Training treats considered as detrimental

[GentleLake]

That's not the reason it's coming off as religious/dogmatic. It is because nothing have written (or gentle lake, mum24) has even allowed for the possibility that methods using certain negatives (or a judiciously applied choke in particular) could be better for certain dog-handler methods than the ones you personally prefer. You've essentially categorically refused to consider others' own POV or personal experience with every response.

 

 

 

I'm not going to rise to the bait, even though you have totally distorted anything I've written in this thread. But since you've chosen to call me out by name, I will respond to your overstatement.

 

I have commented (admittedly quite strongly) about extremes of force based methods, and I've said there are alternatives to choke chains, etc.

 

But to say that I haven't considered the POV of people who choose correction based methods suggests you have access to my thought processes that I sincerely doubt you're capable of. Furthermore, whether or not I've considered another POV or others' experience isn't germane to my stating opinions.

 

As for my own approach, I haven't said (nor was it necessary to, because I wasn't arguing that point) whether or not I agree or disagree with all aversive methods or whether I employ any myself.

[NJSwede]

I'm confused. I thought the positive reinforcement way of dealing with unwanted behaviors was to teach a good "leave it" command and reward successful reactions to the command, thus reinforcing the link "leave it" -> stop and pay attention to handler -> good things will happen... Classic pavlovian stuff, right?

[TEC]

In classical conditioning (Pavlovian), as distinguished from operant (BF Skinner), it is common to provide food/treats to counter-condition negative emotional responses, such as fear.

 

A dog becomes excited and barks in fear at people/dogs who approach too close. In classical conditioning, for one example, the dog is given food before he/she has reached threshold fear level, so that the pleasant, relaxing experience of eating is paired with an exciting, fearful experience of nearby people/dogs, thereby counter-conditioning the negative response to approaching stimuli. The food is not a reward in classical conditioning, but a conditioned stimulus.

 

The cartoon is ironically funny, but its message should not be generalized to all dog training. -- TEC

[NJSwede]

Thanks! There are two reasons this interests me: I'm a nerd and anything scientific interests me, but I also have a situation woith my own dog I need to apply some training methods to...

 

I need to start working on a plan to work on some mounting aggression problems with Seana. When we got her (rescued at 2 yo) she was very submissive and simply avoided any dog she didn't like. Now she's coming out of her shell and she's starting to be pretty nasty to some of the neighborhood dogs. I can't figure out if she's asserting dominance that was masked by the stress of settling into a new environment or if it's fear aggression.

 

But it almost sounds like you're saying the pairing of approaching dog/nice treat/pleasant feeling would work in both cases.

[TEC]

...But it almost sounds like you're saying the pairing of approaching dog/nice treat/pleasant feeling would work in both cases.

Yes, classical conditioning techniques are used for fear aggression and other forms. It always assumes there is not an underlying neurological problem, or other barrier to conditioning.

 

Timing and technique are critical. In practice the training often involves handler training, some operant conditioning to teach alternate behaviors, and of course primarily counter-conditioning. Other dogs with similar issues are part of the classes, as well as non-reactive dogs for training purposes.

 

This kind of training has to be handled properly. For that reason I recommend locating an instructor qualified/experienced in use of counter-conditioning in fear aggression. My personal preference is that the trainer have a reputable certification. I wouldn't try to go this on your own.

 

My experience attending training of this sort was good. The professional instructors (two for our series of classes) were excellent. My dog and I benefited a great deal. She is now happy and playful meeting most dogs. It took some time.

 

Yet it doesn't take much imagination to realize how "growl classes", as they are sometimes called, could be poorly handled and of little advantage, if not outright dangerous.

 

I recommend looking into it. Key words for your search: aggression, classical conditioning, counter-conditioning, desensitization. Not wishing to get OT, I am glad to discuss it further via PM -- Best wishes, TEC

[rushdoggie]

Yes, classical conditioning techniques are used for fear aggression and other forms. It always assumes there is not an underlying neurological problem, or other barrier to conditioning.

 

Timing and technique are critical. In practice the training often involves handler training, some operant conditioning to teach alternate behaviors, and of course primarily counter-conditioning.

Which is very, very slow and boring and takes place very gradually. Its like watching pain t dry, usually.

 

IME, people often stop because they don't get the quick and dramatic results they were hoping for.

 

It does work, and it works long term because it changes the underlying emotional response.

 

 

 

 

 

[Donald McCaig]

Dear Doggers,

 

Ms. Gentle Lake writes (in part): "Well, I did not see Donald actually describe his training methods, but he kept referring to religious dogmas and even "lies" and also "marketing." He never said what he thought about the Lhasa I witnessed being jerked so hard it literally did somersaults in the air, other than to mention HORROR stories and WICKED trainers, which struck me as mocking. I don't know if he thinks I was lying or thinks the story is irrelevant."

 

Irrelevant. Sorry, but you did ask. I have seen instances of what I believe is dog abuse by traditional (koehler influenced) trainers, sheepdog trainers, ecollar trainers and clicker trainers.

 

These instances proved nothing about the value of the training methods the different brutes/fools/lost-their-temper-just-this-once trainers employed.

 

Yes, the "positive" rhetoric is often silly. So too is the rhetoric employed by some traditional trainers. The True Believer, as Eric Hoffer noted some years ago, is independent of any particular belief - it's the believing itself that matters.

 

Some of these arguments are marketing arguments: there are only so many six figure dog training slots in any marketing area, so trainers advertise themselves as "ecollar profficient". "Shock collar?" - never heard of that". And of course we are all "positive" and "force-free". Er, who isn't?

 

I do think some training methods are more likely to produce better results for most inhabitants of particular dog cultures. Treat training would get giggles in sheepdog culture and the sheepdoggers' big voice wouldn't go unremarked in clicker classes. I also think some methods are far more time and patience consuming than others and some are more liable to produce lasting harm if inexpertly applied.

 

My experience is almost entirely with Border Collies and sheep guarding dogs. Although I train intensely for sheepdog work, I have never trained a pet dog for obedience. My dogs are mannerly because they and I expect it.

 

Donald McCaig

[GentleLake]

Dear Doggers,

 

Ms. Gentle Lake writes (in part): "Well, I did not see Donald actually describe his training methods, but he kept referring to religious dogmas and even "lies" and also "marketing." He never said what he thought about the Lhasa I witnessed being jerked so hard it literally did somersaults in the air, other than to mention HORROR stories and WICKED trainers, which struck me as mocking. I don't know if he thinks I was lying or thinks the story is irrelevant."

 

Mr. McCaig,

 

You might want to check who you're quoting.

 

I (GentleLake, aka roxanne) did not write that, nor anything remotely similar!

[Shetlander]

Ms. Gentle Lake writes

For the record, it was Ms Shetlander who didn't know your thoughts on the veracity or relevancy of the Lhasa story, not that she is crushed by your response. And for further clarification, I brought up the story after a comment that harsher applications of the Koehler approach might be just fine for some of the bigger and/or hard headed dogs out there. Lhasas are tough, stubborn little dogs but I think that hard headedness in fact makes positive reinforcement more effective with them, rather than less so.

 

In my mind, it was relevant to the immediate conversation. Ha.

[Donald McCaig]

Dear Doggers,

 

My apologies to both Ms's Gentle Lake and Shetlander for attributing the remarks of the latter to the former. My mistake was careless enough to be rude and I am sorry.

 

Donald McCaig