Jump to content
BC Boards

My reasons for "positive" training


Recommended Posts

I consider myself a positive trainer meaning positive reinforcement is my ultimate goal and first choice. If I can't figure out how to work that into a particular scenario, I will use other things, such as verbal correction/pressure, time-outs and no reward markers, until I can figure out (if possible) how to do it a positive way. I will not let bad behavior/habits continue just because I can't figure out how to communicate in a way that I want. Maybe that makes me a hypocrite or not a "true" positive trainer, but I would disagree. No one is perfect in any form of training they choose.

 

Autumn

 

I wasn't going to get involved in this never ending circuitous discussion that crops up on a regular basis and where semantics never fail to get in the way of understanding, but I want to say that I think you have summed up the situation in reality very well.

 

Yes, my aspiration is to avoid the use of corrections but I'm human and sometimes I don't or can't live up to it depending on what I'm faced with at the time.

 

I don't look at my dog's behaviour as intrinsically "wrong" and therefore needing to be put right (or "corrected"). It's a dog and any "right" or "wrong" is in human eyes. That is why I don't like the use of the term "correction" because of the negative implication of fault on the dog's part. I'm not usually PC but have to accept that the language we use can have a very powerful effect on our view of the world.

 

That's not to say that I'm accusing everyone who uses what they term "correction" on a regular basis of having a negative mindset; clearly from what some of the regulars post that isn't the case. However, the majority of the dog owning public won't give much thought to the subject and will consider "correction" in the same terms as it is used in everyday life, "Correctional Institution" being a prime example - a place where bad behaviour is punished. If for no other reason I prefer not to use the word.

 

Just a rider - going back to the link you posted earl;y in this thread to Char and Tia's Crufts obedience win, Tia is also a Grade 7 (top UK grade) agility dog.

I seem to remember her posting elsewhere several years ago that she was having difficulty bonding with her!

Char is only in her early 20s but her previous dog was also a successful obedience and Grade 7 agility dog when she was in her mid teens. I remember watching her doing some training with him from my car when she must only have been about 15 and was well impressed then.

 

Pam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 210
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Punishments are always after the fact. Punishments are, like our prison system, a form of revenge- satisfying to some (though not all) punishers but not likely to effect future behavior positively.

 

This sounds to me like an accurate definition of punishment, as the word is used in its generic sense. And not a very useful thing to use with people or dogs, since it's, as you say, unlikely to influence future behavior in a desirable way.

 

And as you know, many times in pet dog training different definitions of punishment from the one you've given are used, those that come from learning theory. I mention this because I think confusion and mistaken assumptions can come from these different uses. (positive punishment--something added (+positive) to decrease behavior, negative punishment--something taken away (- negative) to decrease a behavior).

 

Pet dog trainers who feel at home with these definitions (I myself stick with positive reinforcement and negative punishment in my pet dog training) can be stumped at the notion of corrections, partly I think because the term can have more than one meaning (thank you for your definition and list, blackdawgs). So they lump corrections in with positive punishment, thereby writing them off as something to be avoided always. It may be that such avoidance makes sense to do in their training framework, which I think is perfectly legitimate, but personally I prefer a more nuanced thinking through of the details before assumptions are made.

 

Part of this is historical and relates how pet dog training has evolved in the last 10-15 years. I wonder if stockdog training has had similar changes over time. Part of it is that people stick with approaches and people they're comfortable with, so maybe they don't get to see really good training that a dog thrives with that is different than their chosen method.

 

FWIW, I can't recall a single correction used in teaching obedience back in the day that I would use if I were preparing to compete today or if I were helping one of my clients train their pet dog. But I cannot say the same about many of the types of corrections I've seen since I started learning about stockwork. Maybe some stockdog trainers use a lot of punishment (in the generic sense) or corrections that do more harm than good, and those influence general perceptions about corrections outside that world. But perhaps the same can be said about some pet dog trainers using primarily positive reinforcement that has gone awry, assumptions are made about efficacy, reliability, etc. There may be good reasons to relegate either corrections or rewards to the recycle bin, but assumptions and polar extremes are not among them in my view.

 

As Pearse mentioned in that recent, helpful post, there are other variables in play, not least of which is bad training. There is a fallible human being, after all, who is in possession of the tools or knowledge in question. One way to know what the dog thinks is to watch him and let him tell you.

 

Barbara

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't look at my dog's behaviour as intrinsically "wrong" and therefore needing to be put right (or "corrected"). It's a dog and any "right" or "wrong" is in human eyes. That is why I don't like the use of the term "correction" because of the negative implication of fault on the dog's part. I'm not usually PC but have to accept that the language we use can have a very powerful effect on our view of the world.

 

There's definitely "wrong" behavior when you're working a dog. When the dog is working livestock, they don't innately know where you want the sheep to go (or not). You need to tell them and this doesn't involve a single command (e.g., sit) because the behavior you need is so much more complex. It's achieved in a dialogue. I believe Mr. McCaig hits the nail on the head when he writes, "Each says to the dog "What you are doing is incorrect, do something else." The dogs (at least any dog worth working) in my experience learn to take corrections in that spirit. If the dog is so sensitive that it can't take a correction, it's fairly useless IMHO - because working livestock isn't always calm and controlled. I posit that an insidious outcome of "all positive" training - especially when combined with breeding for characteristics other than work - is that it potentially creates softer dogs that may be unsuitable for real work . . .

 

Kim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obedience has been around for what, 60 years? Clicker and R+ has been widely used for what, 10 or 15 years? Compare the top levels of agility, a sport that got it start about the same time R+ did and you will see very few handlers using R- or P+. As people learned how to get the speed and obstacle performance they wanted they used the more modern methods and now those are considered the "gold standard."

 

I say in 20 years the obedience world will catch up.

 

Sorry to digress from the direction this thread has taken since your post, but I just wanted to add what is happening here in the UK.

 

Obedience - yes, been going about 60 years. Agility for 30+ years.

 

We lagged behind in clicker training. I started about 13 years ago when it was a relative rarity here but it is much more common now. although there are still plenty of die hard yank and yell trainers to be found unfortunately.

 

I've been involved with Agility for the same length of time and over the years have noticed a number of top handlers who used to have a reputation of being hard on their dogs mellowing with time to the extent that I wouldn't have a problem training with them myself. That is following the general trend.

 

Obedience has been a surprise to me. I've had a good number of years out of it and my first experience was around 48 years ago when choke chains were de rigueur. (Prong collars have never been in common use here.) When I returned to dog owning 13 years ago little seemed to have changed, but after a few years break I have recently entered a few shows and have been pleasantly surprised by the relaxation of the atmosphere and the frequency of use of clickers. From observation, some of those newbie clicker users still have a way to go to drop old ingrained habits such as leash pops but huge progress seems to be happening and both dogs and handlers seem happier for it.

 

Pam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's definitely "wrong" behavior when you're working a dog.

Kim

 

"Wrong" to you, not wrong to a dog.

 

Of course my dogs exhibit behaviours that aren't acceptable in the human world and which need to be changed, like chasing cats.

 

To a dog a cat is just potential food and what is "wrong" about hunting to survive?

 

Pam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How are herding dogs hunting to survive? A herding dog that takes down the sheep and starts eating it is, again, worthless as a working dog. (This perspective, again, I think leads us away from useful dogs.) Their survival has been tied over a long period of time to a cooperative relationship with humans. Furthermore, I take issue with your point that dogs don't/can't have a concept of "wrong." My dogs certainly seem to recognize "wrong" behavior in each other and correct it. I'm really not sure why you feel that dogs don't have an understanding of "wrong."

 

Kim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, that makes sense. I was getting hung up on your statement that you choose to train the way you do because you have a different understanding of the way dogs learn and of dog behavior, but you have now clarified that what you meant is you make your choice on how to train your dog based on what feels right to you personally. I think everyone can relate to that.

 

Not exactly. Sure, there is an element of what feels right, but there is more to it. There is a component of training choices that are based, not on what feels right, but on how one understands how dogs learn and dog behavior. That just doesn't involve learning theory.

 

I'll use an example that I hope will not be confusing. While I know that a dog might technically be able to learn to back 3 steps away from me and stand on his hind legs on a cue called "back and stand" through correction based training, I would not consider that the best way for the dog to learn that. That's not just because it personally feels right to me to teach it that way. There is a difference. I can't explain it well, but using reinforcement to teach clear understanding of the behavior, put the behavior on cue, and build motivation for doing the behavior on cue is about more than what feels right to me personally. There is an element of confidence that the training process is going to produce the results that I am looking for, there is an element of confidence that the results will be reliable even in the face of reasonable distraction. There is an element of confidence that the dog's response to the training process is going to be as enjoyable as possible, even if there are moments of confusion and serious work along the way.

 

So, results do matter. The dog as an individual matters. And what feels right does matter, but not as the primary driving force behind the choice.

 

FWIW, I wasn't asking about learning theory (in the broadest sense of learning theory--just couldn't come up with a better term last night) specifically, but since you said you based your different techniques on your different understanding of how dogs learn, I took that to mean that you had come upon some observation or explanation of the way dogs learn that is different than how most other people understand dogs to learn and that's what I was asking you to explain.

 

Here's an example. Some say that a dog cannot learn to do an independent cued behavior through a lure. They would say that if one puts a lure on the dog's nose and turns him in a circle to teach a spin, ultimately the dog will always need that lure on his nose to do the spin. They would say that the only thing that a lure teaches a dog is how to follow food. That is something that some people understand about how dogs learn (really!).

 

Now, I've used lures to teach spins. The dogs that I've done this with can spin on verbal cue without a lure or food on me on all four sides of my body, moving and stationary, and under the pressure of competition. Based on this, I understand that a dog can, in fact, learn to do an independent cued behavior through a lure. That is something that I understand about how dogs learn.

 

When the other person goes to teach something, he or she is going to choose a method that does not include a lure - perhaps use of a target or free shaping or capturing.

 

I might also use a target or free shaping or capturing, but I might also use a lure.

 

Our training choices are partially determined by what we understand about how dogs learn. The person who is positive that dogs only learn to follow food through lures is not even going to consider using a lure when training a dog. The person who is sure that dogs can learn to understand and carry out behavior through use of a lure will use them.

 

It sounds to me like what you're really saying is that you make your training choices based on what it most comfortable for you--how you prefer to teach--and not necessarily based on some new understanding of the way dogs learn.

 

Not new - different. I'm hoping my example above clarifies what I meant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How are herding dogs hunting to survive? A herding dog that takes down the sheep and starts eating it is, again, worthless as a working dog. (This perspective, again, I think leads us away from useful dogs.) Their survival has been tied over a long period of time to a cooperative relationship with humans. Furthermore, I take issue with your point that dogs don't/can't have a concept of "wrong." My dogs certainly seem to recognize "wrong" behavior in each other and correct it. I'm really not sure why you feel that dogs don't have an understanding of "wrong."

 

Kim

 

Of course dogs cooperate with us. It doesn't make them human - they are still dogs.

 

They certainly understand what will result in unwelcome repercussions for them but as to "wrong" as to "wrong" in terms of human right and wrong - heck, humans can't even agree between themselves what constitutes right and wrong. It isn't simply "what I can get away with without getting caught".

 

And you've rather put the finger on it by referring to interractions between your dogs - the same species, with the same instincts and understanding of behaviour.

 

Pam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kristine,

I'm reading your explanations and still not quite getting it. And maybe part of the reason for that is that I also use reward-based reinforcement when training my dogs, so I don't see how your approach (positive/reward-based reinforcement only) is fundamentally different from anything I might do. For example, I taught Pip to sit up using a food lure. It seemed like the easiest and quickest way to get the point across to him as to what my expectations were. But I also train using corrections, largely because there will be instances in the work we do when I will need him to understand what a correction is. So really the only difference I see between our approaches is that you have chosen to disregard anything that could be considered "negative" or perhaps aversive in your approach to training, whereas I do use "negatives" or aversives in some aspects of the training I do. To put this in painter's terms, I use the whole color wheel, and you use portions thereof. But that's still not such a fundamental difference as you seem to be making it out to be.

 

Our training choices are partially determined by what we understand about how dogs learn. The person who is positive that dogs only learn to follow food through lures is not even going to consider using a lure when training a dog. The person who is sure that dogs can learn to understand and carry out behavior through use of a lure will use them.

 

So are you saying, then, that you believe that by telling the dog not to do something (vs. always supplying a command for some alternate behavior) a trainer is making it more difficult for the dog to learn?

 

J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pam,

Re: dog-dog interactions, I almost posted something about that yesterday. If per Kristine, dogs learn better when no aversives are used (based on her understanding of how dogs learn), then how does one explain how dogs teach each other--through both positive and negative interactions?

 

The obvious difference is that dogs aren't human and so they don't invest their corrections (or anything else) with emotion. They get the point across and then move on with things.

 

The reason I brought up my belief that what Kristine is talking about--at least partially--is more about training preference than specifically responding to how dogs learn is because we humans can't seem to take a dog's approach to training: say it and have done with it. Instead we get frustrated, angry, tearful, whatever--WE invest emotion into our training, and usually that's not the best for the dog if those emotions happen to be negative ones. So I can see where taking a positive-only approach would prevent the *human part* of the training equation from allowing anger, frustration, blame, etc. to inform training decisions, which of course certainly won't be good for the dog. And I truly believe that this is where the value in this approach to training lies, because it disconnects the human from negative emotions that can have a negative impact on the dog when training.

 

But I think to the dog itself, whether a person says "no" or something else doesn't greatly matter, as long as the dog understands the meaning of the word used.

 

J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am still confused as to why it is wrong in some trainers mind to provide a dog with the understanding that a no or ah ah is just a command to stop what you are doing. Because when I think about it a verbal correction is just another command, it just means stop what you are doing and provides you with added range of communication, sometimes the dog does not have to be doing anything just hanging out being a dog, and you want him to stop say for example chewing on his leg.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pam,

I honestly think you're underestimating dogs and/or border collies. My dogs work as partners with me. They want to do things "right." They don't only understand "dog." The ability to understand humans on some level, I believe, has been bred into them through years of coexistance. This is probably more evident in border collies that have (still) been bred for working ability (to work well with humans). When I "correct" my dogs, their attitude usually seems to be, "Oh, what about this?" Although sometimes it's more like, "but I WANT to to this" or "You've got it wrong lady." In any case, they don't fret over a correction. They simply move on to the next thing. I WANT a dog that can handle being wrong without quitting or melting down.

 

kIM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pam,

Re: dog-dog interactions, I almost posted something about that yesterday. If per Kristine, dogs learn better when no aversives are used (based on her understanding of how dogs learn), then how does one explain how dogs teach each other--through both positive and negative interactions?

 

The obvious difference is that dogs aren't human and so they don't invest their corrections (or anything else) with emotion. They get the point across and then move on with things.

 

The reason I brought up my belief that what Kristine is talking about--at least partially--is more about training preference than specifically responding to how dogs learn is because we humans can't seem to take a dog's approach to training: say it and have done with it. Instead we get frustrated, angry, tearful, whatever--WE invest emotion into our training, and usually that's not the best for the dog if those emotions happen to be negative ones. So I can see where taking a positive-only approach would prevent the *human part* of the training equation from allowing anger, frustration, blame, etc. to inform training decisions, which of course certainly won't be good for the dog. And I truly believe that this is where the value in this approach to training lies, because it disconnects the human from negative emotions that can have a negative impact on the dog when training.

 

But I think to the dog itself, whether a person says "no" or something else doesn't greatly matter, as long as the dog understands the meaning of the word used.

 

J.

 

This is the distilled essence of a "good correction" as I was taught it by a Koehler trainer, and the reason I still use corrections. I was taught to correct clearly, quickly and immediately move on to a clarification of what you do want from the dog without dumping any negative emotion on the dog. In training - especially in the initial teaching of a new command the dog - I do not allow emotion to come into it. If I feel that happening I give the dog a command that I am positive it will respond to well, praise lavishly and hang up the lead. Then we go play Frisbee or something.

 

I use corrections because dogs understand them. I do not punish dogs because it is generally useless and pointless, and a sure recipe for failure in a relationship with any animal.

 

This doesn't mean I never get angry at my dog. But it is imperative to control anger when it arises and trace it to its source. I have found that that source rarely lies in the dog. It lies in my preconception of what the dog should be/ do, and my perception of how I should be able to influence that. Sometimes my perception is wrong, and the result is confusion and/or anxiety in the dog. A good correction, or indeed a good trainer should generate neither.

 

As an aside, I have seen as many "all positive" trainers lose their tempers with their dogs as I have traditional trainers. Patience and kindness are the sole property of neither. I would much rather see a dog receive a sharp, clear, dispassionate correction, than be saddled with thinly-veiled impatience from an "all positive" trainer. The first clarifies. The second only confuses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kristine,

I'm reading your explanations and still not quite getting it. And maybe part of the reason for that is that I also use reward-based reinforcement when training my dogs, so I don't see how your approach (positive/reward-based reinforcement only) is fundamentally different from anything I might do. For example, I taught Pip to sit up using a food lure. It seemed like the easiest and quickest way to get the point across to him as to what my expectations were. But I also train using corrections, largely because there will be instances in the work we do when I will need him to understand what a correction is. So really the only difference I see between our approaches is that you have chosen to disregard anything that could be considered "negative" or perhaps aversive in your approach to training, whereas I do use "negatives" or aversives in some aspects of the training I do.

 

Well, that's half of it. What one does not use certainly doesn't define what they do use, though.

 

I'd say also that I have probably learned about and and have experience with a good many reinforcement based techniques that you might not have had a chance to explore yet. Use of targets, shaping, backchaining, use of environmental reinforcers, and some less common ways to use the clicker (for some of the behavior modification stuff).

 

At least, if you have experience with those things, I don't hear you talk about them. And I still have a ton to learn about reinforcement based techniques myself.

 

To put this in painter's terms, I use the whole color wheel, and you use portions thereof. But that's still not such a fundamental difference as you seem to be making it out to be.

 

I like the color wheel analogy. I'd say, though, that while there is overlap, we both use portions of the wheel that the other does not.

 

There are some colors and shades that simply don't fit in with the painting that we and our dogs are creating.

 

So are you saying, then, that you believe that by telling the dog not to do something (vs. always supplying a command for some alternate behavior) a trainer is making it more difficult for the dog to learn?

 

More difficult? Not necessarily. But there is a difference in the way each person views how the dog is learning. Even if it is as simple as, "I'm teaching the dog not to do A" vs. "I'm teaching the dog to do B".

 

And there are times when I would say the distinction hardly matters. But there are other times when it can matter a lot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pam,

I honestly think you're underestimating dogs and/or border collies. My dogs work as partners with me. They want to do things "right." They don't only understand "dog." The ability to understand humans on some level, I believe, has been bred into them through years of coexistance. This is probably more evident in border collies that have (still) been bred for working ability (to work well with humans). When I "correct" my dogs, their attitude usually seems to be, "Oh, what about this?" Although sometimes it's more like, "but I WANT to to this" or "You've got it wrong lady." In any case, they don't fret over a correction. They simply move on to the next thing. I WANT a dog that can handle being wrong without quitting or melting down.

 

kIM

 

You can't generalise about any breed, and certainly not BCs.

For every dog that is prepared to work in partnership with a human, I can give you one that couldn't give a stuff about humans, and many of the BCs I encounter here are from pure working stock.

 

When we got our BC I was influenced by the notion that they are "different" in some way. He was a typical out of control working type and gave the impression that he was bomb proof and could take firmer handling than my other dogs. For a while that seemed to be the case, but as time went on it became apparent that he didn't like to be corrected and that he responded much better to my usual methods. He didn't "fret over a correction" but it didn't make him any more likely to comply either.

 

Pam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pam,

Re: dog-dog interactions, I almost posted something about that yesterday. If per Kristine, dogs learn better when no aversives are used (based on her understanding of how dogs learn), then how does one explain how dogs teach each other--through both positive and negative interactions?

 

The obvious difference is that dogs aren't human and so they don't invest their corrections (or anything else) with emotion. They get the point across and then move on with things.

 

The reason I brought up my belief that what Kristine is talking about--at least partially--is more about training preference than specifically responding to how dogs learn is because we humans can't seem to take a dog's approach to training: say it and have done with it. Instead we get frustrated, angry, tearful, whatever--WE invest emotion into our training, and usually that's not the best for the dog if those emotions happen to be negative ones. So I can see where taking a positive-only approach would prevent the *human part* of the training equation from allowing anger, frustration, blame, etc. to inform training decisions, which of course certainly won't be good for the dog. And I truly believe that this is where the value in this approach to training lies, because it disconnects the human from negative emotions that can have a negative impact on the dog when training.

 

But I think to the dog itself, whether a person says "no" or something else doesn't greatly matter, as long as the dog understands the meaning of the word used.

 

J.

 

I think that's about as close to agreement as we'll get. :rolleyes:

 

Pam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, yes, I see.

 

Kim

That comment raised my eyebrows, also, although I wondered if what she might be referring to was a "typical working-type dog that was in a situation that did not occupy its mind and body reasonably, and where it did not get suitable handling, and therefore was 'out of control'" through no fault of the dog's own or its breeding but rather of its environment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Discussions like this give me a lot to think about, with regards to my "history" with dogs (how I have trained and lived with them in years gone by) and with regards to my present and future with dogs (how I do and will train and live with them now and in years to come).

 

A lot of it is, I think, semantics on the part of some participants (and I am not denigrating their belief in, passion for, or results seen with how they train within their own disciplines). Some comments lead me to believe that one person's correction is another person's concept of punishment, and yet another person's idea of direction. Some comments lead me to think that what one person calls a certain thing is what another person calls something else, and that seems to lead to an awful lot of circuitous discussion (merry-go-round, anyone?).

 

As in training children, I don't feel a need to not correct. An animal or child that can take correction for what it is, "No, let's not do that but let's do something else instead" is one that can deal with frustration among other things, that can offer something more "constructive", that can deal with real life.

 

I have cattle - if my dogs can't take a correction from me for what it should be - constructive and instructive - then heaven help them when a mother cow decides to give a correction of her own.

 

Just my opinion, as I'm quite overwhelmed by a lot of this discussion so I may be way off base in all directions. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Discussions like this give me a lot to think about, with regards to my "history" with dogs (how I have trained and lived with them in years gone by) and with regards to my present and future with dogs (how I do and will train and live with them now and in years to come).

 

A lot of it is, I think semantics on the part of some participants (and I am not denigrating their belief in, passion for, or results seen with how they train within their own disciplines). Some comments lead me to believe that one person's correction is another person's concept of punishment, and yet another person's idea of direction. Some comments lead me to think that what one person calls a certain thing is what another person calls something else, and that seems to lead to an awful lot of circuitous discussion (merry-go-round, anyone?).

 

As in training children, I don't feel a need to not correct. An animal or child that can take correction for what it is, "No, let's not do that but let's do something else instead" is one that can deal with frustration among other things, that can offer something more "constructive", that can deal with real life.

 

I have cattle - if my dogs can't take a correction from me for what it should be - constructive and instructive - then heaven help them when a mother cow decides to give a correction of her own.

 

Just my opinion, as I'm quite overwhelmed by a lot of this discussion so I may be way off base in all directions. :D

 

These discussions can be wearisome, I would imagine them to be very much so for those who have been around and active on "the Boards" for much longer than I. I don't know if anything much is accomplished in the long run, but for myself, it is at the very least interesting to see what people are doing with their dogs, how they are doing it and why. (Although the why part is the trickiest to understand.) As you say, there is no "glossary of terms" that everyone can agree on, so meaning is distorted, misconstrued and misused. That is why I chose to lay out my definitions so carefully - not because I expect people to take them up and/or agree with my terminology/practices, but because I can at least have dialog with someone in which we can understand each other.

 

I see the dichotomy between working/sport/pet views of what the ideal Border Collie is/should be, and how it is/ should be handled. I tend to feel that in terms of the ideal dog, the stock dog people should be the ones to listen to. (See the famous "sticky" at the head of this forum main section) I feel this way in spite of the fact that my dog is a pet/ companion exclusively. I no longer train. (A fact which will undoubtedly be good news to many! :rolleyes: Bad knees & agoraphobia have seen to that.) But I agree about the ability to take corrections being essential to a dog that does strenuous and possibly dangerous work for a living. It seems to me that what I would call "tough-mindedness" - often mistaken for stubbornness - would be an essential part of the mental make-up of a working dog.

 

If a dog is so soft that it sinks to the floor in apprehension upon hearing a "No," or if it "shuts down" if it hears same, the dog in my estimation is not "typical of the desirable Border Collie." Such dogs will certainly require different handling than the average working Collie, and I would hope that they get it. I would also hope that they are prevented form breeding. But I have to wonder what percentage of these dogs would be less "sensitive" if they were handled differently as they grew up. Life is lumpy. Dogs that never experience any illustration of this can be forgiven for being shrinking violets.

 

Such views will not endear me to some. But they are nonetheless mine. I too may be off-base. It certainly wouldn't be the first time. But like most of the others on these forums, I want what is best for dogs - all dogs, and mine in particular. I will do as I see fit to enable my dog to cope with and enjoy her life to the fullest, and I hope others - whatever their style of training, will do the same. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...But I agree about the ability to take corrections being essential to a dog that does strenuous and possibly dangerous work for a living. It seems to me that what I would call "tough-mindedness" - often mistaken for stubbornness - would be an essential part of the mental make-up of a working dog.

 

If a dog is so soft that it sinks to the floor in apprehension upon hearing a "No," or if it "shuts down" if it hears same, the dog in my estimation is not "typical of the desirable Border Collie."...

Some people express the concern that many lines of dogs are having the "toughness" bred out of them at least partly in the pursuit of the perfect "trial dog". That is, a dog that instead than being bred for and trained for real world work as the ultimate goal, is rather bred for and trained for trialling as the ultimate goal, and therefore needing to be less intelligent, less independent-thinking, and more biddable.

 

The population of working-bred Border Collies can (and should, in my really inconsquential opinion) be bred with all sorts of variation in mind (within reasonable limits) because the jobs they do vary tremendously. Particular lines then are more suited to particular jobs and conditions, suit certain trainers and training methods differently, and lend a healthy variability to the population as a whole.

 

So, could we again be comparing apples and oranges in that many of the dogs in the pet/performance/companion world might not be bred with any thought to stockwork and might be eminently suited to "positive only" training - and maybe many if not most dogs bred with a goal of stockwork (no matter what sort of home or endeavor they wind up in) should hopefully be suited to training that involves both positive and corrective (I like that better than "negative") approaches?

 

While my Celt, as a pet, companion, or performance dog, would (I believe) be very well-suited to positive only training (or at least, very largely positive training), I'm not convinced that approach would work with a dog like my Dan, who has been bred for toughness, independence, and a no-quit attitude.

 

But I digress from the topic at hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of it is, I think semantics on the part of some participants (and I am not denigrating their belief in, passion for, or results seen with how they train within their own disciplines). Some comments lead me to believe that one person's correction is another person's concept of punishment, and yet another person's idea of direction. Some comments lead me to think that what one person calls a certain thing is what another person calls something else, and that seems to lead to an awful lot of circuitous discussion (merry-go-round, anyone?).

 

It feels like that to me, too. Who was it that said, "it's the stuff you learn after you know it all that really counts," or something to that effect. I don't see the harm in giving people the benefit of the doubt and entertaining the notion that there is something to be learned. I think that has been part of the merry go round.

 

I have cattle - if my dogs can't take a correction from me for what it should be - constructive and instructive - then heaven help them when a mother cow decides to give a correction of her own.

 

This is the part that is just totally fascinating to me about working a dog on stock. It is so different than other kinds of dog pursuits that I've been a part of, and my mind is still being blown, and has been over the last year or two. I think until one sees it live, and has a chance to ask questions (I think my first one came out as, " I have no idea what he's doing."), and watch the whole web of species interacting, it is perhaps easier to make assumptions and generalizations. Although I would not train my dog the way I've seen some teach things like a recall or leash manners, until now I have never really had a grasp of this kind of training on actual stock. (Ok, a tenuous grasp, but still, a major eye-opener for me in my life with dogs!) Plus it has helped me understand myself better and my choices about dogs.

 

Just my opinion, as I'm quite overwhelmed by a lot of this discussion so I may be way off base in all directions. :rolleyes:

 

I appreciate these thoughts, I especially like how you framed them as being part of your history with dogs, one that changes over time.

 

Barbara

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, could we again be comparing apples and oranges in that many of the dogs in the pet/performance/companion world might not be bred with any thought to stockwork and might be eminently suited to "positive only" training - and maybe many if not most dogs bred with a goal of stockwork (no matter what sort of home or endeavor they wind up in) should hopefully be suited to training that involves both positive and corrective (I like that better than "negative") approaches?

 

If apples are "many of the dogs in the pet/performance/companion world (that) might not be bred with any thought to stockwork," it might be well to consider whether they should be bred at all.

 

If oranges are "many if not most dogs bred with a goal of stockwork." (I put goal in bold because it can be assumed that not all the dogs bred with such a goal would necessarily be fit for stock work.) It would seem that "training that involves both positive and corrective" might be the management technique of choice for the breed.

 

Of course, lamentably, apples are being bred. And they should of course receive the type of training best suited to their temperaments and mental fitness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, my thought was that dogs in the pet/performance/companion world come from many sources - some from working breedings, some from show breeders, some from puppy mills, some from backyard breeders, and many from rescue (including any of the above sources, whether known or unknown in terms of their breeding/background). Dogs in the stockworking world should be coming from good stockdog breedings, although there is still a great deal of disparity in that world (good breedings, poor breeding selections, breeding for differing traits and strengths, and so forth).

 

The "goal" of stockwork is what I was trying to express when I said "with any thought of stockwork". Your word, goal, is much better than my choice of words to convey what I meant.

 

Generations of breeding of dogs that learned and performed with corrections (as well as rewards, such as "letting them have their stock") is what produced this breed. Seems to me that while (I believe) even stockdog training techniques and approaches are "evolving" (and almost entirely to the good), it is the good use of corrections and the ability to take those corrections that have produced the breed as we know it.

 

If you are going to "use" the dog for other than stockwork, well, IMO, whatever works that's humane is fine with me, purely positive or otherwise. The approaches that are successful among top stockdog handlers are very varying - a clinician I admire said that "his way is not the only way, it's just the way that works for him, and he hoped it would work for the clinic participants - whatever method (within reason, of course) that works for you and your dog and your situation, is a 'right' method", and there may well be more than one that would work for a particular person, dog, and situation. What "works" is what produces good results.

 

Again, digressing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...