Jump to content
BC Boards

Oh GOD, a Ceasar wanna be


Recommended Posts

Once again, I will note that the stockwork discussion was included simply to illustrate that one person's OMG! training technique might be another person's useful and (generally) acceptable method (i.e., we're not comparing any of these methods to the Michael Vick school of dog training). I used the specific example I did because it served to illustrate that there might actually *be* a reason to physically correct a dog, since so many folks on this forum seem to find the idea of such a thing repulsive. IMO, it shows a difference in perspective among different types of trainers (as Barbara noted in her post "It's a different way of training from anything else she has done or watched"), and that's the key to me: Someone using a different method than anyone else would choose to use doesn't make that method inherently bad. If you (the general you) don't understand the reasons behind some of the methods, then it's very easy to label the method as bad. If you do understand the reasons, then you might just be willing to concede that in some situations, your preferred training method might not be suitable and that the alternative training method might not be all that evil.

 

Even though Angelique takes exception with my mention of stockdog training, she then offers her own perspective: why not just correct and move on, which is in fact the approach most stockdog trainers take. She immediately got a response labeling her method as mean. See what I mean? If it's a method you don't understand or that is outside your experience, then you'll (the general you) make assumptions about it that might just be incorrect. I think it helps to provide examples from other training venues so that everyone can broaden their horizons and open their minds. It's why I read Kristine's posts, even though she trains very differently from me. I figure I can learn from her, if I can just get past my immediate gut reaction to "purely positive." :rolleyes:

 

I still don't think the dog in the video was treated badly, nor do I see all the fear and stress that some others saw. Different perspectives.

 

J.

 

Not to be argumentative, but I haven't read any posts that said devil incarnate or ruining the dog or even mean. I have read dislike, not effective, disrespectful, ridiculous, etc.

 

I would however, argue that most people on this forum spend a lot of time reading, watching, taking classes and clinics to train better and more effectively. I think there is a lot of understanding of what might be behind this fellows methods. Whether one likes that or not is a personal choice based on many many personal filters from many many experiences with training animals.

 

I am curious about your "gut reaction" to purely positive. Would you mind elaborating? I am enjoying training my pups so much and reading everything I can get my hands on to become a better trainer. I have thought that getting to the point where one can be positive only would be a good thing, but I myself have reservations about that that I haven't worked out yet. That's why I am curious to hear from someone like you has worked with so many more dogs and has such a strong reaction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 199
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Julie,

 

I guess what stirred me to post is that you seemed to be equating what I would consider a fair correction (rapping a dog on the nose for hanging on to a sheep), with whatever this guy is doing. I understand where you are coming from as far as training, I also look at all dog training from the perspective of training a sheepdog, and it seems to me that one of the hallmarks of that kind of training is being very clear to the dog about what you want - the opposite of video (at least as I saw it.) I guess that's what offended me about the video, and made it difficult for me to understand why stockdog trainers would defend it. That said, I do see your point.

 

Angelique

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's why I read Kristine's posts, even though she trains very differently from me. I figure I can learn from her, if I can just get past my immediate gut reaction to "purely positive." :rolleyes:

 

And likewise.

 

I have to say that if you saw me with my dogs in everyday life, I think you'd be surprised at how much it looks the same as most everyone else on the surface. It's not like the dogs are running the household. Sometimes I wish they could, and I could nap all day long for a change, but so far that's not happening, and I remain the Queen Bee. (:D) And yeah, I enjoy that. I'm benevolent and we have a lot of fun, but Queen Bee I do remain! And sometimes that does require reality checks.

 

The way that we get to that point is a little different, but in the end, there are things the dogs are allowed to do and things that they are not allowed to do and, for the most part, they know what those things are. The three older ones get away with a lot that the younger one doesn't, but that's just because I've learned some things!

 

As much as I'm kind of pining for a new adolescent training project, there is something nice about my youngest being four years old and extremely mannerly.

 

On the subject of "purely positive", that drives me nuts. First of all, purely positive would include both positive reinforcement and positive punishment. I know it's a technicality, but it still grates on my nerves like nails on a chalkboard. It's kind of like calling nipping at someone's heels "herding"!! On the flip side, it sounds like there are no limits, boundaries, or structure and that everything is "nice" all the time. And that's not the case, either. When the training is done and expectation of a certain behavior is reasonable, there are times to let the dog know that something is not OK. Again, I do this in a different way, but it does happen.

 

I am not accusing ANYONE on these posts of being this type of “positive training only” person. But I do think that there are times when a well-timed correction or even a swat on the snout are much more sensible and humane that some long, drawn out interaction that wears on both the dog and the handler.

 

Case in point. In fact I have a dog who doesn't like a shower (ironically, it's my water bug who hates the shower). I do pick him up and carry him into the shower. Now, he's 45 pounds, so I can. With a Golden I guess I'd be out of luck!

 

That's not a training situation. He needs a shower. He hates the shower. I pick him up, put him in, do the job, and let him out. I could desensitize him to it, but we have many more important things to do, so I carry him in, he tolerates it, and life goes on.

 

I'm not going to correct him or swat him on the snout or make him lie down and relax in front of the shower. With this particular dog, that would be just plain mean! None of that is necessary. All that is necessary is that he tolerate it and when I neutrally carry him in and get it over with as quickly as possible, he tolerates it. (And we both love summer when he rolls in the sprinkler almost daily and showers are unnecessary!)

 

That's a good example of where being a reinforcement based trainer does not mean that every aspect of my dog's lives are pleasant. Shoot, if I could make it so, I would! But that's not possible and they do deal with the unpleasant realities of life. And the fact that they are trained with treats and games does not render them incapable of handling the unpleasant realities of life! (That's another thing I have heard along the way. Nobody in this thread said that)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would start working with him in a situation with no exciting distractions, like my living room at home or an empty training building.

 

I would teach the Look at That game from Control Unleashed in that setting. I would also use food reinforcement to teach the dog to relax in the crate in that setting, starting with me in the room and gradually building to me leaving the room and returning. At this stage, I would work at whatever pace the dog needed to be successful.

 

Once the dog had a duration of relaxation in the crate for several minutes whether I am in the room or not, I would get a friend or family member to start bringing in one of my other dogs to serve as a low level distraction. At first that person and dog would just walk through, but I would build to tug play, etc., as the dog is ready for more.

 

I would alternate between having the dog play Look at That outside of the crate and relaxing inside the crate. I would not care if the dog were watching the other dog and person from the crate, but I'd be looking for relaxed interest.

 

Once the dog got to the point where the other person could tug, run, etc. with the other dog, I would take the whole process on the road. I'd probably start working with my dog on the sidelines at an outdoor Agility class, if possible, but I realize that is probably not an option for you. A park where people are playing games with dogs would suffice as an increase in distraction level that is not yet the "real thing".

 

Same thing - Look at That outside the crate and relaxation in the crate. By now I would expect that the dog would really be getting the gist of the process and I would be able to gauge the dog's ability to see stuff going on around him and be nonchalant about it without food rewards. I've found that when the dog really "gets" it, the need for reinforcement decreases very quickly.

 

From there I would go into real settings and see what I see.

 

Of course, that's just an initial game plan. There are always adjustments to make when I get to working with a dog and individual needs crop up. Sometimes whole steps can be skipped and sometimes certain steps need to take place for a longer time or tweaked.

 

In general, though, that would be my approach - Look at That from Control Unleashed, teaching relaxation in the crate, and going at the dog's learning pace.

 

If I needed the dog at a demonstration in the meantime, I would crate the dog and cover the crate when it's not his turn. Management is not a solution, but it's a tool that is often under appreciated. (I'm not saying by you, but what I've seen in general when working with people).

 

 

When I read that, all I can think of is I must be a lazy trainer. My methods are much quicker, to the point, then we move on. It just amazes me that someone would take all this time to train a dog in that manner.

Not that I think it's bad...maybe not my choice but not evil or stupid either but just...wow...

that's alot of work compared to what might be my choosen method.

 

There's a fine line between training method opinions, and when crossed, feels like insults or judgements comeing off both sides of the fence.

 

For me it boils down to this...

 

I won't call positive only methods stupid if you don't call me an abusive trainer and to put my training methods into perspective I would say they are much closer to Julie P's way (which is the manner that I think working stock is best taught) than Kristine's....

I guess you could call me lazy and I won't get upset!

 

So easy to let personal feelings get in the mix when it's really just different ways to get the job done.

 

as far as the video...I saw nothing really worth commenting on. Just someone elses version of training..be it my choice or not wasn't worth thinking about, I did not find it abusive in any way.

 

I do find all that ensued from this thread interesting though.

 

What I'd of done in the case of Deb's JJ...

if JJ wasn't handling the tension of attack demos going on around him, I'd put JJ up till I needed him to work, then expect him to work and not pay attention to what was going on else where.

See....lazy?

How many times in the real world of my dogs will I have to worry about them getting into a scuffle with attacking demo dogs...not enough to worry about fixing the issue.

Mick is a dog aggressive dog. But if we're going to work he wouldn't have seen anything other than "work". What barking, biting dogs? nope, all he sees are sheep, heck he doesn't even have to see them, if he thinks about them that's all he does while they're in his head.

 

If he didn't work through the confusion going on around him, then I'd be wondering about the dog unless it's a young pup new to the world.

I expect my dogs to work no matter what.....I expect it and if I don't eventually get it...that might not be the dog for me.

I'm not taking in consideration things like thunder phobias and the likes. Whole nother ball of wax.

 

Just another nickles worth cause I'm giving myself more than 2 cents worth of credit...Lazy but not stupid.

 

 

eta...

I am curious about your "gut reaction" to purely positive. Would you mind elaborating?

 

Yeah Julie...I'd love to hear you elaborate that one! :rolleyes::D:D

 

Sorry....I know exactly what your "gut reaction" feels like and it'd be hard to put it in words without hurting someone elses feelings (or at least I couldn't and I don't just mean Kristine either!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to hear the people who have defended different training/ handling styles to say how they would have handled Brun from the moment he answered the summons to the bathroom.

 

I would have asked him to load up into the tub, if he went into the passive resistent hunker down ignore me mode I would have done one of two things, picked him up and put him in the tub or snapped a leash on him and place pressure on him so that he decided the there was no reward in being passive resistent, basically train him to the tub accepting anything but resistence. I hate being held hostage by a dog, if they go into the "don't want to do anything" mode, I'll help them decided that they want to do something. I've seen the poking technique used to get a dog to decide to do something, but there is a fine line there to, if the poking is just being used as an annoyance and not creating change or if the trainer does not recognize an attempt to do something it hinges toward abuse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to hear the people who have defended different training/ handling styles to say how they would have handled Brun from the moment he answered the summons to the bathroom.

 

I would have picked him up and put him in the tub. Geez, some battles are just not worth having. Well, actually with dogs, none of them need to turn into battles. How many times has my trainer yelled at ME to stop fighting with my dog? It doesn't get either of us anywhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It'd be like going to the doctor...you might not want to but you have to, so same with the bath....I just keep plodding through and dogs I've had usually give up the fight cause it's not getting them anywhere.

I wouln't be poking or bopping the dog...just insisting that they do what ever it is they don't want to.

 

I dealt with Dew about her fear or avoidence of baths and getting her nails trimmed. My fault in the first place for not exposing these things to her when she was younger.

She hates both but she has learned that no matter what she does she's still getting it done...

poor dear sometimes ends up between my legs while I hose her off and just whine/crying....oh well, I'm not hurting her and the quicker we get it over the sooner she can go get dirty agian. I'm sure there's a better way to get it done but geesh...it's just a bath!

 

Once way back I had a very powerful dog, one I shouldn't have owned at that time. He was a true sweetheart but very strong and big. He said he wasn't taking a bath....well he won, and scarred me away. Never once did I try to give him a bath again....sad story.

Worst yet was he was hard on stock, almost killed some sheep. I was in no way prepared to deal with him at such an early stage of learning about stockwork, so cut my losses and gave him back to the breeder who resold him to a huge cattle operation where I assume he went on to have a very successful career...probably dirty but none the less successful. And I bet the cattle company that bought him could give a rats patoot if he ever had a bath!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I read that, all I can think of is I must be a lazy trainer. My methods are much quicker, to the point, then we move on. It just amazes me that someone would take all this time to train a dog in that manner.

Not that I think it's bad...maybe not my choice but not evil or stupid either but just...wow...

that's alot of work compared to what might be my choosen method.

 

To me it doesn't seem like much work at all.

 

I personally know a lot of people who use corrections in training. They are in classes with me and some are students of mine who refuse to let them go. And . . . honestly . . . I don't see the speed. I see an awful lot of "ah ah's" over and over and over and over and over for the same things. I would say that the vast majority of dogs who are trained with "ah-ah's" and stapled sits, etc., either don't get it or really don't care.

 

I know - everyone on this board could give an example of a reinforcement trainer who did not get results. So it can happen with any chosen method.

 

I'm not saying that all corrections can't work. But a lot of people around me use them and . . . really . . . I don't see it working. I hear "ah-ah" for the same things over and over and over.

 

So, I put in a lot of work in laying training foundations, but I see results. It's not like I have perfect dogs or anything, but based on what I see with the handlers around me who use corrections, in spite of that it's still much faster. Even if I didn't prefer the reinforcement based approach, I'd still use it because I'm seeing the results that I want in my own dogs (and those of my students who are willing to try a reinforcement based approach), and not so much in the dogs around me.

 

And I'm not some great trainer. Seriously, I am so new to this and there is so much more that I have to learn to even consider myself "good" that it's not funny.

 

I'm not passing judgment on anyone on the board. If you say that what you are doing is working, I'm going to take your word for it.

 

But most of the people I actually see doing this stuff are not getting fast results with "ah-ah's", collar pops, gutteral verbal corrections, prong collars, etc.

 

Again, I know that can go both ways. I'm just reflecting on what I see around me. And what I see is a lot of fruitless correcting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having just gotten two dogs into, and out of the tub.... Lucy is happy to hop in, because we just move forward, and she doesn't get a sense of dread. Danny is less than keen, but when we get to the tub, he hops in, and I tell him he's a good boy. He would prefer not getting cups of water thrown on him, but he does it, because he is a biddable guy, and Lucy, well, she's just perfect :D

 

I used to work with young horses a lot, taught them the ways of the world. One of the things that varied greatly were the reactions to the wash stall. Some horses went in, paying good attention to me, perhaps a bit concerned, but since I wasn't, they weren't, and some just really did not want in. No matter how much I fought them, it was a losing battle because then, they believed there WAS something to be worried about. I generally approach training any animal with here's what we want, and "let's go" attitude. If a dog is SERIOUSLY terrified, I will step back a bit- you know who I have seen do this very well? Good sheepdog trainers with dogs who are worried about them- it's pretty amazing seeing these trainers remain firm, but soft in their approach, and the fear the dogs feel melts away as they fade away and let the dog work. By the time the dog sees scary new trainer again, they have already forgotten their fear, for the joy of working the sheep.

 

And, the most special moment ever, was when Norm Close worked with Lucy and I, and Lucy who is wholly respectful, to a fault of male trainers (she gives beautiful pace, and space to sheep for them) :rolleyes: had no concern, and Norm bent down, and wrapped his arm around my beautiful lass, she looked into his eyes- it was a KODAK moment. She's never done that for anyone else but me. Seriously. It's all in the approach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the subject of "purely positive", that drives me nuts. First of all, purely positive would include both positive reinforcement and positive punishment. I know it's a technicality, but it still grates on my nerves like nails on a chalkboard.

 

Well, what shorthand method of expressing it would you like? So many people advertise themselves as "purely positive" (and I know darn well that they are not including positive punishment!), that I thought it had become an accepted term amongst ____________________ trainers.

 

That's not a training situation. He needs a shower. He hates the shower. I pick him up, put him in, do the job, and let him out.

 

Yes!! I was expecting a very long post that began "Step 1 - Click and treat when the dog turns his head toward the bathtub." :rolleyes: Actually, I've found that once they have been lifted in a few times they generally go in on their own when invited. They know they'll end up there anyway, and they prefer to be masters of their own fate. So in that sense it IS a training method.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah Julie...I'd love to hear you elaborate that one! :rolleyes::D:D

 

Sorry....I know exactly what your "gut reaction" feels like and it'd be hard to put it in words without hurting someone elses feelings (or at least I couldn't and I don't just mean Kristine either!)

 

 

Well you could certainly PM me. The fact that it strikes you as hilarious has me more curious than ever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Flyer,

I guess you could say my gut reaction on hearing the term (or some derivative thereof) "positive training" would be equivalent to what a positive trainer's would be on hearing the word correction (Pam's "just being mean" reaction comes to mind). Although I know it's not the norm for all positive trainers, the bath description given by Geonni Banner is what comes instantly to mind--ineffectual silliness (sorry, I'm not saying this to be insulting to anyone, and of course I know it's not ineffectual when applied correctly, but you asked what my gut reaction is). I tend to picture someone waiting for their dog to offer a behavior they want and then clicking and treating and simply ignoring unwanted behaviors (and if those unwanted behaviors are obnoxious, well, so what, eventually the dog will figure out it's not going to get a click and treat for that and so will stop, someday), while *waiting* for the wanted behavior to appear. And I have to admit that some of my gut reaction is colored by the mannerless dogs I encounter whose owners claim to be positive only trainers (obviously not very good ones). Since jumping up was the subject of the video, I see a purely positive trainer as clicking and treating when the dog is sitting (or whatever alternative behavior is required). I have *no idea* what the trainer does at the moment the dog jumps, except perhaps to step out of the way? Okay, I imagine the trainer gives a command for what s/he would prefer the dog to do and then clicks and treats when the dog complies.

 

The corollary to my gut reaction for the reinforcement trainer would be to immediately picture me hitting or being mean to my dog whenever I use the word "correction." In this same example, if the dog tried to jump up on me, I'd give a correction "Ahht!" and then expect the dog to offer some other more appropriate behavior. When the dog complied, it would get the attention it was seeking by jumping up in the first place. So the most basic difference I can see between the two methods is that I would use a correction word and let the dog come up with a plan to comply and a positive trainer would probably use a command for an alternate, incompatible behavior. If what I surmise is true, then really what the difference seems to boil down to is whether you're willing to tell your dog "no" or not. I imagine this is the same sort of discussion folks would have over raising kids. Personally I don't think it hurts a child's psyche to be told "no" or "don't do that" and I feel the same way in dog training.

 

I try to understand that positive-only or reinforcement trainers aren't all just taking some convoluted means of getting to an end, but sometimes that's what it seems like to me. I honestly can't imagine taking weeks or months to extinguish certain behaviors when a simple correction (not mean, not abusive) could accomplish the same in a shorter time. (ETA: Or as Eileen joked about in her comments on getting the dog in the shower; that is going through a whole click-treat sequence to teach the dog to get in when the easy thing to do is just to put the dog in.)

 

I doubt you could find posts from me on this forum making the same value judgements about positive only training that are routinely made about the correction-based training most stockdog people use (until this post anyway, and that's only because you asked), and it does tend to color my reactions a bit. It gets tiresome hearing how correction-based methods are unfair, mean, inappropriate, etc. I used the extreme example of my pup on sheep because it was as clear an example as I could come up with where a correction (which I imagine could be termed "punishment" in that case) could indeed be fair and appropriate. As GB pointed out, some of the so-called positive methods can be just as unkind to the dog.

 

I understand that most people don't have the knowledge or timing to properly apply correction-based methods, and poorly timed or misapplied corrections can do more harm than good, whereas if you mess up the timing on your positive-only training then at worst you won't see any improvement, BUT there is a place for correction-based training and I just would like for the positive-only folks to understand that.

 

Kristine often says that if you meet her and her happy pack they don't run the household and behave like normal dogs. I could say something similar: my dogs are not fearful, cowering recipients of cruel training techniques but are in fact a happy pack that behaves like normal dogs.

 

And you're right--no one actually used the term "devil incarnate." But there was a lot of talk of intimidation, stress, and mention of shutting down (which implies a dog that has been stressed/abused to the point of completely giving up--and has very negative training connotations), and I just didn't see any of that with the dog in the video.

 

ETA: I see Kristine posted while I was typing this missive and noted all the folks in class she sees who are ineffectually using correction-based training. It seems that she sees ineffective correction-based training around her, and I see a lot of ineffective positive-only training around me. Maybe my feelings are influenced by the positive trained dogs who show up at my place with owners who want to train them for stockwork and I can't even begin any sort of stockdog training until I first get an actual handle (basic manners) on the dog! Any method misapplied is doomed to failure.

 

J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But most of the people I actually see doing this stuff are not getting fast results with "ah-ah's", collar pops, gutteral verbal corrections, prong collars, etc.

 

I have to agree with you, there are alot of people that are not being effective (or should it be affective, always get that messed up), and it shows in their level of accomplishment. This is including myself prior to having the difference between threats and corrections explained to me. Not much different then going to a trial and hearing a lot of "lie downs" but the dog not even taking pause and continuing to do what it wants to do be it right or wrong. It gets to the point where all the collar pops and words being thrown out are meaningless, basically white noise to the dog, the association either was not established or it was lost. But, it is amazing as to the speed of learning and the level of training you can achieve once you get on the right track with the timing of your corrections.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for work off stock, leash manners, agility, tricks, and coming when called (which I imagine sets the tone for the stock work in some ways), I am much more inclined to train like Kristine, teaching what I want through reward-based methods (positive reinforcement and some negative punishment) and only gradually adding the challenge of distractions as the dog's understanding grows. Ask me again in a year, lol!

 

Barbara

What Barbara says is also true for me. The dog in this video is not working stock, IMHO she is a bubbly dog who doesn't have manners.

 

Working stock well is one of the ultimate levels of good relationship between dog and human - levels where the dog and human work as a team. A team who respect each other, but have an unquestioning leader within the relationship.

 

A dog with no manners is rarely going to be a good stockdog. A dog who is taught manners through unreasonable abuse or unclear methods is not going to be a good teammate.

 

A proven trainer of good stockdogs therefore, usually a darn good grip on effective manners training.

 

Not taking advice from someone who has proven to be a reliable trainer of dogs on stock because it's "just manners" makes about as much sense as refusing to have a college educated teacher for your child's elementry years because it's just "letters and numbers"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes!! I was expecting a very long post that began "Step 1 - Click and treat when the dog turns his head toward the bathtub." :rolleyes:

 

Okay that made me laugh........but honestly I have been there and done that, I was a zookeeper and we had to train animals to do things they didn't want to do and there was no way to MAKE them and no way to correct them (well none that aren't considered barbaric these days and most of us wouldn't consider them). Nothing will make you figure out how to make something fun that isn't, than necessity. If you think training a recall is hard, try training an Ape to hold their arm in a sleeve and let you draw blood from them (without them ripping your fingers off at some point).

 

The nice thing about domestic animals is that you can use a bit of both.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's also worth pointing out that in those zoo/aquariam positive training settings the animals can *not* get away. You can always hold out for pure positive when you control the animals access to every needed item or function.

 

Dogs live in a bigger world than that.

 

 

Okay that made me laugh........but honestly I have been there and done that, I was a zookeeper and we had to train animals to do things they didn't want to do and there was no way to MAKE them and no way to correct them (well none that aren't considered barbaric these days and most of us wouldn't consider them). Nothing will make you figure out how to make something fun that isn't, than necessity. If you think training a recall is hard, try training an Ape to hold their arm in a sleeve and let you draw blood from them (without them ripping your fingers off at some point).

 

The nice thing about domestic animals is that you can use a bit of both.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well you could certainly PM me. The fact that it strikes you as hilarious has me more curious than ever.

 

I laugh becuase it crosses the line that is polite with-in different training methods.

No matter what I say, Kristine is quite sold on her methods. No matter what she says, I'm quite sold on my methods. Not saying that we don't learn something from each other but, usually in the general camps of different training, it's an us against them theme. Like the AKC border collies and the working collies. Never gonna join up...never gonna happen.

I laugh because I'd never want to hurt Kristines feelings intentionly, but I'm sure I could offend her in the same way she could offend me with her opinions on my training. So I would not try to explain why it feels like it does in my "gut" for fear of not getting it worded right and someone I respect taking offence. Now I even feel confused...but still laughing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once again, I will note that the stockwork discussion was included simply to illustrate that one person's OMG! training technique might be another person's useful and (generally) acceptable method (i.e., we're not comparing any of these methods to the Michael Vick school of dog training). I used the specific example I did because it served to illustrate that there might actually *be* a reason to physically correct a dog, since so many folks on this forum seem to find the idea of such a thing repulsive. IMO, it shows a difference in perspective among different types of trainers (as Barbara noted in her post "It's a different way of training from anything else she has done or watched"), and that's the key to me: Someone using a different method than anyone else would choose to use doesn't make that method inherently bad. If you (the general you) don't understand the reasons behind some of the methods, then it's very easy to label the method as bad. If you do understand the reasons, then you might just be willing to concede that in some situations, your preferred training method might not be suitable and that the alternative training method might not be all that evil.

 

Even though Angelique takes exception with my mention of stockdog training, she then offers her own perspective: why not just correct and move on, which is in fact the approach most stockdog trainers take. She immediately got a response labeling her method as mean. See what I mean? If it's a method you don't understand or that is outside your experience, then you'll (the general you) make assumptions about it that might just be incorrect. I think it helps to provide examples from other training venues so that everyone can broaden their horizons and open their minds. It's why I read Kristine's posts, even though she trains very differently from me. I figure I can learn from her, if I can just get past my immediate gut reaction to "purely positive." :rolleyes:

 

I still don't think the dog in the video was treated badly, nor do I see all the fear and stress that some others saw. Different perspectives.

 

J.

 

I can understand a "gut reaction" to the words "purely positive." I can think of two reasons for this.

 

The first is that we don't live in a purely positive world. We live in a world where scary and bad things happen. I think that people who never scold their dogs, or never allow them to feel that you are annoyed/ angry with them are shaping a reality for the dog that will be guaranteed to be shattered eventually, with more or less unhappy consequences for the dog. This doesn't mean that I think one should hit, kick or scream at a dog to get it to do what you want it too. But on the other hand, I have seen too many dogs fall apart the first time they witness someone hollering (at them or someone else.) No one here would , I think, disagree that banging pot lids, slamming doors and the like when your dog is young is a bad thing. It is done to get it used to the fact that noise happens and it isn't the end of the world - that they can experience noise and go on about their business. By the same token, I think that dogs need to learn that their actions have consequences, and sometimes those consequences can be less than fun. I know people who think lure-coursing should be banned because dogs can get hurt doing it. Cripes! I mean... I reckon dogs get hurt doing herding too. Should we have no more sheepdogs? I doubt that a dog getting a smack across the muzzle is going to make it go sour on sheep herding, and I doubt if getting swatted on the butt for "tenderizing" the cat is going to scar a pup for life.

 

The other reason (for me) is that I started out training as a Koehler trainer. No, I never strung a dog up with a choke-chain until it passed out, but I've administered plenty of stiff leash-corrections, and even popped dogs on the butt with the end of a leather leash when they were acting like fools. The dogs I trained got trained, were happy, and went on to live lives that were interesting and fun because they were well-behaved and well-trained.

I have learned a lot since then, and have broadened the repertoire of techniques that I use to train. But I have a pretty strong defensive reaction to people who look down their noses at something that simply seems effective to me, or shrink away from me in horror because I could be such a fiendish monster as to give some dingbat Labrador a stiff jerk with a choke-chain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes!! I was expecting a very long post that began "Step 1 - Click and treat when the dog turns his head toward the bathtub." :D

 

Ok, that made me laugh, too!

 

I think I used to call myself purely positive, or some variation thereof. However, since I've thrown a few stock sticks over the last year or two, I guess I can hang that title up. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A dog with no manners is rarely going to be a good stockdog.

 

I imagine that could be the case, and why I said manners likely set "the tone for the stock work in some ways." I will learn more about this as I go, but I cannot imagine it's helpful to have a dog dragging his handler toward the sheep or not coming when called in situations outside of stock work, and then be as good a partner as he could be with the stock. Don't really have enough experience to assess that, just my impression. It certainly holds true for other dog endeavors wit which I'm more familiar.

 

A proven trainer of good stockdogs therefore, usually a darn good grip on effective manners training.

 

That may well be.

 

Not taking advice from someone who has proven to be a reliable trainer of dogs on stock because it's "just manners" makes about as much sense as refusing to have a college educated teacher for your child's elementry years because it's just "letters and numbers"

 

Not sure if you're referring to something I said or not. But FWIW, personally I can't imagine using the phrase "just manners." Since 99% of my dog's job in life is to fit into my life, manners is at the top of my list for things to teach. And I prefer to teach those as I already described. (If you weren't referring to my post, I guess disregard all that!)

 

Barbara

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thx Julie for such a thoughtful and detailed post.

 

 

Flyer,

I guess you could say my gut reaction on hearing the term (or some derivative thereof) "positive training" would be equivalent to what a positive trainer's would be on hearing the word correction (Pam's "just being mean" reaction comes to mind).

 

This surprises me given the positive operant conditioning based trainers I am meeting often incorporate corrections, even aaht's.

Although I know it's not the norm for all positive trainers, the bath description given by Geonni Banner is what comes instantly to mind--ineffectual silliness (sorry, I'm not saying this to be insulting to anyone, and of course I know it's not ineffectual when applied correctly, but you asked what my gut reaction is).

 

I don't see this as insulting. I doubt anyone on this board is that kind of silly trainer. I've seem them though. I think these are people who do not understand the actual training. These same people would probably be the people who poke and say ZZZt for everything under the sun if they used aversive methods. I have seen so many dogs and horses unwilling to work unless treats are around, created by people who use food as bribes and don't fade the prompts.

 

I tend to picture someone waiting for their dog to offer a behavior they want and then clicking and treating and simply ignoring unwanted behaviors (and if those unwanted behaviors are obnoxious, well, so what, eventually the dog will figure out it's not going to get a click and treat for that and so will stop, someday), while *waiting* for the wanted behavior to appear. And I have to admit that some of my gut reaction is colored by the mannerless dogs I encounter whose owners claim to be positive only trainers (obviously not very good ones). Since jumping up was the subject of the video, I see a purely positive trainer as clicking and treating when the dog is sitting (or whatever alternative behavior is required). I have *no idea* what the trainer does at the moment the dog jumps, except perhaps to step out of the way? Okay, I imagine the trainer gives a command for what s/he would prefer the dog to do and then clicks and treats when the dog complies.

 

Have you ever watched a good clicker trainer work? In my experience it's not like this. I took a couple of classes with a Karen Pryor grad. The woman had already been training for years. Shepherds. Obedience champs. Clicker training was a later ad on. Anyway she was great. Very clear, great timing and expected a lot from the dog. bolded in edit to highlight this is me talking.

 

The corollary to my gut reaction for the reinforcement trainer would be to immediately picture me hitting or being mean to my dog whenever I use the word "correction." In this same example, if the dog tried to jump up on me, I'd give a correction "Ahht!" and then expect the dog to offer some other more appropriate behavior. When the dog complied, it would get the attention it was seeking by jumping up in the first place. So the most basic difference I can see between the two methods is that I would use a correction word and let the dog come up with a plan to comply and a positive trainer would probably use a command for an alternate, incompatible behavior. If what I surmise is true, then really what the difference seems to boil down to is whether you're willing to tell your dog "no" or not. I imagine this is the same sort of discussion folks would have over raising kids. Personally I don't think it hurts a child's psyche to be told "no" or "don't do that" and I feel the same way in dog training.

 

Had a wonderful (not) discussion about this with SIL who always insisted on distraction. Never say no :rolleyes: Should have seen the look on her face when I told my three yr. old son no in an airport and he threw himself down on the floor. I simply carried on with my check in while he flailed for another minute. Resolved his disappointment and moved on. This is also one of the very reasons I wonder about positive only training with dogs.

 

My Colt is given to sulking if I correct harshly as in big voice, disapproving look. I chose to actually continue to use corrections with him, though must say he rarely needs them as he is such a perfectionist, so that he could work thru his sulks more quickly. I think it is working. He is still very young. No big deal, Colt, you made a mistake, now move on kind of thing. This is really just intuitive on my part as I haven't ever read anything on it. I may be way out in left field.

 

I try to understand that positive-only or reinforcement trainers aren't all just taking some convoluted means of getting to an end, but sometimes that's what it seems like to me. I honestly can't imagine taking weeks or months to extinguish certain behaviors when a simple correction (not mean, not abusive) could accomplish the same in a shorter time. (ETA: Or as Eileen joked about in her comments on getting the dog in the shower; that is going through a whole click-treat sequence to teach the dog to get in when the easy thing to do is just to put the dog in.)

 

I think it really depends on the dog on which way to go. How much pressure they can handle, past experiences, etc.

 

I doubt you could find posts from me on this forum making the same value judgements about positive only training that are routinely made about the correction-based training most stockdog people use (until this post anyway, and that's only because you asked), and it does tend to color my reactions a bit. It gets tiresome hearing how correction-based methods are unfair, mean, inappropriate, etc. I used the extreme example of my pup on sheep because it was as clear an example as I could come up with where a correction (which I imagine could be termed "punishment" in that case) could indeed be fair and appropriate. As GB pointed out, some of the so-called positive methods can be just as unkind to the dog.

 

I didn't know this was true on this forum. I'm only a casual though grateful user and yeah, GB's example is a zinger, though again is one of the things I have wondered about as I have seen this happen with too too many horses. Very bored, very tuned out horses.

 

I understand that most people don't have the knowledge or timing to properly apply correction-based methods, and poorly timed or misapplied corrections can do more harm than good, whereas if you mess up the timing on your positive-only training then at worst you won't see any improvement, BUT there is a place for correction-based training and I just would like for the positive-only folks to understand that.

 

I agree completely which is why I prefer most folks to use positive methods. I see so many dogs dissed, misunderstood, yanked grabbed by the scruff, rolled and hit in the name of pack leader training. I live in a big city and I am out in the pet-owner world mostly and it seems to be a disease. I tire of it. Hence my dramatic reaction to the OP's vid. Oh God, another one kind of thing.

Kristine often says that if you meet her and her happy pack they don't run the household and behave like normal dogs. I could say something similar: my dogs are not fearful, cowering recipients of cruel training techniques but are in fact a happy pack that behaves like normal dogs.

 

I have no doubt.

 

And you're right--no one actually used the term "devil incarnate." But there was a lot of talk of intimidation, stress, and mention of shutting down (which implies a dog that has been stressed/abused to the point of completely giving up--and has very negative training connotations), and I just didn't see any of that with the dog in the video.

 

I saw a dog give up.

 

ETA: I see Kristine posted while I was typing this missive and noted all the folks in class she sees who are ineffectually using correction-based training. It seems that she sees ineffective correction-based training around her, and I see a lot of ineffective positive-only training around me. Maybe my feelings are influenced by the positive trained dogs who show up at my place with owners who want to train them for stockwork and I can't even begin any sort of stockdog training until I first get an actual handle (basic manners) on the dog! Any method misapplied is doomed to failure.

 

I am about to enter the stock world and the agility world as Colt is 14 moths. Should be interesting.

 

J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I used to call myself purely positive, or some variation thereof. However, since I've thrown a few stock sticks over the last year or two, I guess I can hang that title up. :rolleyes:

 

I think even without throwing stock sticks it's likely that you were never a "purely positive" trainer, at least as I think the term is being used here. The thing is, I don't think it's possible to interact with a dog and not communicate disapproval when it's doing something wrong. Whether it's a knock on the nose or a raise of an eyebrow, it seems to be that we are always going to be giving some sign to a dog that we disapprove of an incorrect behavior. I guess my point is that we all use positive and negative reinforcement all the time, whether we notice it or not. The broader discussion is really about the balance between them and the degree of reinforcement needed.

 

I am decidedly unqualified to really add anything to this discussion from a training perspective, but as someone who has to communicate with people for a living, watching this debate unfold is fascinating. In some respects it's like the two "camps" are speaking completely different languages. But in truth I imagine that the actual training techniques used have more similarities than differences. Not that there aren't different philosophies to training and differences in techniques, but I think good trainers exhibit the same core competencies no matter what their philosophy. What it boils down to is whether a person can effectively communicate to a dog what constitutes acceptable behavior and can that person make it worth the dog's while to exhibit that behavior.

 

It's funny that this all started with the video posted by kelpiegirl, because the one thing that most of the posters seem to agree on is that, whatever technique that trainer is using, he's not effectively communicating with the dog, but that's the dog isnt' abused - just confused.

 

Anyway, that's my highly uninformed opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But, it is amazing as to the speed of learning and the level of training you can achieve once you get on the right track with the timing of your corrections.

 

And, conversely, it is amazing the speed of learning and level of training you can achieve once you get on the right track with timing of reinforcement! :rolleyes:

 

I see plenty of people misapplying reinforcement, too. Either they don't know when to present the reinforcer and miss prime opportunities to take a shortcut to learning. Or they are trying vainly to reinforce with something that the dog doesn't even want. Or they reinforce far, far too late.

 

So, yes I do see it both ways. I just happen to see a lot more ineffective correcting going on me than misapplied reinforcement among the people among whom I train.

 

As I was driving home a little while ago I had to chuckle. Sometimes training with reinforcement does take a lot of steps - especially with behavior modification. But sometimes it is very quick. We were working with a dog in class the other day who had been unable to "get" a technique. The owner kept tugging on the leash and going "ah-ah". The do continued to be unsuccessful. I asked to handle the dog - used a single click - and the dog was perfect after that. She had the idea in a split second. All it took was one clear message of "that's right!" at the split second that she was correct.

 

So, reinforcement training is not always a long, multi step process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...