My reasons for "positive" training

[mum24dog]

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.

 

Exactly.

 

I don't think he'd ever have had the impulse control for stockwork whatever his breeding but his early experiences sure didn't help.

 

Easy for people who pick up a cute farm gate pup to create a dog like him. When he ended up here at 8 months a lot of damage had already been done. One trainer's reaction on seeing him was OMG, and another that my daughter (then 15) would never be able to do anything with him. She proved them wrong.

 

Funnily enough, if I had to admit who has corrected him more it would be me. She doesn't think very deeply about training beyond what works. Who has more control over him? In many situations she does.

 

That could indicate that my approach may be correct but that I'm just a big ol' hypocrite.

 

Pam

[juliepoudrier]

So what you meant wasn't that he was a *typical* working-bred dog, but rather a typical owner-ruined/damaged dog. That's a big difference. The first implies that the breeding is the problem, and the second actually acknowledges where the problem really lies.

 

J.

[rushdoggie]

True. She very deliberately waits to throw the toy until the dog makes the choice to move through the poles. She doesn't use the toy as a lure, nor her body. She gets the dog right up at the poles and waits him out.

 

Huh. Well, I stand corrected and will have to watch the darn thing again.

[rushdoggie]

And for a touch of levity:

 

[Root Beer]

HA!! That is funny!!

[topnotchdog]

Huh. Well, I stand corrected and will have to watch the darn thing again.

 

She uses cookies to start, but even with the cookies she is waiting the dog out (but I can see how that might have looked like luring at first glance). On disc 2 she has troubleshooting with a dog who offers nothing. (And BTW nice cartoon. )

 

B.

[mum24dog]

So what you meant wasn't that he was a *typical* working-bred dog, but rather a typical owner-ruined/damaged dog. That's a big difference. The first implies that the breeding is the problem, and the second actually acknowledges where the problem really lies.

 

J.

 

I'm sorry for not realising that what I wrote was ambiguous. If I were to describe a dog as a "typical out of control working type" to anyone I know, they would have understood exactly what type of dog I was referring to. We see too many farm gate pups not brought up right. Noone would have assumed I was blaming the breeding.

 

But of course you don't know me. I will try harder.

 

Pam

[juliepoudrier]

Thanks Pam. Over here, there's a contingent of folks who would claim that all working-bred dogs are out of control, over the top, hard to handle, have poor temperametns, etc., and that's where the bristling on this side comes from.

 

J.

[sjones]

I've been reading this thread since it started and I've been thinking about it quite a bit lately. Everyone has their own takes on the best methods of dog training. For myself I find that a correction based method has worked just fine for my dogs. When I'm outside so are my dogs, they have learned that when I start up the tractor, lawnmower, or any other vehicle they are to go find a place in the shed or garage to lay down until I'm done and the machine is off. How did I get them to learn this, simple I used a verbal correction to stop them from coming by the equipment I didn't want them by. I didn't dash their spirits or confidence, its just much better than having a flat dog. They do know that it is ok to go with me when I drive the utility vehicle, but again I have taught them to stay to the back or sides, to leave the tires alone and not to run in front. Again I just used verbal correction. The same applies when they are on stock, if they do something wrong, I'll give a verbal correction to let them know thats not what I wanted, they understand just fine what I wanted without them getting pouty or quitting. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with positive training, but at times when it comes to things like vehicles or staying away from a busy road, I think a correction is necessary. Much better than having a dog get run over.

 

Samantha

[Root Beer]

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with positive training, but at times when it comes to things like vehicles or staying away from a busy road, I think a correction is necessary. Much better than having a dog get run over.

 

Necessary. Now, that's a word we could probably debate over infinitely! Where you see "necessary", there are others who see multiple options. "Necessary" has a lot to do with the way that we view how dogs learn and will impact our training choices. You and I definitely have a different view of what is necessary, which goes right along with what you said, "Everyone has their own takes on the best methods of dog training." While I think it safe to say that we both consider it necessary for our dogs to learn how to be safe in those types of situations, the what we consider necessary to get the dog to that point differs.

 

Trainers who use reinforcement based techniques where you would use a correction do teach their dogs to be safe around busy streets and lawn equipment. Speaking for myself, my trained dogs can be out when I mow the lawn with our tractor, they can be in the driveway when cars come in and out, and they can be loose near a busy street, if need be. I trust them and I trust their training in those situations. And others have done it, and way better than I have!

 

And, of course, those who train through reinforcement don't want their dogs to get run over any more than those who choose to use corrections do! We ensure their safety through other training tools.

 

I can see why those who use corrections would consider them necessary in some situations. It stands to reason that those who use other training approaches and tools would use what they normally use in those same situations and would not consider an approach or tool that they don't use as necessary.

[MaggieDog]

Necessary. Now, that's a word we could probably debate over infinitely! Where you see "necessary", there are others who see multiple options. "Necessary" has a lot to do with the way that we view how dogs learn and will impact our training choices. You and I definitely have a different view of what is necessary, which goes right along with what you said, "Everyone has their own takes on the best methods of dog training." While I think it safe to say that we both consider it necessary for our dogs to learn how to be safe in those types of situations, the what we consider necessary to get the dog to that point differs...

 

I can see why those who use corrections would consider them necessary in some situations. It stands to reason that those who use other training approaches and tools would use what they normally use in those same situations and would not consider an approach or tool that they don't use as necessary.

 

As a fellow primarily positive reinforcement trainer, I've been trying to stay out of the rather circular debates on the topic, but I did want to concur with the statements above.

 

I was a crossover trainer - my initial exposure to dog training was a punishment based class that used collar corrections and I now teach clicker training to other pet dog owners and have for about 10 years now. My definition of when corrections become "necessary" has changed quite a lot over the last decade, but my definition of safe, reliable behavior has not.