog things like sniffing, looking around, and taking in information about the world around them. I get dogs that know what I expect of them and are able to deliver and they get ample opportunity to just be dogs. I've found it to be a win-win.

 

I'm gonna get in a LOT of trouble with my other dog friends for saying this. But I am beginning to believe that this breed is way smarter; has way more reasoning power; and are more phenomenal than any breed I have ever owned or worked with.

 

I've found the same thing. These are pretty amazing dogs. I love my mutts, but the Border Collies are, as you say, phenomenal.

[sluj]

Or that dog could have some motion sickness/fear of the ride itself. After 10 years with a sea-sick Sheltie, I can say that while she is thrilled to visit with her friends when we arrive at a destination, she still dreads getting into a car.

 

I have this issue with my dog. So far, the one thing that has helped is to narrate the drive: I tell her when a turn or a stop or a bump is coming up. She's still not thrilled to be riding, but she doesn't pant/drool if I do this.

[Root Beer]

I came across this approach on a list where a battle was raging over whether this was negative reinforcement. I ended up thinking it was but truly I was more interested in the fact that it worked for my dog. He no longer needed to work through his fears and the teeter started to only have good associations.

 

That must have been a doozy of a debate! I would care an awful lot if my dog found any step of the process aversive, but I haven't found that to be the case. I think the key is to move slowly enough to keep it from becoming aversive to the dog.

 

Like you, I find that it works and my dogs find the process interesting and rewarding. I move at the pace they set.

 

When I started the teeter thing with Dean, he was happy to put one paw on, so we started there. I never asked him to go any farther than he was comfortable going and within minutes he was at the tip point giving me eyes for more! Had that taken a lot longer, that would have been fine.

 

I can see how it would become negative reinforcement if a person pushes their dog too far or too fast or insists on seeing progress that isn't there yet. Had I been expected to force Dean to the tip point where he was fearful before telling him off, that would not have been an acceptable technique to me and I would not have tried it with one of my dogs.

 

Or that dog could have some motion sickness/fear of the ride itself. After 10 years with a sea-sick Sheltie, I can say that while she is thrilled to visit with her friends when we arrive at a destination, she still dreads getting into a car. And that is with a medication that has stopped her vomiting for the past year.

 

Definitely an important consideration.

[beachdogz]

Or that dog could have some motion sickness/fear of the ride itself.

 

Just to throw a monkey wrench in this; or showing that nothing is etched in stone and every dog is so different:

 

I once had the car-sickness-litter-from-h*ll. Honestly, on a 45 minute car ride to puppy matches, I had to pull over AT LEAST 4 or 5 times to clean up the mess, it was that bad. I had NEVER experienced that much yuck from car-riding puppies. I kept two from the litter - a boy and girl - who I showed extensively. And I tried everything they tell you for car sickness (short trips, building up; peppermint; jelly beans; anything that someone suggested, I tried to no avail.) Those dogs NEVER got over it.

 

Yet, they hopped happily in the car EVERY TIME; never balked at riding to the day they died (13 years later.)

 

Go figure.

[beachdogz]

I'd reward heavily for being on the teeter (at first it was simply having two paws on the teeter), then I'd take him off before he became frightened, with all rewards (treats and praise) stopping at the same time. This fairly quickly built up a focus on the rewards rather than worrying about the teeter.

 

I came across this approach on a list where a battle was raging over whether this was negative reinforcement.

 

ok, I must be slow. I need this explained to me.

 

You rewarded heavily ON the teeter. (That's positive reinforcement while ON it.)

Then you took him off before he became frightened, stopping all rewards (that's no reinforcement)

 

My original question was if you took the dog out of the car and rewarded him, weren't you rewarding him for getting out.

 

How does feeding him on the teeter and stopping the rewards when off constitute the same thing?

And how is feeding him on the teeter (where you want him) and not feeding him off the teeter constitute Negative Reinforcement (as others saw it)?

 

Liz or Kristine...please explain this to me. What am I missing here??

[Root Beer]

ok, I must be slow. I need this explained to me.

 

You rewarded heavily ON the teeter. (That's positive reinforcement while ON it.)

Then you took him off before he became frightened, stopping all rewards (that's no reinforcement)

 

In this case cueing the dog off the teeter is reinforcing because it actually is rewarding to the dog to get off of it. Have you ever known a dog that is afraid of the teeter? If so, you can plainly see that a dog who doesn't like the or is afraid of it teeter wants nothing more than to get off the thing or get away from it. By cueing the dog off, I am taking charge of that reward (getting away from it) and using it just like I could use food or a toy. Make sense? I know it's kind of a different idea.

 

I don't stop rewards when I cue the dog off, though, so the rewards don't stop. Once the dog gets off on cue, I reward again - usually with play.

 

Dog steps on teeter - food rewards (positive reinforcement)

Dog is cued off the teeter - inherently rewarding to this dog (positive reinforcement)

Dog is rewarded for getting off the teeter - play or release to other reward (positive reinforcement)

 

To make it more straightforward:

 

Dog gets on teeter - rewarding

Dog gets off teeter - rewarding

 

The process of getting on and getting off becomes rewarding and it becomes a pattern. After all, the dog is not going to live on the teeter forever. Eventually the dog will "exit" after tipping and going to the bottom to hit the contact, but the pattern of "get on/get off" remains. Getting off the teeter isn't a bad thing any more than getting out of the car is a bad thing. Yes, the dog eventually needs to learn the correct time to get off and the correct way, but if you take care of his fear or dislike of the teeter first, teaching a proper tip and contact is just plain training.

 

The dog has to get on before he can get off, so the fact that the dog is being rewarded for getting off makes getting on more rewarding.

 

I've made this sound way more complicated than it is, but think about it - and try it! This is one of those things that just makes more sense when you see it work.

 

My original question was if you took the dog out of the car and rewarded him, weren't you rewarding him for getting out.

 

Yes, you are rewarding him for getting out, but he can't get out if he is not in, so allowing him to get out (or to walk away from the car before getting in) as a reward and then rewarding that will erase some of his worries about going near the car/getting into the car and make him more eager to get into the car. It will not make him try to get out before he's in (if that makes any sense!! LOL!).

 

How does feeding him on the teeter and stopping the rewards when off constitute the same thing?

 

Because in both cases, the dog is learning to accept (or even LOVE) doing something that he or she started out fearful of doing in the first place. You are changing more than the behavior - you are changing the dog's attitude toward the thing that he or she once feared.

 

Teeter is a nice simple example because when a dog is afraid of it . . . . oh you know it! And you have to deal with that before you can train independent performance. But you can substitute anything the dog might be afraid of for "teeter" (a crate, someone's house, the car, water, etc.)

 

And how is feeding him on the teeter (where you want him) and not feeding him off the teeter constitute Negative Reinforcement (as others saw it)?

 

Hoooo boy, now I'm going to sound like a theorist.

 

Well, it's not "not feeding him" off the teeter that they saw as negative reinforcement, but the fact that you call the dog off the teeter as the reward for touching it, getting on it, etc.

 

Negative Reinforcement is when something that is aversive to the dog is taken away to increase the likeliness that he will do something. The classic example is a prong collar. Dog pulls leash tight. Prongs move into the skin on the dog's neck. The feel of the prongs is aversive to the dog. Dog puts slack in leash and prongs move out of the neck. Dog learns to give the leash slack when he or she feels the prongs and when they go away, that reinforces loose leash walking.

 

So, some would say that putting him on the teeter (or in the car) is aversive and that you take that away by cueing him off. Hence, negative (take away) reinforcement (increase behavior).

 

Make sense? I hope. I don't agree that it's negative reinforcement (if done even remotely correctly!) because you allow the dog to determine where he or she is comfortable, but that's why it might appear to be on the surface.

 

Theory over!

[bcnewe2]

I don't know about a dogs reasoning but I do know that my dogs know when they get in the car they're going for sheep somewhere. we hardly ever go anywhere unless it has sheep in the end. A long ride means definatly sheep. A short ride means maybe. A ride in the country or not out of the country keeps them up and looking for sheep the whole time.

Mick had a fear of dog trailers. He was in one when it had a flat over the box he was in. I'm sure it scared the crap out of him. we fought about him loading up for quite a while. then I decided to just manually load him instead of fight. I'd call him away from the trailer, pat his head, take him by the collar walk him over and put him in the trailer. After a time all I had to do was call him over, pat his head and say load, he got in. NOt always happy. he knew when we were done working and that wasn't as happy as a load as when we were going but he did get over his scary ride.

He also went in a strange SUV with me one night. No issues with cars or SUV's only dog trailers. This suv had a tire going bad and made a horrible whirrring noise. He became afraid of car rides for about 2 months after. Any car caused him to tremble and want to ride in the footwell shaking, a far cry from my normal traveling buddy. After about 2 months of going to sheep in the car, it to went away. He's still afraid of certain noises, like the bumps in the road if you drive over the shoulder line, but it only causes him to jump up out of sleep and look around. then settle back down. Sure has me conditioned to not go off onto the shoulder if I can help it. I found that if I warn him it's about to happen with a "it's ok Mick or sorry buddy" he gets over it faster, something to do with he knows it's coming.

 

Strage dogs these are. I think they reason more than we give credit for.

[Root Beer]

Strage dogs these are. I think they reason more than we give credit for.

 

I concur!

 

In fact, I'm often thought to believe they reason more than they actually do!

[Shetlander]

I have this issue with my dog. So far, the one thing that has helped is to narrate the drive: I tell her when a turn or a stop or a bump is coming up. She's still not thrilled to be riding, but she doesn't pant/drool if I do this.

 

Sassy's motion sickness is so severe that a few times in the past she has thrown up before we were even near the car -- just knowing she was about to go in a car got her to that state. Like beachdogz, I tried all kinds of remedies, a few of which had mild and brief success. Exhaustion (e.g., after a long, warm day at an agility show) was most effective. Ace seemed to help most of the time in that she fell asleep (and yes, I know all the horror stories of Ace).

 

About a year ago, a drug called Cerenia was marketed for motion sickness in dogs. This has worked very well -- no vomiting and very minimal to no drool. At the risk of jinxing myself, she's been fine on all rides since I started using this medication, including a few rides where I did not have enough lead time to give it to her. Perhaps the successful rides are reducing her anxiety. Cerenia is expensive but she only gets half a dose due to her weight, she rarely goes for rides any more, so I'm fine with the cost. They advise against giving it more than a couple days in a row, so I don't think it would work for dogs who had to get in the car daily or several times a week.

[beachdogz]

The dog has to get on before he can get off, so the fact that the dog is being rewarded for getting off makes getting on more rewarding.

 

Yes, you are rewarding him for getting out, but he can't get out if he is not in, so allowing him to get out (or to walk away from the car before getting in) as a reward and then rewarding that will erase some of his worries about going near the car/getting into the car and make him more eager to get into the car. It will not make him try to get out before he's in (if that makes any sense!! LOL!).

 

Maybe I see. So you are actually chaining the events leading to what you eventually want the dog to do. Getting off the teeter or leaving the car is a part of that chain, so it also has to be reinforced???

 

Do you then also think that arriving at the fun spot is also part of the chain (i.e. the reward), so it works...but not with all dogs because not all dogs can "remember" the chain for that long? Just a thought.

[Shetlander]

You rewarded heavily ON the teeter. (That's positive reinforcement while ON it.)

 

Yes.

 

Then you took him off before he became frightened, stopping all rewards (that's no reinforcement)

 

In this case, I would see it as negative reinforcement because taking or cueing the dog off the teeter relieves pressure.

 

My original question was if you took the dog out of the car and rewarded him, weren't you rewarding him for getting out.

 

How does feeding him on the teeter and stopping the rewards when off constitute the same thing?

And how is feeding him on the teeter (where you want him) and not feeding him off the teeter constitute Negative Reinforcement (as others saw it)?

 

It was a long argument and I tend to avoid theoretical debates -- plus my head is hurting a bit today --- so I forget all the reasons. It isn't as clearly negative reinforcement as an ear pinch where the dog taking the dumbbell makes the pinch stop (unless you're the kind of trainer who uses the pinch for a variety of situations). There is as you say, some positive reinforcement involved by making being on the teeter rewarding. Unlike Kristine, I chose to make the party stop as soon as the dog was off the teeter. So yes, my Lhasa had the relief of being off the teeter but he wanted the treats back. The teeter became less a scary thing and instead was transformed into something he wanted to do to earn treats. Eventually it got to the point where Chili was like "Oh, no you don't! I'm doing this teeter, lady!"

 

So as far as the car, I would treat while in the car and stop as soon as he was out of it. This is often referred to as "Bar Open/Bar Closed." The good stuff only comes out in a certain situation (being in the car). Make a game out of it. Get in the car -- party! Ok, out of the car -- pretty boring. Back in the car -- party! The car starts to look better and better. This technique is often very effective in changing a dog's view of something or someone he sees as bad, threatening, scary, etc.

 

Also, is there any way your dog could eat his meals in the car? My Sheltie developed a fear of my reclining sofa (boy, Shelties can be neurotic!). One of the things that helped her past it was she ate all her meals on the sofa. She is the most insane for food of all my insane for food dogs, so this went a long way to getting her comfortable.

[bcnewe2]

What about a dog that is to fearfull to eat in the car? even steak? Or the dog that wants nothing to do with food or treats altogether? No balls, no nothing that I can find to interupt the fear of say...the car?

I have a dog that will ride in the car, doesn't like the car, drools the whole time and would never take a thing in the car. She still rides in the car cause I ask her too. What is that called?

[Shetlander]

I have a dog that will ride in the car, doesn't like the car, drools the whole time and would never take a thing in the car. She still rides in the car cause I ask her too. What is that called?

 

I suppose, what you just described. A dog that hates the car but rides in it because you tell her to. If it works for you --and hopefully doesn't make the dog too sick -- I guess that's how it is and life goes on. If you really wanted to work on this, you could try starting with the rewards at a distance far enough away that the dog was willing to eat, play, whatever. Then work your way closer and closer to the car, until she was able to eat or take toys while in the car.

 

For the record, my Sheltie has always ridden in the car when told to as well. I just hated seeing her so sick and I really disliked cleaning up the vomit. She's a pretty extreme case and it's limited her life a fair bit. She's the one usually left behind. She doesn't like seeing her pack drive off for the day but she still prefers it to riding in the car. Maybe with enough time, your dog will become more comfortable in the car just through repeated exposure. That happens with some dogs.

[Root Beer]

Maybe I see. So you are actually chaining the events leading to what you eventually want the dog to do. Getting off the teeter or leaving the car is a part of that chain, so it also has to be reinforced???

 

Do you then also think that arriving at the fun spot is also part of the chain (i.e. the reward), so it works...but not with all dogs because not all dogs can "remember" the chain for that long? Just a thought.

 

Sort of. Chaining is part of it, but it's not totally because it's a chain. It seems to me that the most powerful aspect of releasing the dog to the reward (instead of only rewarding at the car, on the teeter, on the bed, etc.) is the actual release.

 

The dog doesn't need to "remember" the chain. The dog just needs to find the release rewarding. If you get a strong behavior chain that is inherently reinforcing, it's a huge bonus.

 

Seriously, the best way to understand this is to try it and see it for yourself.

[Root Beer]

In this case, I would see it as negative reinforcement because taking or cueing the dog off the teeter relieves pressure.

 

Sorry to get theoretical on you, but I think it's definitely good to consider whether or not the dog finds pressure aversive. I can think of instances where my own dogs do find pressure aversive and I can think of instances where they actually find it quite rewarding.

 

In the case of Dean with the teeter, he would have found it highly aversive if I had tried to lure him to the tip point before he chose to go up there on his own. At the same time, he was very happy to place two paws on the teeter by his own choice. So, when I released him after he put on two paws (and I rewarded him for it), I wouldn't say I was releasing him from pressure so much as exposure to something that concerned him, but way before that concern would be a big deal.

 

Pressure would have been, "those feet are going on the teeter whether you like it or not, OK now get off". We started at, "you're comfortable with your feet on the teeter? Good, now get off!" And as a result, he gave me four paws on the next time, etc.

 

Practically speaking, I guess the distinction comes between whether the handler is making the dog go beyond his comfort zone or if the handler is letting the dog work within his or her comfort zone. If the dog is in his or her comfort zone - even while being exposed to something that causes him concern - there are no aversives in the picture, so negative reinforcement is not occurring. But if the handler were to push the dog beyond his or her comfort zone, that would be different.

[Shetlander]

Pressure would have been, "those feet are going on the teeter whether you like it or not, OK now get off". We started at, "you're comfortable with your feet on the teeter? Good, now get off!" And as a result, he gave me four paws on the next time, etc.

 

Man, I really don't do well in these conversations, but I'll give it a try.

 

I don't think pressure has to be that harsh. Just touching the teeter was a big thing for the Lhasa. I encouraged (not forced) him to put his paws on the board and once he did, I rewarded heavily, then I took him off while he was still having a good time but not wanting to go up higher. Fine, then he comes off before he is stressed or wanting to bail, which I think would be a relief. Except at that point my mercenary little thug still wanted the treats and was immediately in a frame of mind of how to get the treats, I got the treats on the teeter, so offer the behavior.

 

Practically speaking, I guess the distinction comes between whether the handler is making the dog go beyond his comfort zone or if the handler is letting the dog work within his or her comfort zone. If the dog is in his or her comfort zone - even while being exposed to something that causes him concern - there are no aversives in the picture, so negative reinforcement is not occurring. But if the handler were to push the dog beyond his or her comfort zone, that would be different.

 

It sounds like we did things very similarly as far as taking off the teeter. But given his druthers, Chili sure as heck wouldn't have been perched on the teeter until it became worth his while and then increasingly less scary. That's why I see it as pressure while at the same time he was learning to find the board rewarding. But that's just my take. And my main point was it worked quite well for my dog.

 

So what pressure does your dog find rewarding?

[beachdogz]

It seems to me that the most powerful aspect of releasing the dog to the reward (instead of only rewarding at the car, on the teeter, on the bed, etc.) is the actual release.

 

oh, geez, I see what you're saying. I do that ALL the time...never really thought of it as part of the conditioning/reinforcement. Like when I finally got to brush her....praise, praise, praise during the brushing and the "happy dance" after (of course, with her, there's no real "dance" because of the original problem ) I'm going to have to be more aware of this from now on.

[Eileen Stein]

I'm curious, though, as to what you mean by "theoretical basis of training?"

 

I still don't really know the "theorists" are, though.

 

I'm not Wendy, but I think I can help you out here. Theorists are people who would put a lot of time and effort into deciding if a particular training move fell into the category of "negative reinforcement" or not, because if they decided it did fall into that category they would not use it, because it would be contrary to a theory of training that they espouse. This is in contrast to the "practical trainer," who would decide whether to use the move or not based on their observations of the particular dog. Vicki Hearne had a lot to say on the subject -- some of it wacky, some of it not -- in her book Adam's Task: Calling the Animals by Name.

[Pippin's person]

Vicki Hearne had a lot to say on the subject -- some of it wacky, some of it not -- in her book Adam's Task: Calling the Animals by Name.

 

Boy, ain't that the truth!

[Root Beer]

I'm not Wendy, but I think I can help you out here. Theorists are people who would put a lot of time and effort into deciding if a particular training move fell into the category of "negative reinforcement" or not, because if they decided it did fall into that category they would not use it, because it would be contrary to a theory of training that they espouse.

 

What if a person chose not to use aversives (what I think you mean by "negative reinforcement") in training because they find that non-aversive methods work on a practical level and he or she personally prefers to do it that way because it suits her and works for both her and her dogs?

 

Do you still consider that person a "theorist"?

 

Seriously, I don't know anyone who chooses not to use one method or another because it is contrary to any theory.

 

I'm willing to wager that I fall into your "theorist" category and I certainly don't operate that way. If someone suggests a training technique to me, I don't sit around thinking, "does this fit in with the theory I espouse?" I can tell right off the bat if it's something I am willing to try with my dog or not, based on my judgement of what is best for my animal, same as you. Behavior theory is interesting and it has given me tools to improve my training ability, but I choose to train the way I do because I personally feel that is best for my dogs. There is absolutely nothing theoretical about it.

 

I think that the contrast between those who train without aversives with the descriptor "practical" implies that correction free training is not practical. I certainly beg to differ on that point and whether or not it is actually "practical" would be something for an individual to decide. The fact that Vicki Hearne does not consider it practical does not in some way make her way "practical" and other ways "impractical" even if that is her opinion on the subject.

 

This is in contrast to the "practical trainer," who would decide whether to use the move or not based on their observations of the particular dog.

 

I've been talking a lot about Control Unleashed lately and that would certainly fall into the category of "practical" by this definition. It's all about basing what you do on your observation of the particular dog.

 

And by this definition, any form of desensitization is practical.

 

The fact that one needs to put time and thought into desensitization does not render it impractical, either. If putting time into something makes it impractical, I can't think of much worth doing that would be practical.

 

In this regard we aren't as different as it might appear on the surface.

 

Vicki Hearne had a lot to say on the subject -- some of it wacky, some of it not -- in her book Adam's Task: Calling the Animals by Name.

 

Interesting. I'm not familiar with her. What is her dog training background?

[Ms.DaisyDuke]

What about a dog that is to fearfull to eat in the car? even steak? Or the dog that wants nothing to do with food or treats altogether? No balls, no nothing that I can find to interupt the fear of say...the car?

I have a dog that will ride in the car, doesn't like the car, drools the whole time and would never take a thing in the car. She still rides in the car cause I ask her too. What is that called?

 

I don't think she's scared of the car, but he doesn't like it because it makes her sick. Drooling is what happens before they vomit in motion sickness. While your dog may never actually vomit, I am pretty sure this is what it is. (Based on my experiences anyway). Daisy used to have BAD motion sickness, drooling, vomit, diarrhea the whole 9 yards! She wouldn't take treats in the car, and sometimes still won't, but she has outgrown the carsickness. Try giving him ginger BEFORE you get in the car.