Jump to content
BC Boards

Before You Get Your Puppy


Alaska
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 246
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

Okay, I tried to make it clear that the part of my post about the "no" thing was in response to Jodi's example, and which Pam and Eileen were also discussing and which I believed Jodi in part posted in response to earlier comments about not using corrections. When I was speaking to that example, I was no longer addressing you specifically (hence the note at the beginning of that paragraph point out the change in direction my response was taking). The "never say no" comments were in fact a response to Mariji's earlier post about attempting to raise her young dog without using any corrections, verbal or otherwise. I simply didn't have the energy to go back and find the exact quote from Mariji, quote it, and then comment on it specifically so that no one would think I meant someone else or something else and thought that by adding my little note at the start of the paragraphh I was making it clear that I was then addressing a different part of the discussion, and not your comments directly above mine. I know very well that you have said you are not averse to using a voice correction if it's needed.

 

I'm beginning to think it's easier to just quit this thread than to have to go through all the hoops to make sure folks know exactly who is being addressed when and why and how. When threads like this take several subthread tangents, sometimes it's just easier to address multiple issues in one post. So sue me.

 

J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

I rather thought that when you set the scenario thus in such a sensational way

 

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?

 

that you must surely have tried No and it hadn't worked, or why would such danger have come about and both sheep and dog already accelerated to full pelt?

 

Would it not have been better to say No as trouble was brewing?

 

Pam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would it not have been better to say No as trouble was brewing?

I really don't want to get in the middle of this, but of course it's better to say no at the first sign of trouble. But there are instances when you might have your back turned and something happens so you don't exactly see the trouble brewing. For example, with my set up for the ewes and lambs, I have the dogs hold the sheep back off the bunks, but before I can dump feed I might have to remove any uneaten hay from the night before. Typically I scoop that hay up in my arms and walk over to the ram paddock and toss it there for the rams and wethers so that it doesn't go to waste. While I am doing all this, my dog(s) is solely responsible for doing his job, and if something happens while my back is turned (say, a ewe decides to charge him), then by the time I do see what's happening the "trouble brewing" phase has already passed. I personally wouldn't consider something like Jodi described as a "shoot the dog" offense unless it was something that happened repeatedly. And if that was the case, then the one needing to be shot would be the human, for clearly overfacing the dog. Unfortunately, as with many things, the best way to learn a job is by doing it, and of course since another species is involved things can't always be set up just so or exactly predicted (that is, I might not be able to replicate in a purely training situation the same things that might happen when we're just out getting the chores done, so there is some necessity for young dogs to learn by doing).

 

J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's something that I'm wondering, too. It seems to me that Pam Wolf and Geonni were referring to Dunbar above in reference to the "sit sit sit" thing. Perhaps they meant Rutherford, or someone else?

 

I'm laughing now - I was indeed referring to Ian Dunbar, but as I said, that was a long time ago, and it was his dog. I've never encountered anything about running or yelling either in Ian's class or in his literature. Omaha Beagle, his malamute, was kind of a force of nature... :rolleyes:

I went through one of his puppy kindergarten classes with a wolf hybrid. He was the soul of gentleness with the pups. Very calm and clear. Raki started the class wedged under my chair in terror and finished at the top of the class.

 

My only negative recollection from the class was being sent to the middle of the room and being bombarded with a tirade about bringing oreos to bait my dog with. Stupid of me, yes, but he said to bring whatever they liked best! :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the one needing to be shot would be the human, for clearly overfacing the dog.

J.

 

No argument there. It could be Kristine or me saying that.

 

My friend didn't say that the dog would be shot, only that it would be a possibility if the behaviour was deemed bad enough. Clearly since noone can witness a hypothetical situation, whether or not it would have happened is a moot point.

 

Pam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Julie, do you really think that those of us who train using reinforcement, without corrections, actually never tell our dogs "no". Really?

 

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?

 

Semantics! Kristine, when you tell your dog "No!" you are giving a correction. Although it can be more, a correction is usually just a verbal noise that communicates to a dog that it is wrong and better stop what it's doing and try something else. When you tell your dog "No!" you are training your dog using a correction. You may not use "No!" "Hey!" "Get out!" etc. while you are having a training session to teach your dog specific behaviors like sit, spin, relax, etc. (probably most of us don't), but in fact, we are *always* training our dogs. Sometimes you -- Kristine -- train your dog with corrections, sometimes you don't. I think using corrections is much more common when we're in the flow, so to speak, be it the flow of family, dog, and cat life around the home or be it the complex web of interactions amongst handler, dog, and stock, a web of positive reinforcement and correction and the responses of all the creatures involved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rootbeer,

 

Are you saying that it should be possible to train border collies on stock using PP methods?

 

No more than you're saying that it is not possible to train Border Collies to have reliable manners suitable to a well trained pet or sport dog through use of reinforcement, and without use of correction in training. :rolleyes:

 

I'm curious as to what I said that you thought implied that I was saying anything about how to train dogs on stock? I don't recall thinking - much less saying - any such thing. I train pet and sport dogs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest echoica
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"

 

Skinner is NOT a dog trainer let alone a most famous 'positive' trainer. What?! He is one of the most important scientists in the history of psychology who posited some of the most important theory for understanding behaviour. Calling him a trainer is an insult to his legacy :rolleyes: It's like calling Freud a...i dunno...dream-catcher?! lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No more than you're saying that it is not possible to train Border Collies to have reliable manners suitable to a well trained pet or sport dog through use of reinforcement, and without use of correction in training. :rolleyes:

 

I'm curious as to what I said that you thought implied that I was saying anything about how to train dogs on stock? I don't recall thinking - much less saying - any such thing. I train pet and sport dogs.

 

I was simply asking you the question before I wrote anything else. So you are not trying to say that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Semantics! Kristine, when you tell your dog "No!" you are giving a correction. Although it can be more, a correction is usually just a verbal noise that communicates to a dog that it is wrong and better stop what it's doing and try something else. When you tell your dog "No!" you are training your dog using a correction. You may not use "No!" "Hey!" "Get out!" etc. while you are having a training session to teach your dog specific behaviors like sit, spin, relax, etc. (probably most of us don't), but in fact, we are *always* training our dogs.

 

Um, sure. If you want to think I train with corrections, I guess I can't stop you from thinking that.

 

Let's say I'm leaving for training class, and one of my dogs comes running up, making eyes, hoping to go. I say, "No. It's not your night". And the dog goes off to lay on the sofa.

 

You really consider that a "correction"? Really? I consider it information.

 

And what, exactly, am I training the dog to do? Not to go with me when it's not his or her turn? That's kind of out of the dog's control, if you think about it.

 

I am actually not telling the dog that he's wrong (what is "wrong" with him checking to see if he gets to go?), he'd better stop what he's doing and try something else (he can keep making eyes at me if he wants to). I am simply saying, "You're not going". He understands.

 

Semantics. I guess if you think of that as a correction, you do. But I disagree. "No", etc. are rarely about the dog being "wrong". It is simply a way to communicate that something is not going to happen, something is not available to the dog, etc. Very occasionally - in matters where injury or harm are at stake - there might be an element of "wrong" involved, but I find that's extremely rare.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was simply asking you the question before I wrote anything else. So you are not trying to say that?

 

If I didn't say it plainly, I'm not trying to say it.

 

I'm still wondering what I said that brought the question to your mind. I'd like to know so I can speak more clearly in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I didn't say it plainly, I'm not trying to say it.

 

I'm still wondering what I said that brought the question to your mind. I'd like to know so I can speak more clearly in the future.

 

I'm just trying to clarify what this discussion is about. If you'll give me you can't train border collies on stock with PP then I'll give you that you can use PP to train dogs to sit and do tricks. End of my problem with this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest echoica

I hate to pick on anyone here, but the misuse of the terminology is driving me a bit wacky. It's no wonder neither 'side' seems to know what the other one is talking about. If you cannot use it right, don't use it at all:

 

Positive/Negative Reinforcement: http://www.psychology.uiowa.edu/Faculty/Wa...nforcement.html

Positive/Negative Punishment: http://www.psychology.uiowa.edu/Faculty/Wa...punishment.html

 

In a nutshell, if it says 'positive' you are adding an action (correction OR treat possible *gasp*). If it says 'negative' you are removing an action/stimuli (removing food off counter or removing sheep). If it says 'reinforcement' you are trying to INCREASE the likelihood of the behaviour (sit or circle left on the sheep). If it says ' punishment' you are trying to DECREASE the behaviour (stop barking or stop attacking sheep). Then you put it together...

 

POSITIVE REINFORCEMENT: Adding stimuli to increase behaviour. (luring a sit with a treat)

NEGATIVE REINFORCEMENT: Removing stimuli to increase behaviour. (i'll think of an example of this later :rolleyes: as this is the least common)

POSITIVE PUNISHMENT: Adding stimuli to decrease behaviour. (verbal correction to stop dog from running into the road)

NEGATIVE PUNISHMENT: Removing stimuli to decrease behaviour. (no food on counter to stop counter surfing)

 

Again...that was in a nutshell :D

 

There is no 'purely positive' approach. The terminology in itself is faulty according to the science behind it. Because clicker trainers do not use POSITIVE punishment. They use positive reinforcement though...and negative PUNISHMENT.

 

Thank you for listening to my commercial break... hehehe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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'd be interested in a comparison of how you would approach a different training task based on your experience of stock work. You're entitled to an opinion whether or not it has been tested in practice.

There's nothing wrong with extrapolating methods from one discipline to another - it happens all the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just trying to clarify what this discussion is about. If you'll give me you can't train border collies on stock with PP then I'll give you that you can use PP to train dogs to sit and do tricks. End of my problem with this thread.

 

I'm not going to say that it can't be done because I wouldn't know that. I know you want me to deny even the remotest possibility, but I would be lying to you if I said that I know for a fact that it can't be done. I know that it has not been done. Or if it has, I don't know about it. I can give you that much.

 

In fact, if I were to say that it can't be done, I would be doing the exact thing that I have been objecting to all along - claiming that something cannot be done that I cannot prove cannot be done. That would make me a hypocrite.

 

And, since there is far more that can be done with reinforcement than training dogs to sit and do tricks (like complex sport behaviors that are done by the dog in a split second under high stimulation levels, serious behavior modification, etc.), it's definitely not worth lying so you'll give me that. After all, I know that reinforcement alone can be used to train dogs to sit and do tricks, whether you want to give that to me or not.

 

Sorry. I know you won't like my answer. But I can't lie to make anyone happy. Claiming something that I have no way of knowing to be possible or impossible is something that I am simply not willing to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Doggers,

 

Ms Pam writes:

 

"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."

 

Many themes in this discussion are familiar, not just to me but probably to all of us. I was genuinely startled to read this. For research purposes I have visited pet dog trainers of different persuasions and attended national dog trainers conferences and though all these trainers asserted a goal of "off-lead reliability" of the several thousand dogs I saw both in training and accompanying their masters few were off lead and only then in dog parks or otherwise controlled circumstances. The gap between the goal and its achievement was striking. I don't view this as wickedness or human failure but merely that one's training method becomes one's default and nobody wants harm to come to their dog. Treat trainers always carry treats, ecollar trainers keep the collar on fully trained dogs, I never go anywhere without my shepherd's whistle.

 

The pet dog events I attended in the UK (the Battersea Dog Home's Annual Reunion and Crufts) were familiar - every dog on a leash unless performing agility/obedience/ police dog demo/etc so I had presumed that on leash training was as ubiquitous in the UK as in the USA.

 

I thank Ms. Pam for her correction and, when next I travel to the UK, doubtless she can direct me to pet dog trainers, positive or traditional, who train off-leash. One is never too old to learn.

 

Donald McCaig

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no 'purely positive' approach. The terminology in itself is faulty according to the science behind it. Because clicker trainers do not use POSITIVE punishment. They use positive reinforcement though...and negative PUNISHMENT.

 

I know. That's like nails on the chalkboard to me, too. I feel the same way about that as some others on the board feel about ball chasing being described as "herding".

 

In plain talk, a "Purely Positive" approach, would include both use of reinforcement when the dog is right, and punishment when the dog is supposedly "wrong".

 

Reinforcement based trainers don't do that.

 

"Purely Positive" to describe clicker trainers, etc., is imprecise terminology. But people will use it, just as people will say that their Border Collies "herd" children, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Treat trainers always carry treats

 

It may surprise you to know that this is not universally true. Yes, some treat trainers always carry treats, but most of us don't.

 

Outside of training class, short daily training sessions, or occasional specific training exercises that I do with my dogs on the road in front of my house, I never carry treats.

 

I don't take treats to the vet. I don't take treats when we go hiking or swimming. I don't take treats when we go to the beach. I don't take treats when we take the dogs along on a Letterboxing outing. I don't take treats when we go out to our yard. I don't take treats to very many places at all.

 

Most treat trainers I know don't carry treats unless they are going to a class, competition, or are doing some sort of formal training.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest echoica
Just a quick, irrelevant question: Would most operant conditioning trainers agree that this is an example of -P ?

 

absolutely! :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest echoica
I feel the same way about that as some others on the board feel about ball chasing being described as "herding".

 

Ahhhh I hadn't thought of it that way! Good comparison :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest echoica
absolutely! :rolleyes:

Could I possibly hear from a different operant conditioning trainer? :D

 

I will post this on another board for you...there are some really good trainers familiar with the principles of behaviourism there even though it is a small board. And I'll link back when I get some responses. I will not load the question either to make it more scientific lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...