Jump to content
BC Boards

Before You Get Your Puppy


Alaska
 Share

Recommended Posts

Are Border Collie owners who do not do stockwork unwelcome to take active part in the discussions on this board?

 

Obviously, they are. I am beginning to wonder, though, if the people who do work stock feel just as welcome nowadays.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 246
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Apparently you misunderstood me. I was not saying that nobody trains without the use of corrections; I was saying that nobody cares that some of you prefer to train your dogs without the use of correction.

 

Gotcha. I did misunderstand. Thanks for the clarification. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are many trainer who do utilize prong and e-collars in their training, but train new behaviors with positive methods (marker or clicker training) and don't correct a dog until they are sure the dog understands the command. What I come away with from many of these conversations is an all or nothing attitude from people who choose not to use corrections and the idea that if you use anything besides a clicker (I know, that is probably a bit extreme) you abuse your dogs. When that is not the case at all.

 

To me the check chain or prong collars don't really teach the dog anything. I used a prong collar ONLY for safety so my dog could not slip out of her collar (so I didn't have to have it on so tight. ) I never tugged on it or corrected her with it and we have since graduated to a normal collar and now no collar as she is reliable off leash. Although since then I have not used one with my other dogs.

 

I personally do not put down corrections as I use them with my 21 month old. (Verbal Corrections I mean, I never touch my dog) But I thought with my puppy I would try no corrections at all more so as an experience. I think a good trainer would have tried a few different things and choose what works best. How would I know if it worked or not if I haven't tried it. It doesn't work for all dogs but I am very lucky to have a puppy that it works perfect for. Looking back I would have loved to have done it the same way with my older dog but that is in the past and there is nothing wrong with her now. She is a brilliant performance sport dog and companion. I hardly ever have to tell her what to do anymore. She knows all the rules and obeys them religiously. Everyone always asks me where I got her from as she's such a wonderful dog, but her training has nothing to do with her breeding. So correction based training works fine most of the time! I have just expanded my knowledge to try non correction based training and there is nothing wrong with that. You advocate what you know works for you and what may work for a certain situation, whether it is using a clicker or not. By corrections here I mean verbal corrections, not physical. I think it's not so much the clicker that people advocate but more the idea that the dog is learning for itself instead of the outdated method of pushing your dog into a sit. I don't think there are many people that use no correction type methods that never ever say No to their dog. I try my hardest not to, but it is old habit so does slip out every now and then. The argument here has gotten way out of control, and I think the idea of a huge void between corrections (verbal) and positive is wrong. Using corrections (verbal) I would still consider as positive training. I think the argument should really be between physical and non physical training. :rolleyes:

 

Anyway people use what works for them and their dog. Only THEY know what is best for their dog/situation and they should pick and choose what information would work for them. Whether it is physical, verbal or otherwise to a certain extent.

 

CHEER UP EVERYONE!!!! :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Doggers,

Ms/ Echoica asks: "Is it too far out there to say that punitive methods seem to be the preferred method of training for 'working' dogs...border collie or otherwise?:

 

Too far out? Depends what you want to accomplish. If you want a go-nowhere argument and a chance to establish your kindness credentials, go ahead and say it. If you'd like to understand other methods of dog training, their virtues and hazards, that statement indicates only that your mind is made up and there isn't much inside it.

 

I've watched FEMA SAR trainers, Field Trial Bird and Retriever Trainers, Competitive Obedience and Agility Trainers and any number of sheepdog trainers. I've been in a minefield on the Kosovo/Albania border to see demining dogs work. I've watched coursing dogs in the California desert.

 

What I took away is awestruck silence. What dogs and humans can do together is flat out astonishing (the Saluki's pursuit of a jackrabbit takes thirty seconds win or lose, demining dogs are routinely walked around the minefield for two weeks before starting work so the dogs understand its particular gestalt, good retrievers will go out three hundred yards in a straight line to a target they cannot see and did not see fall - and on and on.

 

The only fully articulated animal training method is behaviorism. Other methods - with the possible exceptions of Koehler Method and Drive theory - use anecdote and hands on mentoring. No method, including behaviorism, is "scientific" and a fully articulated method which fails to predict and manipulate behavior is no improvement on anecdotes.

 

All dog trainers, including at least some of the cruel ones and most of the fools are united in their affection for dogs. Problem is, trainers see dogs through very different lenses (and it is the dog's virtue and difficulty that he can adapt convincingly to many different human lenses). Since one's method works - at least more or less - it confirms itself and allows its practitioner to deride other methods as cruel, ineffectual or ya-dah-dah-dah.

 

It is also worth noting that training method is related to income. There's real money at stake. More than a few pet dog trainers net six figures - some using ecollars, some using clickers. Bird dog or retriever trainers who hope to win trials and make a living use ecollars. Sheepdog trainers with the same (unlikely) dream do not. Naming one's facility "Kindly Acres" is probably cleverer than calling it "Shock Collar Alley". Local competition between pet dog trainers is intense and badmouthing the other guy is epidemic - "I keep getting dogs he/she's trained, and God, they're neurotic, abused, confused (choose one)."

 

Take it with a grain of salt, guys and gals. Most pet dogs figure out what we really want whatever our training method. If you've got a job for your dog, be it SAR, agility, obedience, stockwork, hunting, dog sledding, coursing . . . adopt the methods successful practitioners use and keep your mouth shut until you've been at it a while.

 

Donald McCaig

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest echoica
No method, including behaviorism, is "scientific" and a fully articulated method which fails to predict and manipulate behavior is no improvement on anecdotes.

 

Behaviourism IS absolutely scientific. And there is A LOT of research to that end - with hypotheses, prediction, manipulation etc etc etc. It goes farrrr beyond anecdotal evidence. It did not start and will not end with dog training. Just because people are familiar with the R/P +/- 'quadrant' or Pavlov's salivating dogs does not mean they know anything about the science of behaviourism. I know this because I studied it formally in university.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Echocia,

How about just accepting Donald's premise that methods that work, as long as they aren't cruel, are acceptable? I think this quote is the most important part of his message:

 

If you want a go-nowhere argument and a chance to establish your kindness credentials, go ahead and say it. If you'd like to understand other methods of dog training, their virtues and hazards, that statement indicates only that your mind is made up and there isn't much inside it.

 

I really think that's all anyone is asking in these discussions--that you don't jump to conclusions or make assumptions about other training methods that you do not practice. I'm sure you think your training method is the best thing since sliced bread. To me it seems the positive only trainers are as evangelical as the raw feeders. If it works for you, that's great. But it sure would be nice if folks who used *other* training methods weren't constantly lumped into a group as cruel and thoughtless people who care not a whit for the welfare of their dogs.

 

Northof49s characterizations are over the top, as numerous others here have already noted. She has said that she was just giving examples in response to someone else's comments, but the fact remains that many people--those who close their minds--will happily point to her example and say, "See?' when in fact most people would recognize her examples as extreme and not likely the norm. In my own small sphere of influence I will make clear to students that cruelty is not acceptable and I will name names of trainers I feel they should avoid and tell them exactly why. That, I think, is more helpful then lumping, for example, all people who train stockdogs as practitioners of cruel and or unkind methods (especially if you've never trained a stockdog and so don't know what you're talking about, degree in animal behavior or not). Just as I don't presume to tell someone who's training their dog for freestyle competition or agility that their methods are silly, outmoded, or downright cruel, I would like to think I would recieve that same form of respect here. And I think that's what people like Anna, Jodi, et al. have said in this thread (and in others like it).

 

Granted, positive only by it's very name implies that poor little Fluffy never even receives a frown from her owner, but positive methods inconsistently or wrongly applied can be as confusing and frustrating to an animal as any other method wrongly applied (which is another way of saying what Donald has said here). Sure the owner feels good because s/he never has a cross word for Fluffy, but that doesn't automatically mean that Fluffy is easily or happily learning what the owner intends. No one seems willing to acknowledge that, even though Donald has pointed that out several times in this thread.

 

J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Doggers,

 

Ms. Echoica asserted:

"Behaviourism IS absolutely scientific. . . . I know this because I studied it formally in university."

 

If Ms. Echoica studied in the 60's and 70's, she would have heard that claim and I suppose some emeriti still believe it. Henry Harlow's wire monkey and the Brelands "Misbehavior of Organisms" pretty much put paid to Behaviorism qua "science". Even back in the day asking a physicist what he/she thought of Behaviorism's claims could have expected an ugly reply

 

Donald McCaig

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest echoica
I would have to say that sheepdog training as commonly conducted blends correction and reward so fully that it would be impossible to say that one predominated over the other. They work together -- yes/no, give/take, pressure/release. At its best it's almost a dance. I'm actually surprised by your example of the SAR trainer using punitive methods, because all the SAR trainers and bomb detection trainers I've known have used mostly positive reinforcement methods -- ball drive and the like.

 

I don't know anything about SAR training myself other than what I have seen on TV...maybe this trainer here has dogs that are not quite as effective as they should be because of his extreme methods...I don't know. What I do know for sure is outside of the SAR training he has seriously messed up quite a number of pet dogs. I know several people who have gone to him with perfectly normal dogs that just needed more guidance and structure...and they came back from it with a prong collar and alpha rolls! ...and a dog who only listens out of fear...not mutual respect.

 

I don't know much about training hunting dogs, although I think shock collars are commonly used. Shock collars are very much looked down on among the good sheepdog trainers I know. One of their concerns (one among many) would be not wanting to "harden" our dogs, who are so wonderfully sensitive, responsive and biddable, to the point where after generations of selection for those that could stand up to that type of training they might be as dulled as the goldens you mention. The seeing eye dog organization I'm familiar with trains pretty traditionally with both rewards and corrections (verbal corrections like "Phooey" and leash corrections), but setting things up so there will be more praise than correction.

 

Thanks for your thoughtful response. That definitely answers my question...and is much what I expected with the BC. I find in these discussions it is hard to tell where people really stand because amidst all the bickering is seems at times that people take to one side or the other instead of meeting in the middle (particularly pet dog trainers vs. stock dog trainers) -- I think the extremes on either end of the spectrum are definitely NOT the norm at all but it comes across that way when you read some of these posts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest echoica
I really think that's all anyone is asking in these discussions--that you don't jump to conclusions or make assumptions about other training methods that you do not practice. I'm sure you think your training method is the best thing since sliced bread. To me it seems the positive only trainers are as evangelical as the raw feeders. If it works for you, that's great. But it sure would be nice if folks who used *other* training methods weren't constantly lumped into a group as cruel and thoughtless people who care not a whit for the welfare of their dogs.

 

Northof49s characterizations are over the top, as numerous others here have already noted. She has said that she was just giving examples in response to someone else's comments, but the fact remains that many people--those who close their minds--will happily point to her example and say, "See?' when in fact most people would recognize her examples as extreme and not likely the norm. In my own small sphere of influence I will make clear to students that cruelty is not acceptable and I will name names of trainers I feel they should avoid and tell them exactly why. That, I think, is more helpful then lumping, for example, all people who train stockdogs as practitioners of cruel and or unkind methods (especially if you've never trained a stockdog and so don't know what you're talking about, degree in animal behavior or not). Just as I don't presume to tell someone who's training their dog for freestyle competition or agility that their methods are silly, outmoded, or downright cruel, I would like to think I would recieve that same form of respect here. And I think that's what people like Anna, Jodi, et al. have said in this thread (and in others like it).

 

Granted, positive only by it's very name implies that poor little Fluffy never even receives a frown from her owner, but positive methods inconsistently or wrongly applied can be as confusing and frustrating to an animal as any other method wrongly applied (which is another way of saying what Donald has said here). Sure the owner feels good because s/he never has a cross word for Fluffy, but that doesn't automatically mean that Fluffy is easily or happily learning what the owner intends. No one seems willing to acknowledge that, even though Donald has pointed that out several times in this thread.

 

J.

 

I think you need to go back and read my posts again because you are making a lot of faulty assumptions about where I stand and what I have said - what I do and do not practice etc.

 

I specifically said -- 'I think there is a time and a place for correction to a certain level under the appropriate circumstances (the 'come to jesus' move comes to mind)'

 

And -- 'outrageous punitive methods outlined by Northof49' and 'is animal cruelty if you ask me...and shouldn't be considered an animal 'training method'

 

NEVER, have I lumped anyone on this board into ANY group. So there is no need to jump all over me for asking a general question regarding the 'preferred method' of stock dog trainers.

 

??? What the...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NEVER, have I lumped anyone on this board into ANY group. So there is no need to jump all over me for asking a general question regarding the 'preferred method' of stock dog trainers.

 

??? What the...

I didn't think I was specifically jumping all over you, since only the first sentence was directed at you specifically, though I have to say that it always sets my teeth on edge when someone comes along and says something like "I have a degree in X" thereby implying that the other person doesn't know what they are talking about. While I was responding to your post, my response was to positive-only trainers in general and my bad bad for not including the parenthetical (the generic you) after use of the word "you," so no need to get all bent out of shape.

 

Also, I would like to add that anything that has a basis in science but is not applied scientifically is not science. I'll spare everyone a recitation of my education.

 

J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest echoica
Dear Doggers,

 

Ms. Echoica asserted:

"Behaviourism IS absolutely scientific. . . . I know this because I studied it formally in university."

 

If Ms. Echoica studied in the 60's and 70's, she would have heard that claim and I suppose some emeriti still believe it. Henry Harlow's wire monkey and the Brelands "Misbehavior of Organisms" pretty much put paid to Behaviorism qua "science". Even back in the day asking a physicist what he/she thought of Behaviorism's claims could have expected an ugly reply

 

Donald McCaig

 

Yes, well, this isn't the 60s-70s and thank dog it isn't -- As a woman, I probably wouldn't have been ALLOWED to study with such limited opportunities available for women back then :rolleyes: Clearly, what they THOUGHT THEY KNEW THEN and WHAT WE KNOW NOW...is quite different. 30-40+ years of research later...but this is off-topic :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, well, this isn't the 60s-70s and thank dog it isn't -- As a woman, I probably wouldn't have been ALLOWED to study with such limited opportunities available for women back then :rolleyes: Clearly, what they THOUGHT THEY KNEW THEN and WHAT WE KNOW NOW...is quite different. 30-40+ years of research later...but this is off-topic :D

Not directed at you or anyone in particular but "what they thought they knew then and what we know now" is similar to "what we think we know now and what someone else will know in the future". What is "known" currently is always subject to what will be "known" later on when there is still yet more information available.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest echoica
I didn't think I was specifically jumping all over you, since only the first sentence was directed at you specifically, though I have to say that it always sets my teeth on edge when someone comes along and says something like "I have a degree in X" thereby implying that the other person doesn't know what they are talking about. While I was responding to your post, my response was to positive-only trainers in general and my bad bad for not including the parenthetical (the generic you) after use of the word "you," so no need to get all bent out of shape.

 

Also, I would like to add that anything that has a basis in science but is not applied scientifically is not science. I'll spare everyone a recitation of my education.

 

J.

 

Fair enough. No hard feelings Julie :D I promise not to get too bent out of shape next time :rolleyes: haha

 

A person does not have to have a degree to learn something (I totally agree)...I know that full well as freelance designer who never actually studied design in school...I just enjoy it. Gosh, even someone who does get a degree in something can be a complete dope about the subject if all they did was memorize and recite...forgetting it later. But it does lend credence to your point if you are trying to make one...otherwise you really do have a really expensive and useless piece of paper :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But it does lend credence to your point if you are trying to make one...otherwise you really do have a really expensive and useless piece of paper :rolleyes:

I agree that it lends credence, but too often it's used as a means of shutting down discussion (not saying that's what you were doing), something I've seen many times over, so I try to avoid it in principle and instead use examples to illustrate whatever point I'm trying to make, even if the subject may be my area of expertise....

 

To bring this a little back onto track, I was out feeding the ewes and lambs this morning and had Pip and Twist with me--Twist because she's a good and experienced lambing dog and Pip because he needs to learn (Twist won't be around forever, and good lambing dogs are pretty much priceless--they need to be able to stand up to overprotective mamas and yet be as gentle as can be with baby lambs all at the same time). Lambs are fragile creatures and have no idea that they should respect a dog (they learn this from their mamas, but it takes a while). So while the two held the sheep off the feed bunk so I could dump feed, one of the little lambs came running up, right between Pip and Twist because he just knew that food was coming. Pip moved to stop him, and I had to give Pip a "sort of" verbal correction (simply using his name in a tone that meant "careful!"), not because I didn't want him to instictively stop a sheep from running past him, but because he needed a reminder that this was a fragile little thing that didn't know any better and so he had to be careful with it. I honestly don't know how you teach those sorts of things with positive-only methods, but I do know if he had grabbed the lamb or knocked it down, I wouldn't have flung him up against the fence, though he'd know I was unhappy with his poor response.

 

I know there's a world of difference between stockdog training and pet training for JQ Public, but there are also points of intersection that people seem to forget. Pip knows sit, lie down, shake, and up (sit up), all trained through luring, putting a name on an offered behavior and rewarding when the behavior was offered after I gave the word, etc. But he also understands what "no" means. This morning, I could have simply said "no" to him and he would have left the lamb completely alone. But I did want to encourage him to control the lamb, so instead I used his name and a particular tone to communicate to him that while his instinct was correct, he needed to take care. Maybe someone can explain to me how that sort of communication can be trained without ever using a correction.

 

J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OT, I know, but I couldn't let this one slide:

As a woman, I probably wouldn't have been ALLOWED to study with such limited opportunities available for women back then

The 60s and 70s were *not* the Dark Ages, and while it was in the 60s that the second wave of the Women's Movement got rolling, women really did attend university long before that. I had a grandmother who passed away in the early 60s, who was in her mid 70s (so would have been born before the turn of the century) who had been a criminal defense lawyer in her prime. So I think in the 60s you certainly would have "been ALLOWED to study."

 

Back to our regularly scheduled program,

A

 

ETA: Oh, and I don't think you really want to start comparing degrees and/or educational background with many of the folks on here; there's a scary lot of advanced degrees in a wide variety of fields floating around here

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Doggers,

Ms/ Echoica asks: "Is it too far out there to say that punitive methods seem to be the preferred method of training for 'working' dogs...border collie or otherwise?:

 

Too far out? Depends what you want to accomplish. If you want a go-nowhere argument and a chance to establish your kindness credentials, go ahead and say it. If you'd like to understand other methods of dog training, their virtues and hazards, that statement indicates only that your mind is made up and there isn't much inside it.

 

What echoica wrote was a question, not a statement. It didn't deserve this kind of response. Even if you think you know MUCH more about all methods of dog training than the person you're addressing, this kind of put down does nothing to ameliorate the "strident" tone of these discussions, which you earlier deplored.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Doggers,

 

As often, Julie's example is specific and evocative:

 

"So while the two held the sheep off the feed bunk so I could dump feed, one of the little lambs came running up, right between Pip and Twist because he just knew that food was coming. Pip moved to stop him, and I had to give Pip a "sort of" verbal correction (simply using his name in a tone that meant "careful!"), not because I didn't want him to instictively stop a sheep from running past him, but because he needed a reminder that this was a fragile little thing that didn't know any better and so he had to be careful with it. I honestly don't know how you teach those sorts of things with positive-only methods, but I do know if he had grabbed the lamb or knocked it down, I wouldn't have flung him up against the fence, though he'd know I was unhappy with his poor response."

 

Many trainers - including some very good sheepdog trainers - believe that complex dog behaviors are a combination of simples. One teaches a rollover and play dead by first luring the dog into a lie down, next luring it into a rollover: viola.

 

Derek Scrimageour teaches the sheepdog shed as a combination of behaviors.

 

And it works. But I believe we also wittingly or not train for understanding and Julie's example is a good one. Note the training Julie did NOT do: expose Pip to a single lamb and keep him off, teach a separate command for "Don't bump this particular sheep" etc, etc. What she did was expect Pip, at his level of understanding, to hesitate and think because of a word of advice (his name) which may mean a number of different things in different circumstances. "Pip!" can mean "come", "Watch out!", "Don't you dare!" or "Pay attention" depending on context.

 

There's nothing mechanical about this. It is not Stimulus/response; it is understanding.

 

Like us, dogs are deeply contextual beings. Driving to a recent trial a sophisticated friend was in a panic because neither her cellphone nor GPS worked in our mountains. My rural neighbors cringe at the very idea of New York City.

 

In my view, training pet dogs, whatever method you use is not about teaching a dog to "heel" or "Weave" or "Front and finish". Though one does teach these simple skills, it is the teaching itself that matters. The teaching creates a powerful bond between man and dog which can carry both through many different contexts, including novel ones.

 

Eventually, the dog does what it needs to, not because it has been trained for each specific occurence but because it understands its world.

 

Pip took his life experience, his understanding of the work, he and Julie's relationship into account in a circumstance he had never faced before and made a correct decision.

 

Last fall I was invited to visit an elementary school with June. When we entered the kindergarden class, the teachers set a table aside for children who were leery of dogs while the other kids lined up. June promptly laid down and rolled over so each child could pat her belly. "Wash your hand, Billy" "Wash your hand Jane."

 

Nine year old June has only been trained as a sheepdog but she's been in San Fransisco dog parks, British ferries, the San Jacquin Valley, and west Texas. June has swum in the Great lakes, the Gulf, the Pacific and both shores of the Atlantic.

 

June won't lie down on her back for me or any other adult. She's never done it before and I don't think she particularly enjoyed it. But June understood what would be appropriate with a bunch of kindergarten kids - some of whom had never touched a dog - and laid down, exposing her belly, just like that's what she did every day of her life.

 

Understanding is what training must accomplish. Nothing less.

 

Donald McCaig

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe someone can explain to me how that sort of communication can be trained without ever using a correction.

 

Julie, I think herein lies ... the problem. Most stockdog trainers teach basic manners, and some even go further in training tricks and things using clickers and whatnot, and so they are able understand the theory behind the "purely positive" training, whether or not they use it. However, I'm willing to bet a large percentage of the "purely positive" trainers have never even so much as watched a dog work, no less trained one, and while they sit in judgment, are they able to tell people how to train a dog for something they've never trained a dog for? How long do you think it would take for them to turn themselves in for animal abuse because of the treatment of the sheep while they are trying to wait for the dogs to offer behaviors that can be rewarded, while not putting any sort of pressure or saying anything negative?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest echoica
The 60s and 70s were *not* the Dark Ages, and while it was in the 60s that the second wave of the Women's Movement got rolling, women really did attend university long before that. I had a grandmother who passed away in the early 60s, who was in her mid 70s (so would have been born before the turn of the century) who had been a criminal defense lawyer in her prime. So I think in the 60s you certainly would have "been ALLOWED to study."

 

...I said "allowed to study with limited opportunities" :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pip moved to stop him, and I had to give Pip a "sort of" verbal correction (simply using his name in a tone that meant "careful!"), not because I didn't want him to instictively stop a sheep from running past him, but because he needed a reminder that this was a fragile little thing that didn't know any better and so he had to be careful with it. I honestly don't know how you teach those sorts of things with positive-only methods, but I do know if he had grabbed the lamb or knocked it down, I wouldn't have flung him up against the fence, though he'd know I was unhappy with his poor response.

 

I know there's a world of difference between stockdog training and pet training for JQ Public, but there are also points of intersection that people seem to forget. Pip knows sit, lie down, shake, and up (sit up), all trained through luring, putting a name on an offered behavior and rewarding when the behavior was offered after I gave the word, etc. But he also understands what "no" means. This morning, I could have simply said "no" to him and he would have left the lamb completely alone. But I did want to encourage him to control the lamb, so instead I used his name and a particular tone to communicate to him that while his instinct was correct, he needed to take care. Maybe someone can explain to me how that sort of communication can be trained without ever using a correction.

 

J.

 

I think this is key. I've read this thread, or most of it, and tried to figure out a name for the method of how I train dogs. I prefer to think of what I do training (which is actually only developing) dogs on stock as communication/relationship based training, not correction based. It's not just positive and negative I convey, it's whatever emotion I'm feeling about what is going on - happy, frustrated upset, amused, inspired... Any number of emotions may be conveyed in the use of a dog's name even. I know the dog and the dog knows me and we have a relationship. It's complicated and can't be broken down into little biddy pieces. Because the dog knows me, and usually knows or can figure out what I want (if *I* know what I want), however I convey it, whatever happens on the surface may not be nearly as important in getting the result as the relationship and unspoken understanding we have on the whole.

 

I think it's a little hard for people who don't train dogs to work stock to imagine that this training is something that makes sense to the dog so you're just tapping into something already there, however you manage to find the key to unlock it. But I also believe that as pack based animals, pet dogs should be able to understand how to behave, how they fit into the structure of your life, simply by tapping into pack structure understanding already in them. This is something that makes sense to them. Again, a relationship/communication based training. I don't get how positive only training accomplishes this in a natural, or even effective way. You're not making use of all the emotions available to build the relationship. A relationship based on the expression of only one emotion by one of the parties is not a natural way to have a relationship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lambs are fragile creatures and have no idea that they should respect a dog (they learn this from their mamas, but it takes a while). So while the two held the sheep off the feed bunk so I could dump feed, one of the little lambs came running up, right between Pip and Twist because he just knew that food was coming. Pip moved to stop him, and I had to give Pip a "sort of" verbal correction (simply using his name in a tone that meant "careful!"), not because I didn't want him to instinctively stop a sheep from running past him, but because he needed a reminder that this was a fragile little thing that didn't know any better and so he had to be careful with it....This morning, I could have simply said "no" to him and he would have left the lamb completely alone. But I did want to encourage him to control the lamb, so instead I used his name and a particular tone to communicate to him that while his instinct was correct, he needed to take care.

Julie, this is a great example of the subtlety of a correction communication. "Slow down!" "Caution!" I also really like Eileen's comparison of training to a dance.

 

I really dislike the strident tone that these training discussions seem to sink to. I've often wished that we had a "Standard Definitions for Training Discussions" post or something like that. Seems to me that people often argue from misperception of the other side's point of view. I truly doubt that if one of Root Beer's dogs was about to do something horribly harmful, she wouldn't issue some sort of an "Acckkk!" or even "No!" noise -- a correction. And there is so much reward for the dog inherent in sheepdog training, if the dog is right it is very powerfully positive. I just think these discussions way over-exaggerate differences. Given some starting point that shock collars don't belong in the discussion or on a border collie's neck, of course!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But he also understands what "no" means. This morning, I could have simply said "no" to him and he would have left the lamb completely alone. But I did want to encourage him to control the lamb, so instead I used his name and a particular tone to communicate to him that while his instinct was correct, he needed to take care.

 

Because my guess is your dog cares about being right...he has learned over time that 'that tone' means something because of any number of reasons: hes been corrected after that tone, or its part of a communication of not getting his reward (in this case which would be sheep), or maybe because hes picked up on what that tone means by watching other dogs and people's reaction to you because he is a dog and dogs are social and very good at hearing tone and seeing body language.

 

Ex in my house, we have "the finger." I have never poked my dogs, smacked them with a pointed finger or even yelled while pointing my index finger...yet if they are doing something and I turn and point right at them, they figured out from all my body language that I was displeased and stopped whatever they were doing.

 

My $ .02: Calling methods "positive" and "negative" doesn't really help much I think, it just tends to make people defensive. I know I get my hackles up when I read comments about "out of control dogs who have never heard No and are out of control" (I'm paraphrasing, obviously) here on this board or other places; I'm quite sure being lumped as a "bad evil abusive negative trainer" (paraphrasing again) makes others feel similarly attacked.

 

Training is about methods, but its also about consistency, timing, splitting criteria and ego (or lack thereof). Its beating a dead horse to spend time calling other people 'wrong' about the rest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Julie, I think herein lies ... the problem. Most stockdog trainers teach basic manners, and some even go further in training tricks and things using clickers and whatnot, and so they are able understand the theory behind the "purely positive" training, whether or not they use it. However, I'm willing to bet a large percentage of the "purely positive" trainers have never even so much as watched a dog work, no less trained one, and while they sit in judgment, are they able to tell people how to train a dog for something they've never trained a dog for?

 

Well I'm glad you said that because it works both ways.

"You don't know if you haven't tried it" applies equally to those who work their dogs and diss the positive approach that some of us prefer in our world, whatever it may be.

It's far, far more than training tricks with a clicker "and whatnot". (Where can I get one of those?).

 

I don't know how many times we have to say that there is no such thing as "purely positive" training, or that we acknowledge that most methods of training work after a fashion. "Purely positive" comes over to me as a sneering term of abuse but I don't get upset or angry about it.

 

If we on the positive side are seen to be smug, blinkered and ignorant, then I'm afraid that I have to say that is precisely the impression I get sometimes from representatives of other interest groups. I am not trying to be offensive, just stating my own feelings based on the written word on here. I also understand that people are often very different from how they appear on boards like this so am usually prepared to cut people I disagree with some slack.

 

We all have something to learn from others whose experiences are different from our own. Some of us are passionate about what we believe in and want to share - to try and persuade people that there is another way of looking at things than the one they are used to. I am talking about all sides of the argument here.

 

There are things we will never agree on, such as the use of devices like prong or shock collars (the latter now banned in Wales btw with Scotland and England hopefully to follow and the former rarely seen here) but there are also many things that we could open our minds about and recognise that we are really not that far apart in many ways.

 

"Correction" is an inflammatory term, of course. The positive side will see the apparent reliance on correction as indicative that the trainer may be concentrating on what the dog is doing wrong rather than the way we approach training which is to set the dog up for success so correction will rarely be necessary. It does not necessarily mean that we think "correction" means abuse although sometimes we have to remind ourselves of that if our own experience is of harsh and cruel corrections used by trainers of the opposite persuasion.

 

If anyone thinks they are being misunderstood or unfairly judged, instead of getting all hot under the collar, explain calmly and rationally your own perspective. Training for one thing as opposed to another requires many of the same skills and much of the same knowledge; specialist skills are the icing on the cake and I'm sure most of us are intelligent enough to know where our basic skills may be lacking for a particular purpose. "You don't know know if you haven't tried it" really isn't helpful as a constant put down.

 

As for who is welcome here - as a sporadic reader and contributor, I prefer a board with an eclectic member base.

A purely "working" board wouldn't interest me, although I am interested in the general working talk. I like it that this board can educate the uninitiated and it has prompted me to pay more attention to the working world around me. I could frequent boards where everyone agrees with each other (and do when I feel my blood pressure rising to a dangerous level) but a cosy little self congratulatory clique that pretends the rest of the world doesn't exist is rather pointless. Disagreement prevents stagnation.

 

What was this thread about again? :rolleyes:

 

Pam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pip moved to stop him, and I had to give Pip a "sort of" verbal correction (simply using his name in a tone that meant "careful!"), not because I didn't want him to instictively stop a sheep from running past him, but because he needed a reminder that this was a fragile little thing that didn't know any better and so he had to be careful with it. I honestly don't know how you teach those sorts of things with positive-only methods, but I do know if he had grabbed the lamb or knocked it down, I wouldn't have flung him up against the fence, though he'd know I was unhappy with his poor response.

 

I know there's a world of difference between stockdog training and pet training for JQ Public, but there are also points of intersection that people seem to forget. Pip knows sit, lie down, shake, and up (sit up), all trained through luring, putting a name on an offered behavior and rewarding when the behavior was offered after I gave the word, etc. But he also understands what "no" means. This morning, I could have simply said "no" to him and he would have left the lamb completely alone. But I did want to encourage him to control the lamb, so instead I used his name and a particular tone to communicate to him that while his instinct was correct, he needed to take care. Maybe someone can explain to me how that sort of communication can be trained without ever using a correction.

 

J.

 

It's interesting because I don't really see any contradiction between training without use of correction and the situation that you describe. You used your tone of voice to express that Pip needed to be careful. He understood.

 

To use an example that I have experience with, this morning when we were leaving the training building, I let Speedy go to the car unleashed. A scent caught his attention as he moved from the building to the car, and he started to move off in another direction. I said "Speedy" in a tone that said, "we're going to the car now", and he immediately turned back and headed to the car.

 

I never trained him to understand that tone, but he does. And using a more serious tone with a dog who knows what is expected is not in any way contradictory to training without corrections. And knowing what "no" means is also not contradictory to training without corrections. My dogs know what "no" means. I don't use "no" to teach them how to sit, lie down, come when called, weave through poles, hit a contact zone, spin, twirl, heel, go to a mat and lie down, ignore passing cars, greet people politely, etc. etc. etc. That doesn't mean that they don't know the meaning of "no", nor that there are not times in life when I simply tell them "no". They also understand my tone of voice and the nuances that tone of voice communicates. I never taught them how to do that - they understand that naturally. Training through reinforcement does not somehow render them unable to understand my tone.

 

Speaking of tone, I know it often gets lost in posts on the internet. My tone in this post is conversational and interested. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...and I had to give Pip a "sort of" verbal correction (simply using his name in a tone that meant "careful!")

Although the context is completely different, I find myself using the dog's name, but with a specific tone all the time. Dogs seem to be more sensitive to the tone of a command more than the word itself, so saying the dog's name can carry many different meanings. I''m guessing that many people do this without realizing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...