CALLING ALL BEHAVIORISTS!

[bcnewe2]

This dog is almost 10. She used to be very fearful of everything.

I don't think she's carsick. I think she's gotten the first part of the conditioning or repetitve car rides, and the end result is a usually a good one of riding in the car so she is motivated by that and the idea she will do anything to please me.

 

She does better in cars where she feels like she has a hidey hole. If I put in her a car where the windows are quite visible she is smushing herself into as small a dog as she can be. She'll tremble and cower more than if in a car where she feels like she's hidden from view. Not to say she can't see out of the window if she chooses and she loves to have her nose to a good smelly spot where she's not really haveing to be noticed.

She will not take treats out in public and not usually outside other than when it's reg. time to eat and all the dogs are eating.

Maybe at a friends where we go often but not out in a public place or anywhere that she is nervous about. When I used to trial her I had to really work to get her to eat on the road. It took special coaxing with smelly good stuff on the food plus another dog that might eat her food if she left it(motivation). To bad I don't act like her with stress, I eat, she doesn't. She's also not toy motivated unless it's playing be herself when she thinks no one is watching. So toys, food, and most other normal doggy motivator things are not going to work. I can't give her a sheep for getting in the car.

 

Again, I think she is nervous of cars, but will do it (1) because I say and (2) she enjoys the outcome of a car ride most of the time. BTW this is the same behavoir I get if I take her to the vet. She'll drools, and hides in the corner or between my legs, trembles the whole time she's being examined. But she endures the exam because I say. Never offered to bite the vet (I act as the tech with her) but would like to turn invisible and go home if she could. She is fine the minute we walk out the door (till we get to the car but I call this her car behavior and don't worry about it). The times we have to go to the vet, I guess might sound mean or cruel, but to bad, we have to do it. I sure don't like going to the dr. but I do it anyways. I'm really glad I don't shake and drool but if I did, I'd still have to do it.

 

I guess the point I was trying to make is that not everything can be worked though or maybe I should say I don't take the time to work though every little detail in house manners or anything else except stockwork. I think working your dog is one of the best ways a dog learns to think on it's own if done corectly.

I don't obsess about small things with my dogs. We just do them and get to the good stuff. If I thought Raven was getting carsick I would try to help her with that, but probably not with drugs, finding a way that kept her from getting sick if I could. I've heard lots of ways that might help but really haven't had to deal with that issue so don't know if they work. The last puppy I got was car sick for maybe a few weeks, but quickly faded as she grew up. Guess I'm really lucky when I hear about dogs that get car sick their whole lives.

 

Just difference of opinions in dog training and the how to go about it part.

Wendy, are you trying to work out your dog getting in the crate becaue it's a hassle for you to leash her up and load her everytime and you find it aggrivating, or time consuming? Or are you trying to make everything right in the world with this dog? If she got in reculantly, but got in, would you have asked?

[Root Beer]

I guess the point I was trying to make is that not everything can be worked though or maybe I should say I don't take the time to work though every little detail in house manners or anything else except stockwork.

 

I would concur that not everything can be worked through, but why not work the dog through things as much as possible if the owner/handler has a desire to do so? The underline is just to highlight the main question. I really wonder why there would be any objection to someone making this particular choice and seeking out information to learn how just because it may be one's personal preference not to do so.

 

I've found with Speedy - who will never, no matter how much I work with him, be totally "normal" - that the more I work him through things, the better his quality of life is overall. It pleases me to see him as happy and emotionally balanced as he is now and to me it was worth all of the time I spent working with him to help him get to that point. Would he have been "OK" had I just accepted that he was fearful of dogs and people and that he would never be normal? Yes, he would have been "OK". But that wasn't satisfactory to me, so I did something about it and I am very, very grateful that I did.

 

He doesn't do stockwork - his role in life is to be my companion, my training partner, and one of my sport partners. The specific work that I've done with him on behavior modification has made his quality of life as my companion, training partner, and sport partner substantially better. Does anyone really think it was "obsessive", "theoretical", or "too time consuming" for me to do the work that I've done with him even though I have a better dog for it and I am perfectly happy with my choices? Seriously?

 

I totally comprehend the fact that you, and others, do not spend time and detail on house manners or anything else except stockwork. At the same time, I do. So, to me it stands to reason that I, and many other pet/sport Border Collie folks, go about a lot of things different when it comes to dog training. I don't think that's bad or wrong or unnecessary or anything else other than . . . different.

 

The quality of my dog's experience in his or her lifetime, as far as I can control it (of course there are things that cannot be controlled or changed) is a major priority to me. If my dog were, to use an example from this discussion, afraid of the bed, I would go out of my way to help my dog overcome the fear. Not because I must have the dog on the bed, but because I sincerely do not want my dog to be afraid of anything that he or she truly need not fear, and I am certainly going to try to work the dog through it if I am capable of doing so. That's just me.

 

Right now I am about to start work with Dean on being more comfortable with noises. He may always have some issue with certain noises, but I can make his life better by working to make him as "OK" with certain noises as possible. Why would anyone object to that even if she would not choose to do the same thing?

 

I think working your dog is one of the best ways a dog learns to think on it's own if done corectly.

 

You realize, though, I'm sure, that stockwork is not for everyone. And I don't just mean the dogs. Take, for instance, a Border Collie owner who can't really afford taking lessons at $40.00 a pop, or someone who can't find lessons in his or her area, or someone who seriously does not like being in a pen with sheep no matter how much the dog might love it, or someone who is allergic to sheep, or someone who simply is not interested in stockwork . . . what would you suggest to that owner? (I am particularly interested in your thoughts on this!)

 

I don't obsess about small things with my dogs.

 

I don't obsess about small things with my dogs, either.

 

Some practical examples - I didn't see it as necessary to go to lengths to frighten my dog to get him to stop counter surfing. I didn't see it as necessary to make my dog "come to Jesus" to get him to stop fixating on cars. I didn't make a big deal out of it when my dog jumped on me and didn't know how to keep his teeth off my skin when we first adopted him because nobody had ever taught him different. I didn't obsess about any of those types of things and yet he no longer counter surfs, fixates on cars, jumps on me (except when eagerly invited) or grabs at me with his teeth when he's overexcited, etc. I must be doing something effective, practical, and realistic.

 

Small things, all (for this dog in this situation - of course those can be big things in other contexts), that were taken care of in the context of the training that I do with my dogs for sports and in general without any fuss.

 

Definitely a different perspective, I'm thinking!

 

Just difference of opinions in dog training and the how to go about it part.

 

I think that different people have different priorities when it comes to their dogs and that's not a bad thing. A few of you have said that you don't do training with your dogs outside of stockwork. Stockwork is your priority - that's excellent. I don't do stockwork with my dogs. It makes sense that we view some things differently and that I have different priorities when it comes to my dogs.

 

Sorry to write a tome! This is such a great discussion! I've wanted to talk about this for a very, very long time!

[Shetlander]

The quality of my dog's experience in his or her lifetime, as far as I can control it (of course there are things that cannot be controlled or changed) is a major priority to me. If my dog were, to use an example from this discussion, afraid of the bed, I would go out of my way to help my dog overcome the fear. Not because I must have the dog on the bed, but because I sincerely do not want my dog to be afraid of anything that he or she truly need not fear, and I am certainly going to try to work the dog through it if I am capable of doing so. That's just me.

 

 

This is how I feel as well. With my Sheltie, her severe motion sickness has curtailed her life. I wish I had been able to get her over it. I tried a large variety of remedies, most to no avail and currently I use an effective medication because when it is important enough for me to take her on a ride longer than 5 minutes, I would prefer that she not be miserably sick and that I don't need to clean up the product of her misery.

 

The same thing with her fear of the reclining sofa. I don't need her on the sofa. She can lie on the floor if she pleases, and she sometimes does. My concern with the sofa was I spend much of my time in the living room. I already leave her behind whenever I go out. Allowing her to be weird about furniture wasn't acceptable to me. She is a delightful companion when she isn't being neurotic. I didn't want her to be skulking around the house, acting spooked, further isolated when I was home. So I helped her get over her fear. It didn't take that much effort and I still have my delightful companion nearby when I'm in the living room each evening.

 

I think we all have preferences for how we train and how we think about training. We all have different things priorities about how we live day to day with our dogs. Which is, of course, perfectly fine and the different viewpoints and experience make discussion around here interesting. Sometimes, we even learn from each other.

[bcnewe2]

Ya know Kristine I was thinking about this long after I posted.

I agree, you have your choices and others have theirs. I think there is room for all sorts of training and sometimes it amazing what I learn from you. I was pointing out my way. Not bashing yours. I think you know that though, so I want to clarify for others.

 

I was thinking an example of this.....

My sister has 2 kids. Grown now. But her husband died when they were both young. A tragic death. My poor sis struggled with raising these kids. She used to call me in the middle of the night to come help her with them. They were really bad. Long story short, they are grown and we chat all the time. I asked what the difference was between me and their Mom. Why did they know better to test me or disobey me when they were young? The answer they both give is that they respected me and feared the consequences of what I might do to them if they didn't obey. There was a "cause I said so" type thing. Or an "or else". I never had to go to the or else ending, just the threat of one worked for me and them.

 

You on the other hand, would have been wonderful for them, taking the time to address the issues that they had, and there were very real issues. They would have probably gotten better quicker in the long run because you would have taken the time to make them understand what was going on. I OTOH just said DO IT. The fear or respect they had for me made them do it.

They both grew up to be wonderful adults. I think my poor sis was paralyzed to do anything. She was suffering from her own losses.

So like some dog owners, she had no power to reason or make change to things that needed changing. You are a great teacher for people like her. She never did understand what the dif. was between me and her.

 

I hope that makes since. I don't want you to think I don't respect your ways. As I think you respect mine and others that differ from yours. As long as a dog is not being abused and is living a happy fulfilled life that is what truly matters.

 

Lets take the chasing car thing. Some people are not able to figure out what you do or mean and they end up with a dog still chasing cars while they're trying to figure it out. I'm sure it happens my way too. But there is an example for me that gives me no time to do it your way. While I'm working on learning and understanding how you do it. My dog dies cause he ends up chasing a car before I got the method down. Again, not that your way is not as good as mine but that's an example of when I just really don't have time or it's not safe to try other ways for me. Then again, I'm sure there are some out there who can have all the come to Jesus meetings they want and still don't get it, so it ends up badly too.

 

OK...sorry to rant a bit there but I've been thinking about this all morning. I thought my last post might have been misconceived to mean I was bashing your ways. I'm not!

One more little thing. My dogs are great house dogs even if I don't teach them how to be that way in specfic terms. I wanted to clairfiy that people that train like me do have their dogs or can have their dogs in the house and enjoy them.

eta:

I wasn't just talking to Kristine (Liz) I was resonding to her previous post. You and I were posting at the same time. You beat me! But again, I was including everyone. Just singled out Kris cause she has so much to say on the subject and I find her very informative.

[Jedismom]

What an interesting discussion. Good job everyone. I am what you'd call a dog book addict. I absolutely love reading about people's adventures with their dogs and the different things they've tried. I enjoy learning about the different theories, methods, etc. I wasn't always like this. I used to be quite normal. Now I seem to be this different breed of person called a dog lover.

 

Anyway, during this long process of educating myself I at times became quite frustrated. Some of this info was completely contradictory. For example: Don't play tug with your dog and if you do make sure you always win vs. Do play tug with your dog and it's ok to let them win sometimes. Don't let them walk ahead vs. it's ok if the leash is loose. I can go on and on. What I decided to do (which I believe many of us do) is use what works for my dogs and the kind of life I want to have with them. I prefer positive reinforcement, but sometimes I've used negative reinforcement. I consider that a method is not working, if after a period of time, behavior does not change. So I try something else if it's important enough for me to change it. I take into account the personality of my dog.

 

I hope this wasn't too redundant. Oh one more thing...I have used a product called Happy Traveler with Jedi, and it has cured him of drooling and vomiting while in the car. It's at www.arknaturals.com

 

Georgia

[Northof49]

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.

 

Negative Reinforcement does not mean something bad. When talking about the four quadrants of training - Postivie Punishment, Positive Reinforcement, Negative Punishment and Negative Reinforcement - positive is referring to adding something and negatvie is referring to taking something away.

 

http://www.sfspca.org/dog_training/camps_i...gtraining.shtml

[Shetlander]

Negative Reinforcement does not mean something bad. When talking about the four quadrants of training - Postivie Punishment, Positive Reinforcement, Negative Punishment and Negative Reinforcement - positive is referring to adding something and negatvie is referring to taking something away.

 

True but negative reinforcement involves the use of something the dog finds aversive so that the taking away of it is reinforcing. The classic example is the ear pinch to teach and fine tune a retrieve.

 

Negative reinforcement and positive punishment are often avoid for a variety of reasons among clicker trainers. One training list I was on did not allow the discussion of those two methods. And other lists react very unfavorably to their mention.

[bcnewe2]

positive punishment

so what is this?

A smack on the bum with a smile?

(couldn't help myself)

[Root Beer]

I was pointing out my way. Not bashing yours. I think you know that though, so I want to clarify for others.

 

Oh, absolutely! I never took anything you said as bashing. I like to understand your perspective better. That was definitely the motive behind my questions.

 

I realize I might come off as combatative, but I'm really extremely interested and have a lot of questions! And I read and consider the responses at length.

 

So like some dog owners, she had no power to reason or make change to things that needed changing. You are a great teacher for people like her. She never did understand what the dif. was between me and her.

 

Thanks - I hope I am able to help people who need to change things with their dogs. There were people who did that for me back when Speedy was very close to severe fear aggression and I try to pay that forward as much as I can.

 

I have no doubt that you did immeasurable good for your sister's children and that they appreciate it now.

 

I hope that makes since. I don't want you to think I don't respect your ways. As I think you respect mine and others that differ from yours. As long as a dog is not being abused and is living a happy fulfilled life that is what truly matters.

 

I appreciate that, and the respect is most certainly mutual. That absolutely is what matters most.

 

Lets take the chasing car thing. Some people are not able to figure out what you do or mean and they end up with a dog still chasing cars while they're trying to figure it out. I'm sure it happens my way too. But there is an example for me that gives me no time to do it your way. While I'm working on learning and understanding how you do it. My dog dies cause he ends up chasing a car before I got the method down. Again, not that your way is not as good as mine but that's an example of when I just really don't have time or it's not safe to try other ways for me. Then again, I'm sure there are some out there who can have all the come to Jesus meetings they want and still don't get it, so it ends up badly too.

 

If I may dovetail off of this, it's is a good example of looking at the whole picture of what a poster (whoever it is) is describing and not just the training method being shared. This isn't directed at you, Kristen, nor anyone in particular - it's just further reflection.

 

Yes, it can take a bit of time (although for some dogs it happens very quickly) to teach a dog to lose interest in cars through Look at That (or other desensitization exercises) and to call off of captivating moving objects reliably, but nobody who is interested in sharing these as options for a poster with a car chaser to consider trying is suggesting that the dog be put in danger while training is taking place.

 

For example, when Dean fixated on cars and set to chase them, he was on a leash or in a fenced area wherever there might be cars. That was an inflexible rule until he could be trusted to ignore the cars and to solidly call off of anything that he wanted to chase. No exceptions. Until my expectations are met (dog ignores cars and calls reliably off of moving entities), the dog has no freedom around cars.

 

I don't raise this point to create argument, but actually to point out one place where I think we are the same no matter what method is being used to teach the dog to leave the cars alone - the dog needs to be kept secure until the training is complete and the dog can be trusted, regardless of how long or not that might take.

 

OK...sorry to rant a bit there but I've been thinking about this all morning. I thought my last post might have been misconceived to mean I was bashing your ways. I'm not!

 

Totally understood! I've been thinking about this discussion a lot, too. It's a good one. But no, I never felt you were bashing. I think you raise good questions and I appreciate your input a lot.

[Shetlander]

so what is this?

A smack on the bum with a smile?

(couldn't help myself)

 

A smack with or without a smile would qualify.

[Root Beer]

A smack with or without a smile would qualify.

 

What if a Theorist smacks the dog with a clicker?

(Now I can't resist!!)

[Eileen Stein]

>

 

What if a person chose not to use aversives (what I think you mean by "negative reinforcement")

 

You know, I do know the terminology of classical and operant conditioning. I used the term "negative reinforcement" (in quotes) because that is the term used by you and others in posts ## 29, 32, 35, 40, etc., and presumably in the battle described as raging on another list.

 

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"?

 

Hmm, how to say this? Yes, I would say that person is a theorist, because the categorization of something as an aversive is reason to rule it out a priori, even if it would work more quickly and with no negative baggage. And I suspect that if you engaged in discussion with that person long enough, you would be hearing behavioral theory expounded about why aversives should not be used.

 

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

 

I am amazed. Seriously, you've never run into anyone on these Boards (and I'm not referring to you) telling people what to do and what not to do based on behavioral theory, as if it were gospel?

 

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'm sure it doesn't take you more than a moment or two to decide if a technique fits in with the theory you espouse. But keeping this impersonal, have you not noticed how often all-positive trainers characterize training that uses aversives as "old-fashioned," "outdated," "outmoded" and the like? Don't you think terms like this necessarily imply the embracing of a more "modern" theory, rather than a personally empirical training approach?

 

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.

 

I think you a little bit missed the point of my contrast. I used the "raging negative reinforcement debate" as an example because the focus there was not on the effect of that little morsel of teeter training but on how it should be classified. If it were to be classified as aversive, then it would be unacceptable. If it were classified as positive reinforcement or neutral, then it would be acceptable. But it is what it is, and it does what it does. A practical trainer would be focused on its effectiveness (not just in terms of whether it evokes the behavior you want, but also on its overall short- and long-term effect on the dog), not on whether it's "aversive" or not.

 

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.

 

Desensitization can in some situations be practical, certainly, but it is not practical per se. If in a particular instance desensitization takes much longer and results in the dog being under the stress of its fear for much longer than if a quick-acting mild aversive were used to achieve the same result, then it is not practical. And in that case, theory is being elevated over practicality.

 

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.

 

Oh, we probably aren't as different as might appear on the surface. We both care an awful lot about the well-being of our dogs, and we're both very interested in how they learn. I put a tremendous amount of time and thought into training, believe me, so time and thought are not negatives in themselves to me. I just get impatient when something that is nearly always relatively simple to correct is presented as a project requiring months of painfully, painstakingly drawn out rewards, not least because I fear that most people will not stick with such a protracted effort with so long-deferred a payoff. And truth to tell, I guess I also get annoyed when all-positive is presented almost as if it were religious dogma (which is not what you're doing in this instance).

 

>

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

 

I'm not really recommending Vicki Hearne to you -- I am positive you would find her even more maddening than I often do, may she R.I.P. I referred to her because she does wax eloquent on the theoretical/practical dichotomy and espouses the practical side, and because she is definitely NOT someone who's too impatient to spend time thinking and talking about these issues. As for her training background, she was a trainer of problem horses and problem dogs for many years (25+ ?). I have no first-hand knowledge of how effective a trainer she was. She was also very much an advocate for troubled dogs. AFAIK she never had a border collie -- she was partial to terriers and bully breeds. Adam's Task is not a training book -- it's more a philosophical treatise, and you would be turned off by it before you reached page 1.

[bcnewe2]

A smack with or without a smile would qualify

 

Then how do you call that positive?

[Shetlander]

Then how do you call that positive?

 

It is positive in the behavioral sense of the word. Positive in that you added something aversive (a smack) that is suppose to make the behavior less likely to occur (punishment).

 

It can be confusing at first.

[bcnewe2]

You realize, though, I'm sure, that stockwork is not for everyone. And I don't just mean the dogs. Take, for instance, a Border Collie owner who can't really afford taking lessons at $40.00 a pop, or someone who can't find lessons in his or her area, or someone who seriously does not like being in a pen with sheep no matter how much the dog might love it, or someone who is allergic to sheep, or someone who simply is not interested in stockwork . . . what would you suggest to that owner? (I am particularly interested in your thoughts on this!)

 

I forgot to address this.

I think stockdog training is a manner of training in it's self with or without stock. A way in which we make the wrong uncomfortable and the right comfortable. Pressure on pressure off. It transfers to other things in life too.

I teach my dog to respect a AHHH or NO on stock but really teach it way before we get to stock. So it learns off stock or on that if I say the same thing it means the same thing. I don't bother to analyze things, just AHHH to things I don't want. If AHHh doesn't work, then the pressure gets turned up. I can't think of the last time I've hit a dog. Maybe Mick in anger when he's attacking another dog. I'm mad and probabaly shouldn't be doing that but I have.

Pressure is not a bad thing, just a way of comunicating with them.

That would not work with a fear agressive dog being pushed over their fear line. Unless you count the time Raven bit me in the face because she was on the bed and I was trying to love on her. I had pushed her beyond her treshhold of fear. She warned me then bit me. In anger I tossed her off the bed and probably across the room. She's never bit me again. but I don't push her past her fear line unless I have to either. If I do I'm very aware that I might get bitten.

 

My come to Jesus meeting with Dew for chasing cars for example was nothing physical. I went after her and I had a stick in my hand. She ran from me, I walked her down (probably more a run her down cause it was middle of the night very dark and I had to get the job done with the truck that I was doing) she ran away from me for a bit then realized I was still coming at or after her. She finally stopped going the opposite direction of me and waited for me to catch up. I beat the stick on the ground pretty threatening for a moment or 2 hollering mean things that she didn't understand but she knew my tone was very angry. She cowered and submitted. I walked away without telling her it was ok or really telling her anything. She knew she had done something that to her must have been pretty bad to have the big lady coming at her that way.

 

I finished what I was doing, took a break and sat on the porch. I had been watching her out the corner of my eye the whole time to be sure she wasn't going to get hit by the truck. Which would have happened earlier as she wasn't just chasing she was trying to bite the tires.

 

She sat where I left her for about an hour. I never let her see me watching her. When I noticed she was getting figidity I nicely called her over to me. She ran over like she was in love with me. I didn't scold her anymore, I didn't make over her, I just patted her and told her she was good to come.

In the end, her recall became perfect along with the lesson of never chasing cars. I had inadvertently fixed any recall issues she had too because as she was running away from me coming at her I kept coming. but before all that started I had called her to me to just put her away. She chose to play deaf at that time. chasing the truck was more fun than coming to me could ever be.

So you might be able to say I could have run into issues by addressing more than one thing. I didn't even realize that's what was happening, I was trying to save her life and make sure she understood chasing cars was NEVER OK.

Not the way I'm sure Kristine would have choosen to do things but Dew is my lover girl, we suffer no ill effects from that incident. Plus she in no uncertain terms understands when I mean business by just an angry voice and she doesn't chase cars and comes when I call.

I don't suggest this way to address an issue to anyone, just giving an example of what a come to jesus meeting is for me. It's not pinching the dogs ear or beating them in my book.

Looking back I was probably angry, but more than that I was scared that she was going to die.

I only mention this meeting with Jesus becase Kristine mentioned it in an earlier post and I feel like people get the wrong impression like we hang a dog, or beat a dog, or some other nasty physical punishment. I can't vouch for anyone elses come to Jesus meeting but that's one that I can explain. I can't keep the dogs safe sometimes. I have no fence, they might be out and a car might pull up. So I have no time to condition them to not chase the car, it's learn it quick or die.

 

I don't beat my dogs nor do I pinch thier ears. But just like my kids, they know how much trouble they are in by what my actions are after their misdeed. I guess the positive part is everyday life. It's fun around here, I'm a softy, I let them on the furniture, in my bed and they get to eat people food when I have extra or fall for their sweet beggy faces. It's not a bad life, I don't make excuses for my training methods. All I can say, is to each their own.

And as far as stockdog training being expensive.... What's a good agility/sportdog class cost? What the fee for entering a comp? What about all those classes people take for doggy training? All the special treats people buy, trips to petsmart or the likes. It's where you choose to spend your money. I am by no means well off. I choose to do nothing else but sheep casue that's my passion not to mention I couldn't afford anything else. My first place that was big enough to have sheep was under 100k. I started with 4 ewes and built from there. Don't know how I'll afford my passion in CO but I will find a way. like an addict finds thier next hit. I will find a way!

I will also add that I agree with what Eileen has said above. I feel pressure from the pp people that my ways are bad, bad for the dog, bad for anyone and sort of left with a feeling of needing to defend my training ways. For PP training, if it's your bag, then go for it. I don't like spending all the time it takes for doing what a simple thing in my mind would be done in a minute. Not that I don't learn from reading but please lets not do the judging thing. It's gets to old to quick.

In another post I think it was northof49 said he/she is against any form of electronic punishment. Fences, collars, and bark collars. I agree that e-collars have no place in stock dog training but for me, it was way kinder to put a bark collar on my dog when she wouldn't stop barking when I was working other dogs. It also worked, nothing else up to that point had worked. I wasn't close enough to let her know at the precise time it was bad to bark. I don't care that northof49 doesn't use one but I do care if he thinks i abuse my dogs. Can't help it. I get defensive. I also don't think e-collars aren't the be all end all of bad training. Yanking a dog over and over to get a desired behavior is cruel. A quick zap that isn't really that bad is in my book, quicker and more precise in the right hands. I'm not that good with timing so I don't think I could use one. But I have seen them used properly and they work quickly and I didn't see dogs falling over from pain or dying from shock. Don't jump on me for saying that I think they have thier place, unless you've seen first hand damage from one used properly and can tell me about it. AGAIN I SAY THEY HAVE NO PLACE IN STOCKDOG TRAINING.

JMO

[bcnewe2]

It is positive in the behavioral sense of the word. Positive in that you added something aversive (a smack) that is suppose to make the behavior less likely to occur (punishment).

 

It can be confusing at first.

 

Now I'm totally confused! So you positively smacked someone instead of what?

[Shetlander]

Now I'm totally confused! So you positively smacked someone instead of what?

 

I'm sure Kristine could do a better job of explaining but I'll try.

 

Positive Punishment -- Adding something aversive to make the behavior decrease (a smack or verbal reprimand when the dog does something you don't like)

 

Positive Reinforcement -- Adding something rewarding to make the behavior increase (a treat or praise when the dog does something you do like)

 

Negative Punishment -- Removing something rewarding to make the behavior decrease (calling the dog inside when she barks too much, provided she likes being outside -- she loses being outside)

 

Negative Reinforcement -- Removing something aversive to make the behavior increase (the ear pinch that stops when the dog picks up the dumbbell)

 

Punishment decreases a behavior. Reinforcement increases a behavior. Positive and negative just refer to adding or removing something from the environment. Many clicker trainers will use mainly positive reinforcement with some negative punishment.

 

Aversive does not need to be painful or harsh. Just something to dog would rather avoid. And each individual dog decides what is aversive or reinforcing. So if you offered the dog a toy that frightened or simply didn't interest him, it wouldn't be a reinforcer.

 

Clear as mud?

[Root Beer]

Hmm, how to say this? Yes, I would say that person is a theorist, because the categorization of something as an aversive is reason to rule it out a priori, even if it would work more quickly and with no negative baggage. And I suspect that if you engaged in discussion with that person long enough, you would be hearing behavioral theory expounded about why aversives should not be used.

 

Perhaps - yes some who don't use aversives will get into behavior theory at some point. I don't usually, unless it comes up and I need to talk in those terms to continue on in a discussion. Not to get personal, but it will depend a lot on the individual. Some people do go in big for behavior theory. Others train without aversives because they find it effective and suitable for themselves and their dog.

 

That aversives work more quickly is not a given. For some dogs they don't work well or at all. I've found non-aversive methods to work surprisingly quickly in most cases. And for some dogs aversives do cause negative baggage. There are some dogs who take it fine, but there are dogs for whom use of aversives causes big problems. Of course, that's dependent on the aversive used, too. And there are some problems that aversives simply cannot solve.

 

A categorization of those who train without aversive as "theorists" or anything, paints them with one sweeping brush. Those who train without aversives are as varied among themselves in their reasons for chosing to do so as those who choose to employ aversives.

 

I am amazed. Seriously, you've never run into anyone on these Boards (and I'm not referring to you) telling people what to do and what not to do based on behavioral theory, as if it were gospel?

 

Actually, yes. Now that you mention it, I have. Interestingly, I have read posts where behavior theory is put forth as a supposed reason why aversives must be used, not avoided! As if it were gospel.

 

I see what you mean. So would you say that a "theorist" would equally be someone who trained according to "theory" whether the theory were to call for avoidance of aversives or to demand that aversives must be used based on theory?

 

I'm sure it doesn't take you more than a moment or two to decide if a technique fits in with the theory you espouse.

 

There is nothing theoretical about my dogs. They are real - in front of my face, totally in my life. I know who they are. I know what's best for my dogs. I don't decide if a technique fits in with a theory, but if it is right for my dogs.

 

I can talk about those techniques in terms of theory in a discussion, but that doesn't mean that training choices are made based on theory.

 

But keeping this impersonal, have you not noticed how often all-positive trainers characterize training that uses aversives as "old-fashioned," "outdated," "outmoded" and the like? Don't you think terms like this necessarily imply the embracing of a more "modern" theory, rather than a personally empirical training approach?

 

Sure, I've heard those things. Just as I've heard many of those who choose to include aversives in their training refer to positive training as "bribing", "permissive", "fad", "cookie training", etc. It certainly goes both ways!

 

I don't really infer adherence to a theory devoid of consideration of the individual dog from any of that. I see it on both sides as a plain old attempt to debunk those who train the other way. Just plain old human nature mud slinging.

 

I think you a little bit missed the point of my contrast. I used the "raging negative reinforcement debate" as an example because the focus there was not on the effect of that little morsel of teeter training but on how it should be classified. If it were to be classified as aversive, then it would be unacceptable. If it were classified as positive or neutral, then it would be acceptable.

 

OK . . . . Quoting myself here . . .

 

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.

 

This is most certainly focus on the effect!!!!

 

Yes, the topic of classification came up afterward and I participated in that discussion out of interest in what people are saying, but my focus was certainly on the fact that it worked something like a miracle with my dog!

 

You will not find me rejecting the technique because some (incorrectly, in my opinion) classify it as aversive.

 

I just get impatient when something that is nearly always relatively simple to correct is presented as a project requiring months of painfully, painstakingly drawn out rewards, not least because I fear that most people will not stick with such a protracted effort with so long-deferred a payoff. And truth to tell, I guess I also get annoyed when all-positive is presented almost as if it were religious dogma (which is not what you're doing in this instance).

 

I get that. It's pretty much the same on "the other side", so to speak. I will be the first to admit that I have a bias for the techniques that have worked for me with my dogs and I enjoy sharing them with others who ask for suggestions because I have found them to be very good (in both short term and long term results - and yes, often fast!). I figure people can decide for themselves what suits them and their dogs, but I like them to know that these training options exist. For real - not in theory.

[bcnewe2]

Positive Punishment -- Adding something aversive to make the behavior decrease (a smack or verbal reprimand when the dog does something you don't like)

I call that comunicating with a dog. Not the smack part but letting the dog know you are not pleased.

 

Positive Reinforcement -- Adding something rewarding to make the behavior increase (a treat or praise when the dog does something you do like)

GOtcha, I do that when I let the dog work sheep.

 

Negative Punishment -- Removing something rewarding to make the behavior decrease (calling the dog inside when she barks too much, provided she likes being outside -- she looses being outside)

to much thinking, I would put that in with positive punishment. I don't think Dew being that I train the way I do, would understand that I called her in the house for barking, but she'd understand if I said, quit, quiet or hey you in a neg. tone and she'd quit barking. Maybe she's out barking and I call her in cause it's time to come in, not cause she's barking, what then?

 

Negative Reinforcement -- Removing something aversive to make the behavior increase (the ear pinch that stops when the dog picks up the dumbbell)

 

Again, that's comunicating with the dog, pressure on pressure off, be it poorly cause I don't see why I'd have to pinch the dogs ear but I think they'd still get the message. Like the story I told about Dew chasing the truck. She got the message and lived to learn more. I just don't get the pinch the ear thing. I don't even think that'd help break up a fight if Mick got into one again. It'd probably cause him to bite harder as he would be feeling the pain of the ear pinch which would add to his intense nature.

I know hitting him has never worked. I guess what works best is when I see him getting to that point I very sweetly or like nothing is wrong, invite him to do something else. But it doesn't work all the time. I've seen him stop what he's doing (about to go off on a dog) look at me as if to say...sorry mom can't help myself and does it anyway. Then when I stop it or he stops it, he's looking at me like "I know I'm in trouble I can't help it"

 

Got any positive suggestions for that?

 

He's a very dominant pushy dog. An old man told me last weekend that he must be proud cut. Meaning that he's nuetered but they left a testicle inside. It was offered as a reason as to why he can still tie with a female in heat and why's he's such an ass sometimes.

??? That was a new one on me.

 

Thanks for the explanation. Goes along with my thoughts or lack there of. We just do what works for us. If it doesn't then we try something else. I just don't get what's wrong with telling a dog it's being bad or wrong with a neg. tone instead of a positive one.

[Eileen Stein]

That aversives work more quickly is not a given. For some dogs they don't work well or at all. I've found non-aversive methods to work surprisingly quickly in most cases. And for some dogs aversives do cause negative baggage. There are some dogs who take it fine, but there are dogs for whom use of aversives causes big problems. Of course, that's dependent on the aversive used, too. And there are some problems that aversives simply cannot solve.

 

I'm happy to concede that positive reinforcement works better than aversives in some cases, and even in some cases equally quickly. But in those cases where a mild aversive is likely to work faster (sometimes way faster) without negative baggage, the practical trainer would use it. That's the difference.

 

>

 

Actually, yes. Now that you mention it, I have. Interestingly, I have read posts where behavior theory is put forth as a supposed reason why aversives must be used, not avoided! As if it were gospel.

 

If so, those persons would be theorists too. I can't remember any such posters, but it's entirely possible. What did they say?

 

There is nothing theoretical about my dogs. They are real - in front of my face, totally in my life. I know who they are. I know what's best for my dogs. I don't decide if a technique fits in with a theory, but if it is right for my dogs.

 

Have you ever had a dog for whom an aversive would ever be the right choice? Do you foresee ever having a dog for whom you would think an aversive was ever the right choice?

 

>

 

Sure, I've heard those things. Just as I've heard many of those who choose to include aversives in their training refer to positive training as "bribing", "permissive", "fad", "cookie training", etc. It certainly goes both ways!

 

I don't really infer adherence to a theory devoid of consideration of the individual dog from any of that. I see it on both sides as a plain old attempt to debunk those who train the other way. Just plain old human nature mud slinging.

 

Yes, but there's a difference, isn't there? Both are disparaging, agreed. But disparagement wasn't my point. "Cruel," "harsh," etc., are also disparaging of aversives, but they are not disparagements that are theory-based. "Outmoded" and the like, OTOH, seems to me to be a claim of more than a preference or disapproval -- a claim of new learning, a new theory. "Bribing" and the like seems to me to be the equivalent of "cruel" and "harsh." But I am perhaps not expressing it well, and if you don't see what I'm getting at, I don't think it's worth pursuing.

 

OK . . . . Quoting myself here . . .

This is most certainly focus on the effect!!!!

 

I'm not suggesting that you never pay attention to the effect. I'm saying that the difference between the practical trainer and the theoretical one is that the effect (in the fullest sense) is paramount to the practical trainer, and that is inconsistent with a blanket refusal to consider any aversive, however mild or effective.

 

I figure people can decide for themselves what suits them and their dogs, but I like them to know that these training options exist.

 

Sure. I like them to know that there are many different options.

[Blue_Sky]

Here are some different examples that may make things clearer:

 

Think of "Positive" as adding somehing and "Negative" as taking something away

Think of "Reinforcement" as anything to increase a behavior and "Punishment" as anyhing to decrease a behavior

 

Positive Reinforcement: giving the dog a treat when he sits will increase the likelihood that the dog will sit next time

Negative Reinforcement: keeping pressure on the leash until the dog is walking by your side (removing the pressure when the dog is walking by your side will increase the likelihood that he will walk by your side, to avoid the pressure)

 

Positive Punishment: using a citronella collar, the dog gets sprayed whenever he barks (adding the spray to decrease the barking).

Negative Punishment: ignoring the dog when he jumps on you (taking away your attention to decrease the likelihood that he will jump on you again)

 

Ideally, you should have 20-50 reinforcements for every punishment. So, if a dog is barking and you yell at it to be quiet, you should then reward quiet behavior so it learns that being quiet makes good things happen. If a dog jumps on you and you ignore it, you should then reward an alternate behavior (like sitting). So the dog learns that if it sits in front of you, it'll get attention and that jumping doesn't work.

[beachdogz]

Why did they know better to test me or disobey me when they were young? The answer they both give is that they respected me and feared the consequences of what I might do to them if they didn't obey. There was a "cause I said so" type thing. Or an "or else". I never had to go to the or else ending, just the threat of one worked for me and them.

 

can't resist this one. sorry.

 

See, when those kids got out in the real world, they were equipped to handle their jobs...because when your boss says "do it this way" there is no "but why...give me a reason.." You do it, or you don't have a job. Why? Because he said so.

 

They were equipped to handle life because if you break a law, there is a consequence (jail) and someone taught them about consequences.

 

There are some very good articles out about how this current generation has a hard time in the work force because they came from the "everybody gets a participation ribbon; everybody wins; nobody gets cut from the team; think about their self-esteem" way of thinking and being raised.

 

Dog training/kid training. It's all the same thing.

 

Key to what you said was, "they respected me."

Key to living with dogs: they have to respect you.

You don't have to be mean or cruel to gain that respect...but they have to respect you.

 

I grew up in the heavy-handed, military-type dog training era. Lots of negatives. Mostly negatives. When I first started training in our area, food was a big no-no. You never trained with food (imagine that!) Some people looked down at me when I used food for heeling or as a target for the go-out in utility instead of what was locally being done.

 

I don't believe in all negative..but then I also don't believe in all positive. I believe that there has to be a middle ground in everything. I think that's true in dog training and in child training and in life.

 

let me know if I put my foot in it this time...I'm running out of feet and my mouth is just about full!

[Wendy V]

Wendy, are you trying to work out your dog getting in the crate becaue it's a hassle for you to leash her up and load her everytime and you find it aggrivating, or time consuming? Or are you trying to make everything right in the world with this dog? If she got in reculantly, but got in, would you have asked?

 

Whoa! I go off to work and looky what happens. Well, the board has too quiet lately anyways.

 

I would like to have my dog load up willingly into the car. I am not concerned whether the dog likes it or not, but just to be willing to do so. Interestingly enough, the dog doesn't have trouble riding in the car. It is the loading up that has the horrible memory attached to it. Also, the dog typically loads up easy enough away from home (in most cases). So, it is the loading up from the house that paralyzes the dog.

 

I find it aggravating to lead her to the car on leash because 1) my leashes are kept in the car and I have to make a separate trip to fetch it, and 2) I am juggling multiple dogs loading into the car at once while making certain no one strays into the road. It would make it easier on me in the morning if this dog just went along with the rest of the gang.

But, alas, I usually find her in the backyard rolled on her back with all paws in the air. Sigh..

 

Or are you trying to make everything right in the world with this dog?

 

I have no idea what this means. I offered this problem to learn how a desensitization approach might help solve it. By reading the suggestions offered by Kristine and Eileen and others, it has also spurred me to think of some new approaches on my own. The value of a forum discussion at its best.

 

So, at 6am this dark morning, too sleepy to think of any clever trick to work on the dog, I expediently fetched a leash out of the car and loaded her in. Training of any sort will have to wait for another day.

[Shetlander]

I don't think Dew being that I train the way I do, would understand that I called her in the house for barking, but she'd understand if I said, quit, quiet or hey you in a neg. tone and she'd quit barking. Maybe she's out barking and I call her in cause it's time to come in, not cause she's barking, what then?

 

I dunno. Let me just share as briefly as possible how I taught my Sheltie to stop barking outside. Yelling at her didn't do it. No bark collars didn't do it. Neighbors spraying her with water or telling her quiet (with my blessing) didn't do it. Someone shooting paint balls at her (NOT with my blessing but fortunately missing her) didn't do it.

 

What reformed a horrible nuisance barker into the quietest of my current three dogs? Positive reinforcement of treats and praise for stopping when told, for breaking off a barking jag when called, for stopping herself from going on a barking jag with no cue from me. Also, because barking is so self-reinforcing for her, I would make her go inside after marking the behavior (I forget what I said, something about no barking). And I managed her better, no longer letting her be outside if I left the house. So a few different things all came together so that now people who knew her "back in the day" can't believe how quiet she is. And I achieved this so quickly and easily after years of punishment, that I felt incredibly stupid as a trainer.

 

I know hitting him has never worked. I guess what works best is when I see him getting to that point I very sweetly or like nothing is wrong, invite him to do something else. But it doesn't work all the time. I've seen him stop what he's doing (about to go off on a dog) look at me as if to say...sorry mom can't help myself and does it anyway. Then when I stop it or he stops it, he's looking at me like "I know I'm in trouble I can't help it"

 

Got any positive suggestions for that?

 

Assuming this isn't a rhetorical question, one approach would be to work with him on this behavior from a few steps back before he gets that look in his eye. I don't know the context of the situation (why he goes off, where this happens) or the type of dog he is so I can't comment on what would be effective reinforcement for the right behavior or a meaningful loss of something he liked. And I don't know how long you've worked with him or what techniques you've used.

 

Depending on the issue, sometimes just becoming very clear how much you disapprove of a behavior is enough, especially with a dog as smart as a Border Collie. I did this with Quinn last month when I finally had it with his fence fighting with the stupid little poodles behind us. I got very ugly with him verbally. Not yelling but so ugly even the constantly yapping poodles shut up. After this, whenever he heads towards that corner of the yard, a simple "Quinn!" or "Hey!" has been remarkably effective in stopping the behavior before it begins. And he is ignoring that corner of they yard more and more. But this was a self-reinforcing behavior, not one that stemmed from insecurity or fear like you sometimes see in dogs who go off on other dogs.

 

He's a very dominant pushy dog. An old man told me last weekend that he must be proud cut. Meaning that he's nuetered but they left a testicle inside.

 

That's one I never heard!

 

 

Thanks for the explanation. Goes along with my thoughts or lack there of. We just do what works for us. If it doesn't then we try something else. I just don't get what's wrong with telling a dog it's being bad or wrong with a neg. tone instead of a positive one.

 

As you say, it's what works for us. I also use different approaches depending on what I am doing with my dogs. Training agility or tricks, for instance, I avoid aversives as much as possible. In regular day to day life, I will correct as well as reinforce.

[bcnewe2]

Assuming this isn't a rhetorical question

 

No it's not. I've tried all you've mentioned +++. He does it when and where he feels the need. female or male is not an issue with him. Although males are quicker to get his dander up. Or maybe he's a bit more intimidated by a female. He is way better now than he used to be but I think it's something that I will be able to manage. not make go away. Which is what we do.

 

He is a dog that I question if he has some brain damage due to the TBD's that he suffered so long with, along with being so sick during his formative years. There are things that he just can't seem to gain control of himself. It's not that big a deal anymore but I used to beat myself up over it as I felt like a bad dog person because I couldn't get it or him under control. his pack has learned to deal with him and recently I've noticed that he keeps himself in check with putting a stick or some other thing in him mouth, that way he's not got something to bite them with. He is a strange nut but loved all the same. I might also note that I had to take Mick home at 5 weeks. His mom had stopped nursing and he was going to be put outside in a kennel in Dec. I decided it was better to take him early than let that happen. He only learned to play with other dogs in the last 2 years. Took one determined foster who wouldn't quit trying, he now plays a bit with Dew but very little. Again, strange nut but great stockdog and I love him dearly, even when he's an ass.

 

As far as the barking...that was a rhetorical situation All my dogs will quit barking if I say to. Only Dew is prone to barking cause she's happy. I think she's actually talking, not barking and sometimes we chat about it with her barking her answers the whole time. Dew is the last one to bark an alert bark and the last one to get involved with other dog issues. She is challangeing her sis right now for top spot, but losing the whole way. I encourge her to be on the losing side as I really don't think she's mature enough to be top female dog. She lives with 2 senior females that are 10 and almost 13. No one to really play with but Mick and that's pretty tricky but she does manage to get him to play a little bit.

 

Thanks all for the good discussions everyone, I have lots of new stuff to ponder.