Voodoo

[rushdoggie]

Kelpiegirl,

 

Can your dog walk on a loose lead when there are no sheep present? And also, will walking up to the stock with an insistence on handler control be an issue once the dog starts working stock? In my head I see a dog on lead until point A, then the lead comes off and the stock work begins. Would this be detrimental to the work (I ask because I honestly don't know).

[kelpiegirl]

I don't leash him a lot, but the rule is that he walk behind me, even off leash. As to your question, for me, I am sort of lazy, so sometimes he would pull. I would rather you ask the open handlers this question...

I don't want to quash keen-ness, if that's your question, but I also don't like my arms pulled out of their sockets either

 

Kelpiegirl,

 

Can your dog walk on a loose lead when there are no sheep present? And also, will walking up to the stock with an insistence on handler control be an issue once the dog starts working stock? In my head I see a dog on lead until point A, then the lead comes off and the stock work begins. Would this be detrimental to the work (I ask because I honestly don't know).

[rushdoggie]

I don't leash him a lot, but the rule is that he walk behind me, even off leash. As to your question, for me, I am sort of lazy, so sometimes he would pull. I would rather you ask the open handlers this question...

I don't want to quash keen-ness, if that's your question, but I also don't like my arms pulled out of their sockets either

 

I would *think* that so long as the issue was the approach to work vs the actual work, it shouldn't affect the work too much...maybe someone else will chime in.

[Donald McCaig]

Dear Doggers,

 

Should Ms. RootBeer or others wish to attend the Finals it will be held September 18-26 every day except Monday. http://www.nationalsheepdogfinals.com/ While the most difficult and impressive runs will be Sunday the 26th, qualifying and nursery are exemplary.

 

All dog cultures are insular, sheepdog culture no less than others. Mostly this is because dog time is limited and time spent in another culture is time snatched from one's own dog enthusiasms.

 

There are no loving cups for watching bird dog trials, retriever tests, sled dog competitions or SAR trials, or coursing dogs, or Agility trials if your main interest is . . .whatever your dog passion may be. And although some AKC people dip into many venues to put multiple titles on their dogs, these jacks-of-all trades are masters of little.

 

Some shy from investigating other cultures because other cultures are, er . . NOTLIKEMINE. While many are friendly and welcoming, some are not. Some people in any culture -including sheepdog culture - think any dog not doing what theirs are doing is just another mutt.

 

Some cultures, notably ecollar and positive, are evangelical as Jehovah's Witnesses. Others, like bird dog and sheepdog trials or competitive obedience are hard to understand without a guide.

 

Although consumed by my own passion, I have tried to see other dog competitions and working dogs. I've seen the popular forms of pet dog training, bird dog, SAR, rally and agility training. Although I've enjoyed freestyle at Crufts I've never seen it trained.

 

Because every dog culture is insular, every culture is myopic. We see what our culture values. My dogs once failed the Volhard Drive test because that test depends on pet rearing where toys and treats are ubiquitous and my dogs had never seen either.

 

 

I think it is both astonishing and a brilliant evolutionary strategy that our dogs let us see such radically different creatures. Dogs are shapeshifters. I also think that visiting other cultures at the least helps us understand our preferred culture and, at best, teaches us important facts about our own dogs.

 

Donald McCaig

[Laurae]

Should Ms. RootBeer or others wish to attend the Finals it will be held September 18-26 every day except Monday.

 

Sorry to go off topic here, but the USBCHA site says Monday is the nursery finals--is there really going to be nursery finals this year, Donald (or anyone else on the committee)?

[Donald McCaig]

Dear Sheepdoggers,

Nursery Finals Saturday and Sunday 18th & 19th. Far as I know, Monday is a day off but I'll check with the Bosses.

 

Donald

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry to go off topic here, but the USBCHA site says Monday is the nursery finals--is there really going to be nursery finals this year, Donald (or anyone else on the committee)?

[Laurae]

To be clear, the site says something to the effect of Sat and Sun being qualifier days, with Mon being the day for nursery finals.

[Eileen Stein]

The original plan was for the Nursery Finals to be the first Sat and Sun, with a day off on Mon. Because an unexpectedly large number of dogs have qualified for the Nursery Finals, Nursery will be run on all three days, with the first runs being on Sat and Sun, and the run back of the top scoring dogs being on Mon. Highest combined scores for the two runs is the champion.

 

At least, that's my understanding.

[mbc1963]

All dog cultures are insular, sheepdog culture no less than others. Mostly this is because dog time is limited and time spent in another culture is time snatched from one's own dog enthusiasms.

 

Some shy from investigating other cultures because other cultures are, er . . NOTLIKEMINE. While many are friendly and welcoming, some are not. Some people in any culture -including sheepdog culture - think any dog not doing what theirs are doing is just another mutt.

 

Some cultures... are evangelical as Jehovah's Witnesses. Others... are hard to understand without a guide.

 

Donald McCaig

 

Yes, yes, and YES.

 

I find that all of this is true in pretty much every venue: dog training, politics, religion... My friends with children tell me the mother forums online are absolute WARS of skirmishes where neither side will concede any point the other side makes. (Work vs. stay at home. Breast vs. bottle. Free-range vs. helicopter. Oy.)

 

It always makes discussion circular and pointless - when neither side can let down the wall of their defensiveness to see the truth presented by the other side. I suppose it's rooted in our genes - hence our need to divide and subdivide into warrning factions, no matter how much we truly have in common.

 

So tiring.

 

Mary

[juliepoudrier]

I would *think* that so long as the issue was the approach to work vs the actual work, it shouldn't affect the work too much...maybe someone else will chime in.

Actually I think sometimes it does, but deciding that requires the ability to read the dog's total demeanor and not just its excitement to get to the stock, IMO. That is, if you can tell that the dog is already tuning you out, with glazed-over eyes, and all that's going through its mind is sheep, Sheep, SHEEP! OMG! SHEEP! then perhaps the dog's mind is not in an appropriate place to even think about letting it loose on stock. In that case, I'd do some work to make sure the dog had me back in the picture before we ever got near the stock. If, on the other hand, the dog is pulling out of general keenness and excitement for the work, but clearly has its mind in the right place, I wouldn't bother myself about the pulling so much (though I probably would correct the dog, at least with my voice or by tapping my stock stick on the ground in front of it, if I happen to be carrying one, as I don't really want my arm pulled out of the socket either).

 

ETA: Rushdoggie, I realize that you mean approach in the sense of just "heading toward" but I'm referring to that dog's mental approach--its attitude.

 

J.

[juliepoudrier]

Honestly, I don't see why I should be expected to sit back and think "Oh yes! That's brilliant" when something that I know something about and have a true passion for is completely misrepresented.

My point, which seems to have been missed, is that in all the Groundhog Day threads like this one, you are one who has repeatedly said that in your experience correction-based methods lead to unhappy dogs at best and are outright abusive at worst.

 

People like me have repeatedly said that such a generalization isn't true. So I invited you to go to a venue (USBCHA National Sheepdog Finals) where a majority of the dogs are certainly trained with correction-based methods so that you could see for yourself that your personal experience might not be wide enough to inform a decision (and repeated proclamations) that correction-based training methods result in unhappy dogs and are cruel--in other words, a complete misrepresentation. Note that I am not referring to any other type of training. Nor am I trying to convince you to use these methods. I would just like for you to widen your experience with correction-based methods so that you could see that your conclusions regarding their utility and their effect on dogs may not be entirely accurate. I don't expect you to be wowed by dogs' brilliance, or how they all get along, or how they are quiet and can walk around calmly off leash--I simply would like you to experience dogs who have been trained by a method you find so objectionable.

 

And before you mirror back to me that you'd like *me* to go to the types of events *you* attend and see happy, healthy dogs, I can assure you that I have been to sporting events like agility and flyball. I've seen obedience competitions. I've attended CGC tests. I have not, however, ever watched a freestyle event in person. But at least I have seen the results of reward-based training methods and have used some of them myself.

 

My invitation wasn't about proving anything beyond the fact that correction-based methods aren't as awful for dogs as your personal experience would lead you to believe, and thus repeatedly proclaim (you know, stuff like "reward-based is a better way). Whether you choose to accept such an invitation is up to you, of course, but one would think that if you have attended such an event and seen the dogs there, you wouldn't be so rigid in your thinking that all correction-based training is bad. But I guess as Donald noted, if one chooses to remain myopic, there's not a lot anyone else can do about it.

 

And that's all I am going to say on the subject of this invitation.

 

J.

[Root Beer]

My point, which seems to have been missed, is that in all the Groundhog Day threads like this one, you are one who has repeatedly said that in your experience correction-based methods lead to unhappy dogs at best and are outright abusive at worst.

 

I've asked you time and time again to cite someplace where I have actually said any such thing. And now it's repeatedly?

 

I get that's what you are hearing. But it's not what I'm saying. I'm not talking about correction based methods at all, unless in answer to the question of why I personally choose not to use that methodology, and that was in the other thread - not this one.

 

Again, I don't see why I should be expected to sit back and think "Oh yes! That's brilliant" when something that I use on a daily basis, have success with, know something about, and have a true passion for is completely misrepresented. I'd love it if someone would answer that question directly, and without dragging the unrelated topic of correction based training into it.

 

People like me have repeatedly said that such a generalization isn't true. So I invited you to go to a venue (USBCHA National Sheepdog Finals) where a majority of the dogs are certainly trained with correction-based methods so that you could see for yourself that your personal experience might not be wide enough to inform a decision (and repeated proclamations) that correction-based training methods result in unhappy dogs and are cruel--in other words, a complete misrepresentation.

 

And I told you that I have, in fact, been to the USBCHA National Sheepdog Finals, so apparently my personal experience is wider than you originally thought.

 

I am guessing that you have decided that I inferred that stockdogs are unhappy dogs because I disagreed with Donald McCaig's charge that reinforcement based training leads to confused and unhappy dogs. However, I was not talking about stockdogs at all - I was talking about the specific dogs to which Mr. McCaig was referring.

 

So, I'll say it again - I don't see why I should be expected to sit back and think "Oh yes! That's brilliant" when something that I use on a daily basis, have success with, know something about, and have a true passion for is completely misrepresented.

 

Note that I am not referring to any other type of training.

 

Note that in this discussion, I have been discussing another type of training. The one that has, in fact, been under fire in this discussion.

 

I would just like for you to widen your experience with correction-based methods so that you could see that your conclusions regarding their utility and their effect on dogs may not be entirely accurate. I don't expect you to be wowed by dogs' brilliance, or how they all get along, or how they are quiet and can walk around calmly off leash--I simply would like you to experience dogs who have been trained by a method you find so objectionable.

 

So, what I have seen from week to week in front of my very eyes with countless dogs and handlers is not entirely accurate? Why, exactly, don't those dogs count?

 

And before you mirror back to me that you'd like *me* to go to the types of events *you* attend and see happy, healthy dogs, I can assure you that I have been to sporting events like agility and flyball. I've seen obedience competitions. I've attended CGC tests. I have not, however, ever watched a freestyle event in person. But at least I have seen the results of reward-based training methods and have used some of them myself.

 

And, as I said above, we more or less agreed on the two main points that have actually been debated in this particular discussion.

 

I really don't understand why you are trying so hard to make it about something completely different.

 

My invitation wasn't about proving anything beyond the fact that correction-based methods aren't as awful for dogs as your personal experience would lead you to believe, and thus repeatedly proclaim (you know, stuff like "reward-based is a better way). Whether you choose to accept such an invitation is up to you, of course, but one would think that if you have attended such an event and seen the dogs there, you wouldn't be so rigid in your thinking that all correction-based training is bad. But I guess as Donald noted, if one chooses to remain myopic, there's not a lot anyone else can do about it.

 

Julie, you have made it clear that you are sure that I consider every aspect of correction based methods to be "awful for dogs" because I have chosen to train, and to help others learn to train, in a different way. You have made that point many times.

 

I have tried, in every way that I know how, to explain that my training choices are not based on "avoiding what is awful", but on what I consider to be best for my dogs and what will best lead to the results that I am after. And I have tried, in every way that I know how, to explain that I haven't made those choices to cast judgment on anyone else, but to do what I consider to be best. I clearly understand now that nothing I say is going to get that point across. The myopia seems to be nicely mutual. And, you are right - there's not a lot anyone else can do about it.

[kelpiegirl]

Rootbeer:

What exactly are you training? What sorts of issues do you tackle? I am curious, as I did a fair amount of pet dog training myself.

[Root Beer]

My own dogs: Freestyle, Agility, Rally, Clicker Work, Control Unleashed (mostly in the context of sports, but some in the context of everyday life). I'm working with Dean to help him overcome his noise phobia to the greatest extent possible, and of course, Speedy was originally a severely fearful dog who was also reactive to dogs and people. I honestly don't even think of him that way anymore, but we did spend many years making that transformation happen, so it's worth a mention, even though that work is really done.

 

Working with others: Dogs: Building confidence, building focus in the face of distractions, overcoming fear (primarily toward dogs and/or people; some situational), overcoming reactivity (primarily toward dogs and/or people), building drive, building self control, clicker work, Freestyle, and the behavioral aspect of Agility (staying focused on course, remaining calm on the sidelines, etc.). Handlers: Building handler confidence, building reinforcement skills, improving the handler's ability to observe the dog and get a read on what is going on with the dog in various circumstances, improving communication between the handler and dog (in both directions), helping the handler learn how to make a training plan and put it into action, etc. Some of these teams are pet dog/handler teams and some are sport dog/handler teams, with varying levels of sport experience.

 

If you are interested in the "how to" of any of that, I can refer you to some different sources. Most of the work that I do is not anything that I created and the best route to understanding is always the primary source. I'd be happy to PM you a list of references if you want to know more.

[geonni banner]

I've asked you time and time again to cite someplace where I have actually said any such thing. And now it's repeatedly?

 

Perhaps it is not my place to make this post, but I too have gotten the impression from reading many of your posts that you feel that correction-based training is not only wrong-headed, but frequently approaching outright abuse. If this is not your feeling, perhaps you can understand by reading the selection of quotes below, how others might have got the idea that is your opinion.

 

While the following quotes of yours don't use the exact words that Julie did, one can easily see how summarizing them would produce a sentence like that.

 

To wit:

 

"I have very little first hand experience with X. The limited experience I had with X did absolutely nothing good for my dog. In fact, it created problems that I had to spend years to un-do. I've watched others - for years now - use X with mixed results. Mostly I see them nagging their dogs to the point where the dogs tune them out. Often I see them confusing their dogs. Rarely do I see dogs responding to X with enthusiasm or that kind of attitude that I want a dog of mine to have."

 

"I see corrections confuse dogs. I see corrections shut dogs down. I see it have no effect whatsoever because the dog has apparently learned to tune it out. I see corrections not even register with the dog. Nothing about that makes use of corrections in training the least attractive to me. I am simply not seeing deepening of relationship between dog and handler happening because of corrections before my very eyes."

 

"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 would say that part of the reason why I don't use corrections in training is that I do choose not to deliberately use any degree of pain or suffering to train."

 

[Root Beer]

I am using bold below to indicate which of the following were the quotes that Geonni pulled over from the other thread. I am doing this because I used more quotes in my post than was allowed.

 

Perhaps it is not my place to make this post, but I too have gotten the impression from reading many of your posts that you feel that correction-based training is not only wrong-headed, but frequently approaching outright abuse. If this is not your feeling, perhaps you can understand by reading the selection of quotes below, how others might have got the idea that is your opinion.

 

While the following quotes of yours don't use the exact words that Julie did, one can easily see how summarizing them would produce a sentence like that.

 

Sure, out of context, it is possible to misinterpret a lot of things. I could sift through your posts and take what you say out of context and say that it means anything that I want it to mean.

 

OK, let's go through this piece by piece and see if we can produce that exact sentence. What adds up to "abusive" here?

 

"I have very little first hand experience with X. The limited experience I had with X did absolutely nothing good for my dog. In fact, it created problems that I had to spend years to un-do.

 

"Nothing good" makes the giant leap to "abuse" exactly how?

 

If it is a truthful fact (and it is) that the limited experience that I had with X did nothing good for my dog, what's the problem, exactly?

 

Do you think I was saying there that I abused my dog? If so, I will clarify that at once - I did not.

 

I've watched others - for years now - use X with mixed results.

 

OK, "mixed results" could technically include "abuse", but it could just as easily include dazzling success.

 

How does the fact that I have observed "mixed results" imply "abuse"?

 

Mostly I see them nagging their dogs to the point where the dogs tune them out. Often I see them confusing their dogs.

 

Do you think I should lie about this or pretend that neither of those things happen? Should I say it's all peachy when it is very clear that something is obviously not working? Does the fact that it I observe that it is not working really imply that I think those handlers are abusing their dogs?

 

How is "nagging" or "tuning out the handler" abuse? Those are very mild terms.

 

Confused = abuse? Really? I'm confused on that point, so am I inferring that you are abusive? Of course not!

 

Rarely do I see dogs responding to X with enthusiasm or that kind of attitude that I want a dog of mine to have." I see corrections confuse dogs.

 

So, because I don't see the attitude that I want to see in a dog of mine, I consider that dog "abused"? That's quite a leap.

 

And again, confused = abuse?

 

I see corrections shut dogs down.

 

This one I can see room for interpretation one might consider a reference to "abuse", especially if one really wants to read that into what I am saying. However, I have openly admitted on here that I have made mistakes that shut my dogs down. Do you think I consider myself abusive for that?

 

Granted, a handler that is deliberately shutting a dog down over and over could very well be abusing the dog. But out of a specific context, that's quite a leap to make.

 

When it comes down to it, do you think I should pretend that I don't see corrections shut dogs down? Should I lie? Pretend it doesn't happen? Smile and say it's wonderful? Why?

 

I see it have no effect whatsoever because the dog has apparently learned to tune it out. I see corrections not even register with the dog.

 

And this implies abuse, how?

 

Nothing about that makes use of corrections in training the least attractive to me. I am simply not seeing deepening of relationship between dog and handler happening because of corrections before my very eyes."

 

So, it's not attractive to me. Neither is Flyball. Do you think that means I think Flyball is abusive? (For the record - I don't).

 

"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.

 

So, because I'm not seeing corrections "work fast", I'm implying that they are "wrong headed" or "abusive"?

 

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."

 

They don't get it or don't care. Confiscate those dogs immediately! They're being severely abused. (Sarcasm )

 

"I would say that part of the reason why I don't use corrections in training is that I do choose not to deliberately use any degree of pain or suffering to train."

 

On this one, also, I can see where you would draw an implication, especially if you look at the quote out of context. Will you allow me to put it back in context?

 

Eileen had written: "I don't think I've categorically ruled out anything that doesn't cause actual pain or suffering. Not for all dogs, that is."

 

The quote above was a direct response to this statement. People will interpret it as they choose, but the truth is that the quote above was intended to mean this:

 

Eileen: I don't think I've categorically ruled out anything that doesn't cause actual pain or suffering. Not for all dogs, that is.

Kristine: I have categorically ruled those things out.

 

In context I think it is clear that I was not implying that ALL correction based approaches cause pain and suffering. The fact is, though, no matter how much people may want to dance around it is that some correction based approaches do.

 

It was to those that I was referring when I responded to Eileen. I hope the above has clarified that for you. Context is so important. Could I ask that in the future if you are going to pull quotes out of my posts to show that I am implying something that I say directly that I am not implying, could you please include the full context?

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It is very interesting that once again, the topic at hand has been shifted back to my opinion (or other people's interpretation of my opinion) of correction based methods. Groundhog Day, indeed!

 

I am still interested in the answer to this question, which is directly related to the actual topic of discussion in this thread.

 

Why should I be expected to sit back and think "Oh yes! That's brilliant" when something that I use on a daily basis, have success with, know something about, and have a true passion for is completely misrepresented?

 

As I said before, I'd love it if someone would answer that question directly, and without dragging the unrelated topic of correction based training into it.

 

Bueller? Bueller? Anyone? Anyone?

 

ETA: The bold just above this is not intended as shouting or anger or anything like that. It is just to prevent the question from getting lost in this long post. Some may feel it implies that. But it is intended in a conversational tone.

[juliepoudrier]

Why should I be expected to sit back and think "Oh yes! That's brilliant" when something that I use on a daily basis, have success with, know something about, and have a true passion for is completely misrepresented?

 

As I said before, I'd love it if someone would answer that question directly, and without dragging the unrelated topic of correction based training into it.

Here's your answer: I personally don't expect you to espouse any training method but your own. But I also think it's rather disingenuous to imply that your training method is the only method that's completely misrepresented--and therefore must be defended passionately by you--on this forum.

 

Of course I'm speaking just for myself here. Others may have other answers for you.

 

 

J.

[Root Beer]

Here's your answer: I personally don't expect you to espouse any training method but your own. But I also think it's rather disingenuous to imply that your training method is the only method that's completely misrepresented--and therefore must be defended passionately by you--on this forum.

 

So, you feel that it's OK for one to speak up when he or she finds that the techniques and approaches by which he or she chooses to train are being misrepresented (glad we agree on that), but he or she must, at the same time, make a statement to the effect that all other training techniques and approaches in existence are being equally misrepresented in the same discussion, whether that is actually the case or not?

 

To be honest, I'm not likely to do that. Wouldn't it make a lot more sense for those who use different methods to be the ones to defend them when they feel that they are being misrepresented?

[juliepoudrier]

To be honest, I'm not likely to do that.

 

I think that's patently clear to anyone who has read or participated in any of these sorts of discussions. I, for one, usually do try to note that methods espoused by others are useful methods for certain purposes, if not for every need I have. I don't think saying so compromises me in any way. And I think that's where we diverge completely in these sorts of discussions. I have no qualms about agreeing that, say, positive reinforcement is quite useful for some of the things I teach my dogs. I have also repeatedly said I think positive methods (the entire range) are quite well suited for pet dog training (i.e., the sorts of classes you would teach where you help owners put manners on their dogs). I guess I find it difficult to believe that in these sorts of discussions, someone like you can't concede that there may actually be a place for other training methods and that you and others, intentionally or not, might at times misrepresent those methods in order to further "defense" of your own methods.

 

Wouldn't it make a lot more sense for those who use different methods to be the ones to defend them when they feel that they are being misrepresented?

Um, don't you think that's exactly what happens in pretty much Every. Single. One. of these sorts of discussions? Of course then we hear cries of "can't you just leave correction-based training out of this?"

 

J.

[geonni banner]

I am using bold below to indicate which of the following were the quotes that Geonni pulled over from the other thread. I am doing this because I used more quotes in my post than was allowed.

Sure, out of context, it is possible to misinterpret a lot of things. I could sift through your posts and take what you say out of context and say that it means anything that I want it to mean.

 

OK, let's go through this piece by piece and see if we can produce that exact sentence. What adds up to "abusive" here?

 

"I have very little first hand experience with X. The limited experience I had with X did absolutely nothing good for my dog. In fact, it created problems that I had to spend years to un-do.

 

"Nothing good" makes the giant leap to "abuse" exactly how?

 

If it is a truthful fact (and it is) that the limited experience that I had with X did nothing good for my dog, what's the problem, exactly?

 

Do you think I was saying there that I abused my dog? If so, I will clarify that at once - I did not.

 

I've watched others - for years now - use X with mixed results.

 

OK, "mixed results" could technically include "abuse", but it could just as easily include dazzling success.

 

How does the fact that I have observed "mixed results" imply "abuse"?

 

Mostly I see them nagging their dogs to the point where the dogs tune them out. Often I see them confusing their dogs.

 

Do you think I should lie about this or pretend that neither of those things happen? Should I say it's all peachy when it is very clear that something is obviously not working? Does the fact that it I observe that it is not working really imply that I think those handlers are abusing their dogs?

 

How is "nagging" or "tuning out the handler" abuse? Those are very mild terms.

 

Confused = abuse? Really? I'm confused on that point, so am I inferring that you are abusive? Of course not!

 

Rarely do I see dogs responding to X with enthusiasm or that kind of attitude that I want a dog of mine to have." I see corrections confuse dogs.

 

So, because I don't see the attitude that I want to see in a dog of mine, I consider that dog "abused"? That's quite a leap.

 

And again, confused = abuse?

 

I see corrections shut dogs down.

 

This one I can see room for interpretation one might consider a reference to "abuse", especially if one really wants to read that into what I am saying. However, I have openly admitted on here that I have made mistakes that shut my dogs down. Do you think I consider myself abusive for that?

 

Granted, a handler that is deliberately shutting a dog down over and over could very well be abusing the dog. But out of a specific context, that's quite a leap to make.

 

When it comes down to it, do you think I should pretend that I don't see corrections shut dogs down? Should I lie? Pretend it doesn't happen? Smile and say it's wonderful? Why?

 

I see it have no effect whatsoever because the dog has apparently learned to tune it out. I see corrections not even register with the dog.

 

And this implies abuse, how?

 

Nothing about that makes use of corrections in training the least attractive to me. I am simply not seeing deepening of relationship between dog and handler happening because of corrections before my very eyes."

 

So, it's not attractive to me. Neither is Flyball. Do you think that means I think Flyball is abusive? (For the record - I don't).

 

"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.

 

So, because I'm not seeing corrections "work fast", I'm implying that they are "wrong headed" or "abusive"?

 

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."

 

They don't get it or don't care. Confiscate those dogs immediately! They're being severely abused. (Sarcasm )

 

"I would say that part of the reason why I don't use corrections in training is that I do choose not to deliberately use any degree of pain or suffering to train."

 

On this one, also, I can see where you would draw an implication, especially if you look at the quote out of context. Will you allow me to put it back in context?

 

Eileen had written: "I don't think I've categorically ruled out anything that doesn't cause actual pain or suffering. Not for all dogs, that is."

 

The quote above was a direct response to this statement. People will interpret it as they choose, but the truth is that the quote above was intended to mean this:

 

Eileen: I don't think I've categorically ruled out anything that doesn't cause actual pain or suffering. Not for all dogs, that is.

Kristine: I have categorically ruled those things out.

 

In context I think it is clear that I was not implying that ALL correction based approaches cause pain and suffering. The fact is, though, no matter how much people may want to dance around it is that some correction based approaches do.

 

It was to those that I was referring when I responded to Eileen. I hope the above has clarified that for you. Context is so important. Could I ask that in the future if you are going to pull quotes out of my posts to show that I am implying something that I say directly that I am not implying, could you please include the full context?

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It is very interesting that once again, the topic at hand has been shifted back to my opinion (or other people's interpretation of my opinion) of correction based methods. Groundhog Day, indeed!

 

I am still interested in the answer to this question, which is directly related to the actual topic of discussion in this thread.

 

Why should I be expected to sit back and think "Oh yes! That's brilliant" when something that I use on a daily basis, have success with, know something about, and have a true passion for is completely misrepresented?

 

As I said before, I'd love it if someone would answer that question directly, and without dragging the unrelated topic of correction based training into it.

 

Bueller? Bueller? Anyone? Anyone?

First off, I think no one has answered the question* because, A - no one expects you to "Sit back, etc. etc.". And B - I don't think that something that (you) use on a daily basis, have success with, know something about, and have a true passion for is (being) completely misrepresented, any more that correction-based training is being misrepresented. (That was, BTW, meant as a direct answer to your question.)

 

We are all talking about what we like/ don't like about various training methods and combinations thereof. (Including correction-based training.)

You have made it abundantly clear that (at least one of the things) that you like about reinforcement training is that you feel you are asking the dog to do something as opposed to not doing something, and then rewarding it for giving the correct behavior. Is that not true? If so, I think we all got that. And certainly that is an element of most types of training, including methods that employ correction. The difference being that you strive to do this exclusively, instead of in concert with aversives of any kind.

 

While I have gotten the impression that some doubt the efficacy of such a strategy in some situations, no one seems to have found fault with it otherwise.

 

So how is "your" method being misrepresented? As you once said, many people categorically exclude some actions from their training regimes, usually because they find that it does not work for them - sometimes because, though it may get the dog to do what you want (ear-pinching to get a dog to open it's mouth, for instance) it is morally, ethically or in some other way distasteful to them. As I understand it, your method seeks to avoid using corrections - or aversives. You use rewards when the dog offers the "right" behavior. Yes? I think I understand the basic principle at work here. If not, I would welcome clarification.

 

The OP asked why "in posts on another topic, dogger after dogger advised a novice with a problem dog to seek a “behaviorist”.

 

An effort to address this question led to the more general questions of who is competent to teach what?, and what makes the proponent of training method X better for training a dog to do Y? Which of course, led to everyone who favors a given training technique for a given discipline to expound on why they do, and also led to the inevitable comparison of the respective merits and drawbacks of "what the other guys do." Or if you like, the Groundhog Day merry-go-round.

 

This devolvement was inevitable. Some find it tedious, some find it entertaining, and some find it both by turns. (I happen to be one of the latter.)

 

In response to your point-by-point comments, I would remind you that the statement you objected to was " in your experience correction-based methods lead to unhappy dogs at best and are outright abusive at worst." In other words, that it (corrections) produced a range of unwanted effects starting with unhappy dogs, and possibly including abuse." So I don't think that it was necessary to defend each statement as suggesting abuse. The only one, in fact, that I saw as suggesting abuse was the final one. And yes, it was referring to a "sometimes" situation - but even as such, I think most people would agree that pain and suffering generally equal abuse - even "sometimes" pain and suffering. I think it is fair to say that each of the four statements above suggest something along the continuum as stated. IE. a confused dog, or one that has disconnected from it's owner/trainer could reasonably be construed as an unhappy dog. (but not necessarily an abused one.)

 

*edited to add - I was composing this as the last three posts came in, so "the question" has been answered at least once!

[Root Beer]

Kristine,

 

From what I can see, "Positive Gun Dogs" is a book, not a group. Unless you've got some other information, it seems that using clicker training to train gun dogs is about as mythical at this point as using clicker training to train stockdogs. In looking at gun dog chat groups, the arguments are much the same as the arguments used in clicker training stockdogs.

 

Jodi

 

Positive Gun Dogs is a Yahoo Group that is alive and well. Anyone can find it by searching Yahoo Groups for "Positive Gun Dogs'.

 

I'd suggest that anyone who is interested in learning more about whether using clicker training to train gun dogs is mythical or real consult them with questions.

[rushdoggie]

So how is "your" method being misrepresented?

 

I think her comment was directed at this...

 

The pet dogs I have seen trained by purely positive methods learned more slowly and were more confused and unhappy than those trained by experts with the ecollar.

[Root Beer]

So how is "your" method being misrepresented?

 

Go back and read my posts in this discussion, and the posts that I am responding to when I made them, and you will find my answer to that. You're plenty good enough at sifting through what I've written to figure that out without me having to go back and repeat myself.

 

As I understand it, your method seeks to avoid using corrections - or aversives. You use rewards when the dog offers the "right" behavior. Yes? I think I understand the basic principle at work here. If not, I would welcome clarification.

 

No, the method that I use does not seek to "avoid using corrections - or aversives". It is an entire approach to training that you could study and use for years and still have a lot to learn about it! No, it does not include corrections, but that does not tell you what it is, only what it is not. And yes, rewarding offered behaviors is one piece of it, but certainly not all, nor even most of it.

 

If you really would like to learn more, I can PM you the list of references that I offered to kelpiegirl.

 

In response to your point-by-point comments, I would remind you that the statement you objected to was " in your experience correction-based methods lead to unhappy dogs at best and are outright abusive at worst." In other words, that it (corrections) produced a range of unwanted effects starting with unhappy dogs, and possibly including abuse." So I don't think that it was necessary to defend each statement as suggesting abuse.

 

I believe that it was necessary. Abuse is a serious charge. The idea that the sum of what I actually said in the quotes that you listed includes abuse as equally as, say dogs that ignore the corrections, is not one that I am going to sit by and agree with.

 

You spent a good deal of time stringing together quotes of mine to show that:

 

I too have gotten the impression from reading many of your posts that you feel that correction-based training is not only wrong-headed, but frequently approaching outright abuse.

 

Now you say "possibly including abuse" where before you said "frequently approaching outright abuse".

 

It was definitely necessary that I make it clear that "frequent abuse" was not somehow implied in the quotes that you listed.

[geonni banner]

I think her comment was directed at this...

 

Hmmmmm. That sounds to me more like an endorsement of (expertly administered) e-collars than a condemnation of "purely positive" methods. I mean, what if the sentence was rearranged like this:

 

The pet dogs I have seen trained by trained by experts with the e-collar learned more quickly and were less confused and unhappy than those trained by purely positive methods.

 

One of the things proponents of the electronic training devices rave about is how quickly the dogs learn. Also, (and this is debatable, certainly,) most of the gun dogs I've known had really high pain thresholds, especially the retrievers. Which might mean they were less bothered by a mild shock - thus not "noticeably" bothered. The gun dog charging around a field, and occasionally slamming on the brakes might be seen as happier than a dog that is quietly standing in front of a trainer, working out what is wanted of them. One of those "in the eye of the beholder things."

[Root Beer]

The pet dogs I have seen trained by trained by experts with the e-collar learned more quickly and were less confused and unhappy than those trained by purely positive methods.

 

My response would be the same to your flip flop as it was to the original statement. The dogs that I see on a very regular basis who are trained through reinforcement learn quickly, are very happy, and know what is expected of them. Sure, there are exceptions - there are handlers who have not yet learned how to effectively deliver reinforcement and dogs who do not yet understand what a reinforcer means. But the dogs that I know firsthand - and there are many - that are consistently trained through reinforcement are far from characterized as unhappy and confused slow learners.

 

Now watch - someone is going to consider this a charge of abuse toward someone whose dog ignores corrections rather than an endorsement of reinforcement based training (administered by expert or newbie).