Before You Get Your Puppy

[juliepoudrier]

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.

That was my point. He has learned what corrections are (usually just words or a particular tone), suggestions are, directives are, and so on, through working with me both on and off stock. It's about communication above all else and as Eileen, I think, noted, [ETA: looking back on the thread, I see that it was Denise who made this comment, and not Eileen, just for clarification] communication that ignores part of the richness of what's available *to communicate* (good tones and bad tones) is a bit stilted. I don't have to tell him necessarily to do a particular thing (as in the case of the lamb) but just give him a quick reminder to have his "thinking cap" on and then let him do what he thinks is right. Is he always right? No, but that's where training (more communication) comes in. For example, I also use him to hold the main flock off the feeders in the mornings (it's good for building his confidence for driving since he has to push sheep away from someplace they very much want to be). I don't say anything to him as we're walking out into the pasture because he knows what the job is. When I'm done pouring feed, I give him a flank around the sheep so he's no longer blocking them and let him bring them to me. Lately he hasn't wanted to take that flank to release the sheep. I can't very well take the sheep from him (they're not nearby because he's pushed them well away--necessary for him to be able to cover them adequately without anyone breaking past on the sides, and I can't physically correct him, so I have really nothing to use but my *tone of voice* to tell him that he's not doing what I wish--this is why I cringe at all the punishment comments--usually the dog isn't anywhere near enough to me for me to punish it if I wanted to, and I really don't bother with punishment after the fact as I think it's a waste of time. When he does comply (is obedient), the sheep are released and I will give him a command in a happier tone (walk up, or perhaps that'll do) to convey to him that I am pleased with him.

 

ETA: I don't think the bulk of learning comes from watching me work with the other dogs. The one exception is that I think pups very quickly learn a recall command or whistle by joining the pack when it complies with those commands. I've never had to specifically train a recall whistle on any youngster--they just get it from doing what the "big dogs" do in response to such a whistle.

 

J.

[Eileen Stein]

Denise -- and Donald in his last post -- have really explained better than I did why I find the language of behavioral theory inadequate to express what's going on in a complex training relationship. I know that there are behaviorists who would watch what Julie was doing with Pip and "explain" it for us. They would think that we just lack the knowledge to break it down to fit the "scientific" schematic of learning theory. They might even agree with each other about how to label it. But all such explanations seem reductionist and invalid to me -- they are oversimplifying or missing so much of what's happening when two complex beings in a dynamic relationship are communicating about fluid and novel situations. I understand wanting to feel that you know it all or can explain it all, but I don't want to get trapped into using terms that capture so little of what's important in the training I see and do.

[Root Beer]

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.

 

Those of us who train through reinforcement without corrections build very deep relationships with our dogs. We communicate emotion to our dogs and they communicate emotion to us. It is not just one emotion being expressed by one of the parties.

 

Yes, there are times when we do minimize emotion in the picture. That does not mean, though, that our entire lives, nor even the majority of our lives, are devoid of emotion between dog and person.

 

For example, when I taught my 10 month old wild, out of control rescue to sit at the door instead of throwing himself up against it flat as a pancake, I left some elements of emotion out of it. I was not angry or upset with him for not knowing my expectations about the door, so there was really no reason to bring that type of emotion into it. I taught him how to sit at the door using reinforcement. Of course, there was emotion expressed in the process. When he started to "get" the idea, I let him know very clearly that he was right and that I was happy about that. He learned to sit at the door when I go to let him out. I didn't use corrections in that process.

 

But that does not mean that relationship was not built in the process. He was expressing emotion the whole time - excitement and eagerness. I was letting him know when I was pleased with his progress. I probably laughed a good deal because he really is a goof at times. There was a great deal of natural give and take as we worked together to teach him one of the first bits of manners that he needed to learn. And he learned what I wanted him to learn and he does it very well.

 

I honestly don't see how expressing other emotions in that process would have enhanced it, or our working relationship in the long run.

 

In addition, of course in everyday life, the whole range of emotions are expressed. Those of us who don't use corrections to train live perfectly normal lives with our dogs. All of the natural give and take of everyday life in a household still happens.

 

I don't think I explained this very well, but it was worth a try.

[mum24dog]

Denise -- and Donald in his last post -- have really explained better than I did why I find the language of behavioral theory inadequate to express what's going on in a complex training relationship. I know that there are behaviorists who would watch what Julie was doing with Pip and "explain" it for us. They would think that we just lack the knowledge to break it down to fit the "scientific" schematic of learning theory. They might even agree with each other about how to label it. But all such explanations seem reductionist and invalid to me -- they are oversimplifying or missing so much of what's happening when two complex beings in a dynamic relationship are communicating about fluid and novel situations. I understand wanting to feel that you know it all or can explain it all, but I don't want to get trapped into using terms that capture so little of what's important in the training I see and do.

 

All a question of individual personality.

I have a friend who knows nothing about dog training theory and I like to know the whys and wherefores of everything - but you couldn't put a cigarette paper between the way we train our dogs.

As a matter of fact she has got to the top in both agility and obedience over the years whereas I haven't, but there are many reasons for that I won't bore you with. Suffice it to say that the difference has not been because we deal with our dogs differently.

 

Pam

[Eileen Stein]

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.

 

I think the statement I've put into bold type is the kind of assumption that prompts people to say "You don't know if you haven't tried it." They are right. In theory, training for one thing as opposed to another may require many of the same skills and much of the same knowledge, but you don't know whether that's true of training for any one particular thing -- or what skills and knowledge may be required -- if you have no experience with training for that one particular thing.

 

All a question of individual personality.

I have a friend who knows nothing about dog training theory and I like to know the whys and wherefores of everything - but you couldn't put a cigarette paper between the way we train our dogs.

 

I think you have missed my point.

[jdarling]

"You don't know know if you haven't tried it"

 

Ok. I'll bite.

 

If my dog and a pregnant ewe got into a staredown which then worked itself into a chase scene and my dog completely lost her head and decided to take the soft part of the belly of the sheep in her mouth while they are now running full boar towards the corner of the pasture ... how do I handle that in a purely positive manner without having to stich the sheep's belly back together or losing my sheep to a broken neck?

 

(Let's not discuss how we would have gotten to this point ... assume it's a young dog or I wasn't paying attention or some such thing and we are now in the situation.)

[mum24dog]

In theory, training for one thing as opposed to another may require many of the same skills and much of the same knowledge, but you don't know whether that's true of training for any one particular thing -- or what skills and knowledge may be required -- if you have no experience with training for that one particular thing.

 

I don't agree. I am not talking about the specifics of training one thing or another - I am referring to the very basics of knowing what makes your dog tick, what it finds rewarding, what will prevent it working well, how to read your dog.

You don't have to know consciously about learning theory and body language - many people understand unconsciously - but you'd be on a hiding to nothing if you tried to train anything and totally ignored what you already know about your dog.

I do agree that knowing what you don't know in a new activity is also important, but that is a much a skill as knowing what you do. Going blindly into anything without doing your homework and taking advice from those you respect is a sure recipe for failure.

 

I think you have missed my point.

 

I don't think so.

Mentally you view what you do with your dogs one way, I do another. The way each of us prefers is dependent on our own personality - it doesn't make one of us right and the other wrong.

 

Pam

[JohnLloydJones]

Ok. I'll bite.

Or let's take a non stock example. Let's say my dog is reactive to strangers and sometimes will growl and lunge at certain people (mostly men). We certainly would be working to de-sensitize the dog to the situations (with "positive" methods), but if I don't correct the dog and he nips (or bites) a stranger, the next level of correction might be out of my hands.

[mum24dog]

Ok. I'll bite.

 

If my dog and a pregnant ewe got into a staredown which then worked itself into a chase scene and my dog completely lost her head and decided to take the soft part of the belly of the sheep in her mouth while they are now running full boar towards the corner of the pasture ... how do I handle that in a purely positive manner without having to stich the sheep's belly back together or losing my sheep to a broken neck?

 

(Let's not discuss how we would have gotten to this point ... assume it's a young dog or I wasn't paying attention or some such thing and we are now in the situation.)

 

Did you read what I said about this mythical "purely positive" training you keep referring to?

 

Would you not agree that it would have been better not to allow the situation to have arisen in the first place though?

Purely as a point of interest, would it be normal to be working an unreliable young dog on ewes in lamb? Is not upsetting pregnant ewes not a prime concern?

 

If through my incompetence I had failed to prevent the situation, I would do whatever it took in the circumstances to try and prevent further damage, although the lamb may still be aborted whatever I did. I have never said otherwise. "We" work on the principle that prevention is better than cure but stuff happens in life and has to be dealt with at the time and we might have to use methods that wouldn't be our choice if the situation were under control.

 

Pam

[Donald McCaig]

Dear Doggers,

 

Ms. jdarling asked:

 

"If my dog and a pregnant ewe got into a staredown which then worked itself into a chase scene and my dog completely lost her head and decided to take the soft part of the belly of the sheep in her mouth while they are now running full boar towards the corner of the pasture ... how do I handle that in a purely positive manner without having to stich the sheep's belly back together or losing my sheep to a broken neck?

 

(Let's not discuss how we would have gotten to this point . . ."

 

At least some "positive" trainers would object that Ms. jdarling's last phrase suggests this answer - they would never have allowed the situation to reach this point. "Positive" training depends on extreme management. The pet dogs in "positive" training I have seen were on very short (three foot?) cables attached to strong ringbolts. Like the Skinner box, the training dog's options were limited to A or nullA.

 

Many, if not most, forms of dog training start with the dog under physical control - harness, snoot loop, leash, longe line or e-collar. Some aggressive dogs start training attached to two lines.

 

Sheepdog training starts off leash. Clinicians will open the gate to a small ring containing a few sheep and tell the nervous novice, "Turn your dog loose. Let's see what he'll do."

 

That's a very big difference. What Ms. jdarling describes is handler, dog and delicate sheep without physical controls in an area that might be a hundred acres with all sorts of sheep (and dog) hazards.

 

What can you offer that dog that's more attractive than chasing that sheep?

 

Donald McCaig

[mum24dog]

Or let's take a non stock example. Let's say my dog is reactive to strangers and sometimes will growl and lunge at certain people (mostly men). We certainly would be working to de-sensitize the dog to the situations (with "positive" methods), but if I don't correct the dog and he nips (or bites) a stranger, the next level of correction might be out of my hands.

 

I have a dog that may bite strangers if they pet him too long in the wrong way. I make sure he is never put in the position of being able to do so, even though he has improved a great deal. Counterconditioning is done under strict control and systematically. Punishment (if that's what you mean by "correction") in your scenario could result in a reinforcement of the dog's antipathy towards men. It is no coincidence that many of the BCs that come into rescue here are afraid of men because of prior treatment and care needs to be taken not to confirm that fear.

 

I have a friend who had to have a BC pts some years ago for biting. She had consulted an "expert" who recommended correcting the dog and he got worse, and in her case the correction would not have been severe. Whether the deterioration in his behaviour was due to the corrections is impossible to say, but they certainly didn't work.

 

Pam

[Root Beer]

If my dog and a pregnant ewe got into a staredown which then worked itself into a chase scene and my dog completely lost her head and decided to take the soft part of the belly of the sheep in her mouth while they are now running full boar towards the corner of the pasture ... how do I handle that in a purely positive manner without having to stich the sheep's belly back together or losing my sheep to a broken neck?

 

What does that exact scenario have to do with Jane Doe teaching her pet Border Collie to sit nicely to greet strangers? Or with John Doe teaching his pet Border Collie to walk nicely on a loose leash in his suburban neighborhood? Or with Janice Doe teaching her pet Border Collie to keep four on the floor while she prepares chicken for her family's dinner?

 

I am really interested in your answer to this question.

[mum24dog]

Many, if not most, forms of dog training start with the dog under physical control - harness, snoot loop, leash, longe line or e-collar.

Donald McCaig

 

On or off lead is personal preference but you'll find that more mainly positive trainers will train off lead from the start than traditional trainers.

 

The pet dogs in "positive" training I have seen were on very short (three foot?) cables attached to strong ringbolts. Like the Skinner box, the training dog's options were limited to A or nullA.

 

I have never seen anything of the sort and cannot imagine why anyone would do that, although lots of strange things in dog training mystify me. Plenty of trainers claim to use positive methods but don't and I would suggest that what you were seeing did not come under that heading.

 

What can you offer that dog that's more attractive than chasing that sheep?

 

I don't know - I don't know the dog. Seems like the handler in the hypothetical scenario possibly didn't know it well enough either.

Is it common for things get so out of control? Genuine question.

 

Pam

[jdarling]

Did you read what I said about this mythical "purely positive" training you keep referring to?

 

Call it whatever you want.

 

Would you not agree that it would have been better not to allow the situation to have arisen in the first place though?

 

Um, yes. I agree ... which is the reason for my disclaimer. Truly seasoned veteran dogs probably wouldn't pull a stunt like the one I mentioned, however, a "young" dog (meaning young in training ...) could ... and it happens in a heartbeat. But you already knew that, right?

 

Purely as a point of interest, would it be normal to be working an unreliable young dog on ewes in lamb? Is not upsetting pregnant ewes not a prime concern?

 

If my main ranch dog is lame, I need to go deeper into my kennel, perhaps to a dog that is still young in its training. The work still needs to be done. But you knew that, too, right, even though you've never tried this?

 

If through my incompetence I had failed to prevent the situation ...

 

Considering this was me, and not you, in my hypothetical situation, it would have been me that was incompetent? And you're talking about the way stockdog people come across? Are you serious?

 

When there are other living, breathing beings involved, shit happens. And I think that right there is what sets apart doing obedience or agility or tricks in the living room and using a all-positive, never-correct-my-dog, never-say-no, don't-insult-fluffy method from stockwork.

 

I would do whatever it took in the circumstances to try and prevent further damage, although the lamb may still be aborted whatever I did. I have never said otherwise. "We" work on the principle that prevention is better than cure but stuff happens in life and has to be dealt with at the time and we might have to use methods that wouldn't be our choice if the situation were under control.

 

Yeah, the purely positive thing gets a little fuzzy all of a sudden, doesn't it? Nothing in the sitation is "out of control." You never did answer me. What would you do? I'll give you a hint: None of the responses include warm fuzzies or waiting for the dog to offer an alternative behavior.

 

Kristine, the point of my addressing this is because Pam was trying to equate one to the other and disagreed with me when I said stockdog trainers can grasp the concept of "purely positive," but it doesn't work the other way around. Pam says the "You don't know know if you haven't tried it" theory doesn't work. I think it fits perfectly.

 

Another one that I like is: "You don't know what you don't know." All too often, people waste their time taking offense to this saying, but if you stop to think about it, it's very true.

[JohnLloydJones]

Punishment (if that's what you mean by "correction") in your scenario could result in a reinforcement of the dog's antipathy towards men. It is no coincidence that many of the BCs that come into rescue here are afraid of men because of prior treatment and care needs to be taken not to confirm that fear.

 

By correction, I meant nothing beyond controlling the dog to prevent an ugly situation happening. That may be verbal or by restraint using the leash. I do not equate correction with punishment; they are deeply different in my book.

[Root Beer]

Another one that I like is: "You don't know what you don't know." All too often, people waste their time taking offense to this saying, but if you stop to think about it, it's very true.

 

It is true. And it goes both ways.

 

. . . doing obedience or agility or tricks in the living room and using a all-positive, never-correct-my-dog, never-say-no, don't-insult-fluffy method

 

Yes, it is very true. Regarding your characterization of a reinforcement based approach in pet and sport situations, I have to say - you don't know what you don't know. I'm glad to know you won't be offended by my saying so.

[Eileen Stein]

I'm going to try this one again and spell it out a little more, Pam, since you disagreed with what I wrote the first time.

 

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.

 

I think the statement I've put into bold type is the kind of assumption that prompts people to say "You don't know if you haven't tried it." They are right. In theory, training for one thing as opposed to another may require many of the same skills and much of the same knowledge, but you don't know whether that's true of training for any one particular thing -- or what skills and knowledge may be required -- if you have no experience with training for that one particular thing.

 

Here is an analogy. Suppose someone who lives in the UK posts that working sheepdogs in the US look nothing like those in the UK -- that they are bareskinned with extremely long legs, whereas working sheepdogs in the UK tend to resemble Oz/NZ show dogs. She has a picture of a US working sheepdog to prove her point. She has the confirming testimony of her conformation friends. She also has a theory to explain why this is so: the US is a big country, so the sheepdogs have to cover a lot of ground, so US breeders have bred for long legs; it is also a hot country, so they have bred for short coats. She is absolutely convinced that what she is saying is the truth.

 

Suppose I live in the US, and have seen countless working sheepdogs over the years, both on farms and in trials. (You can suppose also that I have traveled frequently in the UK, have seen Internationals in all four nations, have seen Nationals and local trials in the north of England, the south of England, Scotland and Wales, and have seen dogs working on sheep farms (including hill farms) in England, Scotland and Wales.) Because of my having experience in the US, which she has not, I KNOW that what she is saying about US sheepdogs is false. If you were me, would you not be tempted to tell her that she is wrong, and that I know better because I've been here and she hasn't? Wouldn't I be right? When someone who hasn't done the kind of training I do makes a blanket statement that is just as false with regard to the kind of training I do, I don't think it makes sense not to point out that it's false, and attribute the falsity to that person's lack of experience in my field.

 

Denise -- and Donald in his last post -- have really explained better than I did why I find the language of behavioral theory inadequate to express what's going on in a complex training relationship. I know that there are behaviorists who would watch what Julie was doing with Pip and "explain" it for us. They would think that we just lack the knowledge to break it down to fit the "scientific" schematic of learning theory. They might even agree with each other about how to label it. But all such explanations seem reductionist and invalid to me -- they are oversimplifying or missing so much of what's happening when two complex beings in a dynamic relationship are communicating about fluid and novel situations. I understand wanting to feel that you know it all or can explain it all, but I don't want to get trapped into using terms that capture so little of what's important in the training I see and do.

All a question of individual personality.

I have a friend who knows nothing about dog training theory and I like to know the whys and wherefores of everything - but you couldn't put a cigarette paper between the way we train our dogs.

 

What I understand you to be saying here is that some people lack intellectual curiosity and just want to get on with it, whereas some (you, for example) like to fully understand things. The latter group are those that embrace behavioral theory, and the former are the ones who don't. If that is what you meant, I think that you have misjudged me (I am as interested in understanding why and how dogs learn as anyone on these Boards, I do assure you -- I am fascinated by it) AND you have missed my point. I don't reject this model because of lack of interest in theory; I reject it because I find it unsatisfactory and inadequate to explain what I see and experience in training.

[Root Beer]

When someone who hasn't done the kind of training I do makes a blanket statement that is just as false with regard to the kind of training I do, I don't think it makes sense not to point out that it's false . . .

 

I know exactly what you mean!!

 

I know you were talking to Pam, not to me, and that I took your quote completely out of context. But this sentence really struck me, and I just wanted to comment.

[juliepoudrier]

I think it's already been said, and I *know* I said it very clearly in one of my own posts, but many (not all) people who train stockdogs also train manners, tricks, etc. How difficult is it to believe that we (some of us at least) use positive methods for some of that training? I believe that speaks to the point Eileen is making. I do understand something about positive training because I *have* used it to train certain things with my dogs. I also use pressure/release in stockdog training. I use *both.* So isn't it possible that I actually do understand what positive training entails, at least to some degree? And that I recognize that some of the methodologies used therein are suitable for some things I want to teach my dogs, but not all? Why is it insulting to folks who have never trained a dog to work stock to be told that they are speaking only from theory and that their theory (positive training) doesn't really apply in this case? If anyone wants to prove that it does apply, all they need do is take a dog or three and go do it successfully. Where your above comment fails, Kristine, is in the assumption that some of us who make statements about positive training don't or have never used positive training, when in fact we do and have. That's the whole disconnect in this conversation. You're claiming we don't understand your methods because we don't use them in response to our claim that some of you don't understand stockdog training because you've never done it. Granted, I haven't taught my dogs a freestyle routine, and so I probably am not using the positive training methods to the same high level that you do, but at least I have used them to train with, so I know something from *experience,* even though some of you refuse to grant some of us that.

 

Some may find it offensive to be told "you don't know what you don't know." I'm happy to admit I don't know how to train a dog to run an agility course using any method, modern or old-fashioned. I for one have never come into a thread on training claimed that the methods I use to train a stockdog would be just as effective, if not better, than the methods currently used to train agility dogs or whatever the topic may be. If I haven't used my way to train a particular thing, I wouldn't dream of claiming that my way is the best way. I might think I could make it work, but the only way to tell would be to actually do it and see for myself. I don't make claims that my way is the best way, or the only way, or worse, the only *kind* way to train a dog. And yet those sorts of comments appear all the time in these discussions from folks who train with positive methods. Try as you might, inferring that the stockdog trainers among us are making blanket statements about positive training doesn't hold water for the simple fact that many of us do indeed use positive methods in everyday training. We just also use some other methods (e.g., verbal corrections) that are designed to prepare the dog for a specific partnership: one that involves working stock.

 

[Note: the following is directed to the sub-discussion to which Pam has been replying.] So in Jodi's scenario with the dog chasing the ewe (and you--generic you here--know, even fully trained dogs sometimes just blow a fuse and misbehave), I should be able to stop the madness with a sharp word of correction. But for that to work, the dog would have to know what a verbal correction is and what the appropriate response to such a correction is (none of which training requires any sort of phyical abuse) and so that sort of training is incorporated from the start, before the dog ever sees livestock. I'm thinking that, for example, the dog who is never told "no" might be a bit difficult to make let go of the sheep without running it down and pulling it off compared to a dog who knows that "No!" or "Hey!" or "What the hell do you think you're doing?" means it better damn well stop what it's doing. But what do I know? I'm just a stockdog trainer with dogs who know tricks that were trained through positive methods.

 

J.

[Donald McCaig]

Dear Doggers,

I dislike pint by point replies to another's post but Ms. Pam's response requires serial replies:

 

She wrote:

"On or off lead is personal preference but you'll find that more mainly positive trainers will train off lead from the start than traditional trainers.'

 

Although I've been to Crufts I've no experience with British pet dog trainers and must take Ms. Pam's word for that.

 

Replying to my description of cable management of pet dogs in training she wrote:

 

"I have never seen anything of the sort and cannot imagine why anyone would do that, although lots of strange things in dog training mystify me. Plenty of trainers claim to use positive methods but don't and I would suggest that what you were seeing did not come under that heading."

 

I'm afraid this is the reverse circumstance. If you visit here I'll show it to you as practiced by one of the best and most famous "positive" trainers in the USA. This sort of management is standard behaviorist practice. Google: Skinner Box"

 

She asked:

 

"Is it common for things get so out of control? Genuine question."

 

WIth such potentially severe consequences, fairly rare. If by "out of control" you mean "Dog taking charge when I wish he hadn't" it is common as dirt. Last Sunday I had an excellent run at a sheepdog trial until Luke and I had very skittish sheep in the mouth of the pen. When the last - and most nervous - sheep finally eased iforward, Luke took a tiny step s (locked on, looking to control her) and she spun and bolted right over him. Luke's step= toast. In sheepwork or sheepdog training individuals from three differently genetically influenced species are involved in a relationship that can change if a cloud blocks the sun.

 

Donald McCaig

[mum24dog]

Yeah, the purely positive thing gets a little fuzzy all of a sudden, doesn't it? Nothing in the sitation is "out of control." You never did answer me. What would you do? I'll give you a hint: None of the responses include warm fuzzies or waiting for the dog to offer an alternative behavior.

 

Sigh!!!

What "purely positive thing"? You can call it what you like as long as the description is reasonably accurate, and that term isn't. You seem to have a mistaken impression of what you think you are talking about.

 

Of course we aren't talking about training in your hypothetical case - just damage limitation.

 

I know what a normally positive friend did when she had to get a dog off a sheep that it was trying to kill and "positive" didn't come into it, but you know perfectly well that noone can really answer your question without being on the spot and weighing up the practical options. I have passed your question to a friend who works on a sheep farm and he said the same. He also said that they'd try to avoid using a potentially unreliable dog at lambing time. They'd probably use no dog at all or try to borrow one. But that's here where neighbouring farms are not too far away.

 

What he also said was that there was a good chance that the dog would be shot as a liability if it's behaviour was deemed serious enough. No, not a warm and fluffy happy ending.

 

Pam

[mum24dog]

I'm afraid this is the reverse circumstance. If you visit here I'll show it to you as practiced by one of the best and most famous "positive" trainers in the USA. This sort of management is standard behaviorist practice. Google: Skinner Box"

 

Please name names - both trainers and behaviourists.

 

I know Root Beer is an off lead trainer and most of the training reading I have done over the years has been by well known US trainers who advocate the same. I've also been to several seminars held by US traners and never a lead to be seen. I learned to get rid of the lead as a crutch from them.

 

Pam

[mum24dog]

What I understand you to be saying here is that some people lack intellectual curiosity and just want to get on with it, whereas some (you, for example) like to fully understand things. The latter group are those that embrace behavioral theory, and the former are the ones who don't. If that is what you meant, I think that you have misjudged me (I am as interested in understanding why and how dogs learn as anyone on these Boards, I do assure you -- I am fascinated by it) AND you have missed my point. I don't reject this model because of lack of interest in theory; I reject it because I find it unsatisfactory and inadequate to explain what I see and experience in training.

 

No - what I am saying is that different personalities approach things in a different way and that doesn't have any implication as to right or wrong.

My friend isn't interested, I am but don't have behaviour theory in the forefront of my mind all the time. You are interested but don't consider it enough to satisfy you.

We're different, that's all. Stating the obvious isn't a judgement.

 

Pam

[Root Beer]

Where your above comment fails, Kristine, is in the assumption that some of us who make statements about positive training don't or have never used positive training, when in fact we do and have. That's the whole disconnect in this conversation. You're claiming we don't understand your methods because we don't use them in response to our claim that some of you don't understand stockdog training because you've never done it. Granted, I haven't taught my dogs a freestyle routine, and so I probably am not using the positive training methods to the same high level that you do, but at least I have used them to train with, so I know something from *experience,* even though some of you refuse to grant some of us that.

 

I know that you understand some things about the way I train. Just as I understand some things about the way that you train - even things that I have not actually done. As Eileen said, my choice to train in a different way is not due to a lack of understanding of other ways. And I also understand that there is probably a great deal more overlap that either of us might expect, although our overall approaches are distinct in many ways.

 

I am not claiming that you don't understand the methods that I choose because you don't use them. Based on your posts on the board, I'd be willing to wager that you understand more about the way I train than a lot of people who are just getting started in reinforcement based training understand. Although I am pretty sure that there are some particular techniques that you may not yet have had the chance to really learn about. No offense intended there - all of us have a lot to learn about training, no matter how we choose to do it.

 

What I am saying is that no amount of experience in any type of training qualifies anyone to determine that an approach or technique that has been used with success (whether by someone else, or by me) cannot, in fact, actually work. In addition, the fact that the same approach might not apply in a completely unrelated situation (like when the dog is about to kill a sheep - of course that's not time to start a shaping exercise - that goes without saying!!!) does not qualify anyone to determine that an approach or technique that has been used with success in the appropriate context (whether by someone else, or by me) cannot, in fact, actually work.

 

Those are my main objections to the objections made against a reinforcement based approach. If it's not someone's preference, I'm not going to quibble. If it's not the appropriate approach in a stockdog context, I'm certainly not going to try to make an argument that it is.

 

 

I'm thinking that, for example, the dog who is never told "no" might be a bit difficult to make let go of the sheep without running it down and pulling it off compared to a dog who knows that "No!" or "Hey!" or "What the hell do you think you're doing?" means it better damn well stop what it's doing.

 

Julie, do you really think that those of us who train using reinforcement, without corrections, actually never tell our dogs "no". Really? You said that you are familiar with the way that I train. I really thought that you would completely understand that training through reinforcement, without the use of correction, does not mean that the dog is left to do whatever he or she wants throughout life.

 

Why is it not perfectly clear that choosing not to use "no" or "hey" or "what the hell do you think you're doing?" while training new behaviors - like "sit", which I believe was the behavior in question when this discussion began - and concepts to a dog does not automatically mean that the dog is left to his or her own devices at all times?

 

I'd really love to hear your answer to that question. I've said this many times. Others have said this many times. Yet, those of us who do not train using correction are constantly characterized as never telling our dogs "no". I really don't get it, and I'd like to understand.

[jdarling]

Julie,

 

Excellent post. You've stated very eloquently what I have been trying to say.

 

I should be able to stop the madness with a sharp word of correction.

 

That was all I was looking for. Not avoiding the situation altogether. Not manipulation the environment around the dog so the dog never has to face adversity. Not waiting for the dog to offer the correct behavior. Just clear communication. Period. Call it negative. Call it whatever you want.

 

Yeah. Let's shoot the dog.

 

"Sigh." Couldn't have said that better myself.