"Vis-a-vis punishment - this is a flexible word in training. I am not sure that dogs understand "punishment" as a penalty for doing something the owner does not like (see my signature), and therefore think that it is best left out of training, but the careful, controlled and clever use of aversives is different. This is MY opinion and nothing to do with the Board or anyone else on it."
Yes, that is how I see it also. My definition of "punishment" is a RETRIBUTION for behavior interpreted as "bad" or "wrong." I don't think you can effectively "punish" a dog - because a current action to correct a PAST behavior is not going to work on them. That is why I prefer the word "correction" - an action used to indicate to the dog that what they are doing AT THIS MOMENT is not a desired action.
When you go sailing and you make a change of direction - that is called a "course correction." That is how I view corrections in dog training: an indication that a change of behavior - a "course correction" - is needed. A correction should never be PUNITIVE - but it does need to be appropriate to the situation, well-timed and of an appropriate level to make the message clear.
I've been doing a lot of thinking about this over the last couple of hours...trying to coelesce my thoughts on the subject. I think, too, that you cannot use PURELY positive training on ANY animal, not just dogs. The closest you can get is something akin to how trainers work with whales and dolphins. But the PURELY positive only comes into play in teaching the animal their first trick.
As I see it, how I would go about it, is to have treats handy at all times, but not indicate to the animal they are available. Observe the animal closely and when they volunteer the action you want, quickly give them a treat. Keep doing this and the animal will quickly learn that THIS particular behavior results in an extra treat. Once they have learned that, you can start indicating to them that YOU are the source of the treat and they will begin doing their "trick" more often when you are around.
At that point, you can then introduce a trigger for that trick. A sound, an action, whatever - though with the whales species I think it's usually some sort of sound. The animal will quickly learn that THIS sound means I should to THAT action, and I'll get a treat.
And once that first trick is established you are forced to take a step away from PURELY positive training...because you MUST introduce the concept of a "correction" or you will end up with a "one trick pony" You must now indicate that when you DON'T use that trigger sound you DON'T want that trick, and if you get it the animal WON'T get a treat. THAT is correction.
Once that concept is in progress, you can then start using the original, positive concept to begin rewarding a new behavior...but always with the understanding that if the animal presents a previously learned behavior he will NOT get a treat, unless you have signaled for THAT behavior. So you are now using both positive and negative indications: positive to reward a newly offered, desired behavior OR for one that was signaled...and negative (by withholding the treat) for behavior not desired at this time.
They are adopting out a dog who bit!!! Irresponsible rescue!
Moderators: emmabeth, BoardHost
First, there is no such thing as a Purely Positive trainer. Again, just the phrase indicates a lack of knowledge concerning positive reinforcement based training. It is a myth from traditional trainers whose purpose is to muddy the waters and hinder understanding of potitve reinforcement based training.
Positive reinforcement based trainers use positive reinforcement and negative punishment.
Purely positive, if it exists, would be made up of positive reinforcement and positive punishment.
Positive reinforcement trainers do not use positive punishment or negative reinforcement.
Second, there is a technical definition of positive, negative, reinforcement and punishment. What anyone thinks these definition are on their own is irrelevant. One could personally define the word "up" as "the color grey", but that is just an indication that one does not truly understand what "up" means.
Punishment is something that decreases the chances of a behavior being repeated. Reinforcement is something that increases the chances of a behavior being repeated. So call it whatever you want, punishment, correction, aversive, if it decreases the chances of a behavior being repeated, it is punishment. If you are introducing it, it is positive punishment.
This includes, but is not limited to, neck jabs, leash pops, striking a dod, the word "no", and a dirty look. If it decreases the chances of a behavior being repeated, it is a punishment.
What you have attempted to describe as teaching a trick is known as capturing, and, while an relatively easy methods to use, there is much more to the process than you have written.
As far as witholding the reinforcer when the known behavior is not performed on cue, that, my friend, is an example of negative punishment, something removed from the situation (the ability to earn a reinforcer) that decreases the chances that a behavior (refusing the cue) will be repeated, and again, R+ based trainer use this quad.
As to a dog being trained without the use of positive puishment/negative reinforcement, not only is it possible, it is being done every day by people such as Jean Donaldson, Karen Pryor, Patricia McConnel, Emma Parsons, Pat Miller and a host of others.
Rehab of aggressive/reactiove dogs is also being done everyday by R+/P- by the above and a host of others.
My trainer works with aggressive/reactive dogs and does not even permit the word "no" or a NRM in her class, yet she manages to train and modify the behavior of these dogs without resorting to the use of positive punishment or negative reinforcement. It can be done, even with the most aggressive cases.
If, as you have implied, Cesar is also capable of rehabbing these cases without resorting to rolls, leash pops, helicoptering, neck jabs and other positive punishers, why doesn't he? Is it that delivering punishment is reinforcing to him? Is it that he enjoys causing discomfort to dogs? Is it that he is simply too impatient to take the time that R+ based rehabilitation takes?
Or, is it that while he may use positive reinforcment to deal with some of the simpler cases he encounters, he does not have the skill, possessed by so many behaviorists, ethologists and trainers, to rehab a tryuy aggressive or reactive dog without resorting to positive punishment?
Nettle, for high drive dogs, there is a method called drive training. Until recently, this style of training emplyed corrections via the prong collar, but there has been a recent movement into R+/P- based methods of drive training. If you are interested, let me know and I can put you in touch with some people.
Positive reinforcement based trainers use positive reinforcement and negative punishment.
Purely positive, if it exists, would be made up of positive reinforcement and positive punishment.
Positive reinforcement trainers do not use positive punishment or negative reinforcement.
Second, there is a technical definition of positive, negative, reinforcement and punishment. What anyone thinks these definition are on their own is irrelevant. One could personally define the word "up" as "the color grey", but that is just an indication that one does not truly understand what "up" means.
Punishment is something that decreases the chances of a behavior being repeated. Reinforcement is something that increases the chances of a behavior being repeated. So call it whatever you want, punishment, correction, aversive, if it decreases the chances of a behavior being repeated, it is punishment. If you are introducing it, it is positive punishment.
This includes, but is not limited to, neck jabs, leash pops, striking a dod, the word "no", and a dirty look. If it decreases the chances of a behavior being repeated, it is a punishment.
What you have attempted to describe as teaching a trick is known as capturing, and, while an relatively easy methods to use, there is much more to the process than you have written.
As far as witholding the reinforcer when the known behavior is not performed on cue, that, my friend, is an example of negative punishment, something removed from the situation (the ability to earn a reinforcer) that decreases the chances that a behavior (refusing the cue) will be repeated, and again, R+ based trainer use this quad.
As to a dog being trained without the use of positive puishment/negative reinforcement, not only is it possible, it is being done every day by people such as Jean Donaldson, Karen Pryor, Patricia McConnel, Emma Parsons, Pat Miller and a host of others.
Rehab of aggressive/reactiove dogs is also being done everyday by R+/P- by the above and a host of others.
My trainer works with aggressive/reactive dogs and does not even permit the word "no" or a NRM in her class, yet she manages to train and modify the behavior of these dogs without resorting to the use of positive punishment or negative reinforcement. It can be done, even with the most aggressive cases.
If, as you have implied, Cesar is also capable of rehabbing these cases without resorting to rolls, leash pops, helicoptering, neck jabs and other positive punishers, why doesn't he? Is it that delivering punishment is reinforcing to him? Is it that he enjoys causing discomfort to dogs? Is it that he is simply too impatient to take the time that R+ based rehabilitation takes?
Or, is it that while he may use positive reinforcment to deal with some of the simpler cases he encounters, he does not have the skill, possessed by so many behaviorists, ethologists and trainers, to rehab a tryuy aggressive or reactive dog without resorting to positive punishment?
Nettle, for high drive dogs, there is a method called drive training. Until recently, this style of training emplyed corrections via the prong collar, but there has been a recent movement into R+/P- based methods of drive training. If you are interested, let me know and I can put you in touch with some people.
Kim and Asher
“He is your friend, your partner, your defender, your dog. You are his life, his love, his leader. He will be yours, faithful and true, to the last beat of his heart. You owe it to him to be worthy of such devotionâ€
“He is your friend, your partner, your defender, your dog. You are his life, his love, his leader. He will be yours, faithful and true, to the last beat of his heart. You owe it to him to be worthy of such devotionâ€
-
DoggoneGA
"First, there is no such thing as a Purely Positive trainer"
Quite right, but *I* have heard the term used by people who THINK that is what they are doing...not from "traditional trainers whose purpose is to muddy the waters and hinder understanding of potitve reinforcement based training"
"Second, there is a technical definition of positive, negative, reinforcement and punishment"
Cetainly there is...but the average Joe/Jane on the street neither knows, nor cares what those technical definitions are. They are going to interpret what they see based on what they already think they know. And if they take the further step to educate themselves...they cease to be "average"
"it decreases the chances of a behavior being repeated"
I can't, and don't agree with this. I don't particular care how a scientist defines "punishment" - *I* use the dictionary defintion which indicates to me a much harsher action than an action intended to indicate to the dog that some behavior is not desired.
As always, I judge such things as "neck jabs, leash pops, using NO" and even such things as hitting the dog in the context of: did the DOG understand that action as a consequence of an action HE did. Personally, even my Whippets who are very face oriented have shown little to no reaction to a "dirty" look, so I have no opinion on whether that constitutes "punishment" or not.
But I have found, since watching Cesar, that they respond much more naturally to being corrected by being touched than they do to being corrected by my voice.
When "negative punishment" (except I would say negative correction) is eliminated completely and totally from the real world surrounding animals AND people, then maybe you will find me more willing to use it. Until that happens, I will continue to judge such corrections and their effectivness based on how I see the ANIMALS react to them...not on how a person who says they should react.
"Or, is it that while he may use positive reinforcment to deal with some of the simpler cases he encounters, he does not have the skill, possessed by so many behaviorists, ethologists and trainers, to rehab a tryuy aggressive or reactive dog without resorting to positive punishment?"
You'd have to ask him, I guess. Based on what I have seen I'd be more inclined to say he knows how to use negative reactions to the dogs behavior CORRECTLY and APPROPRIATELY...and some other trainers don't.
It's only too easy for people to condemn something as "wrong" when they can't do it themselves and are not really in a clear position to judge. Personally, I would never use some of the tougher techniques...not because I think they are "wrong" but because I doubt my own ability to use them correctly. But, yes, if *I* thought the situation warranted it I *might* call in an expert like Cesar who CAN use them correctly.
I con't forsee that ever happening to ME though, because I don't deal with rescued or abused dogs and I know how to keep my own dogs from ever getting to that stage. And even if I thought his tougher methods appalling, as some do, I would STILL be able to learn from his other, gentler techniques and have better dogs for it.
Part of the problem (and this can occur with the dogs Victoria works with as well) is that some of them HAVE been to other trainers first. Sometimes multiple trainers. Since we know nothing about those other trainers it's hard to say why they failed. They might have lacked the imagination needed to get a handle on that particular dog's problem. They might have a "basket" of techniques and those were not appropriate to that particular dog's problem. They might have failed in teaching the owners the proper techniques to handle their dog. Who knows? A dog trainer can fail, just as an owner can.
But when a trainer - of whatever persuasion - works with a dog that other trainers, other owners, and even VETS have said should be euthanized and this new trainer resolves the issues and the dog remains in his home, and the owners are happy and the dog is relaxed and happy....then it's hard for me to agree that the techniques used by THAT trainer are ALL wrong...if that is what others are saying about the techniques used.
Quite right, but *I* have heard the term used by people who THINK that is what they are doing...not from "traditional trainers whose purpose is to muddy the waters and hinder understanding of potitve reinforcement based training"
"Second, there is a technical definition of positive, negative, reinforcement and punishment"
Cetainly there is...but the average Joe/Jane on the street neither knows, nor cares what those technical definitions are. They are going to interpret what they see based on what they already think they know. And if they take the further step to educate themselves...they cease to be "average"
"it decreases the chances of a behavior being repeated"
I can't, and don't agree with this. I don't particular care how a scientist defines "punishment" - *I* use the dictionary defintion which indicates to me a much harsher action than an action intended to indicate to the dog that some behavior is not desired.
As always, I judge such things as "neck jabs, leash pops, using NO" and even such things as hitting the dog in the context of: did the DOG understand that action as a consequence of an action HE did. Personally, even my Whippets who are very face oriented have shown little to no reaction to a "dirty" look, so I have no opinion on whether that constitutes "punishment" or not.
But I have found, since watching Cesar, that they respond much more naturally to being corrected by being touched than they do to being corrected by my voice.
When "negative punishment" (except I would say negative correction) is eliminated completely and totally from the real world surrounding animals AND people, then maybe you will find me more willing to use it. Until that happens, I will continue to judge such corrections and their effectivness based on how I see the ANIMALS react to them...not on how a person who says they should react.
"Or, is it that while he may use positive reinforcment to deal with some of the simpler cases he encounters, he does not have the skill, possessed by so many behaviorists, ethologists and trainers, to rehab a tryuy aggressive or reactive dog without resorting to positive punishment?"
You'd have to ask him, I guess. Based on what I have seen I'd be more inclined to say he knows how to use negative reactions to the dogs behavior CORRECTLY and APPROPRIATELY...and some other trainers don't.
It's only too easy for people to condemn something as "wrong" when they can't do it themselves and are not really in a clear position to judge. Personally, I would never use some of the tougher techniques...not because I think they are "wrong" but because I doubt my own ability to use them correctly. But, yes, if *I* thought the situation warranted it I *might* call in an expert like Cesar who CAN use them correctly.
I con't forsee that ever happening to ME though, because I don't deal with rescued or abused dogs and I know how to keep my own dogs from ever getting to that stage. And even if I thought his tougher methods appalling, as some do, I would STILL be able to learn from his other, gentler techniques and have better dogs for it.
Part of the problem (and this can occur with the dogs Victoria works with as well) is that some of them HAVE been to other trainers first. Sometimes multiple trainers. Since we know nothing about those other trainers it's hard to say why they failed. They might have lacked the imagination needed to get a handle on that particular dog's problem. They might have a "basket" of techniques and those were not appropriate to that particular dog's problem. They might have failed in teaching the owners the proper techniques to handle their dog. Who knows? A dog trainer can fail, just as an owner can.
But when a trainer - of whatever persuasion - works with a dog that other trainers, other owners, and even VETS have said should be euthanized and this new trainer resolves the issues and the dog remains in his home, and the owners are happy and the dog is relaxed and happy....then it's hard for me to agree that the techniques used by THAT trainer are ALL wrong...if that is what others are saying about the techniques used.
Thank you for the offer Missymay, and the spirit in which you made it, 
but the high-drive dogs I work with are very successfully trained without a sniff at a prong collar or any successor to it. They are far too sensitive to have ever been trained by such methods.
True high-drive dogs are not even slightly impressed at the absence of a reward that doesn't hold a candle to the thing they are bred to do.
I will, however, allow myself to be impressed if anyone can train a beagle only to follow the scent of one type of animal or an afghan hound only to course one type of animal, using rewards only. I'll be right there in the front seats, eager to learn.
but the high-drive dogs I work with are very successfully trained without a sniff at a prong collar or any successor to it. They are far too sensitive to have ever been trained by such methods.True high-drive dogs are not even slightly impressed at the absence of a reward that doesn't hold a candle to the thing they are bred to do.
I will, however, allow myself to be impressed if anyone can train a beagle only to follow the scent of one type of animal or an afghan hound only to course one type of animal, using rewards only. I'll be right there in the front seats, eager to learn.
A dog is never bad or naughty - it is simply being a dog
SET YOURSELF UP FOR SUCCESS
SET YOURSELF UP FOR SUCCESS
Sorry, Nettle, maybe I wasn't clear.
Although drive training has traditionally, done using prongs, my friends do it without. They do use positive reinforcment to train high drive dogs and have managed to eliminate the use of positive punishment in their training.
Their reinfocers may not always be food, but they are reinforcers just the same and I fully expect a beagle to be capable of being trained as you describe.
There is also a movement to train gun dogs using positive reinforcement based methods. Here in the states, most gun dog and protection dog training is done with shock collars and it has been one of their strongest bastions, but clickers and bait bags are successfully invading even gun dog and protection dog training.
Dogone, you can use the word however you wish, but when discussing behavior, it is best to stick to the technical jargon to keep everyone on the same page. Maybe the people I work with are more capable of learning than the average joes where you live, but I have had no problem at all conveying the meaning of the four quads of operant condition to my clients.
And OC is all about the behavior/consequences sequence, but one must always remember that it is the dog, not the handler, who defines reinforcer/punisher.
As to not being able to use those methods, I am a crossover trainer. I am well versed in the use of corrections, training collars of all kinds, alpha theory (and the reasons it is laughable), and all things involved in traditional training.
I do deal with rescued and abused dogs and from your comments on handling them, I assumed you did too. I guess you were basing your comments on watching what someone else does rather than your own experience. I am basing my comments on research, my mentors clients, my own dogs, my fosters and my clients dogs.
I regularly work with dogs from the back room at the humane society. The room from which dogs seldom escape alive. With mill dogs, broken beyond recognition. With "untouchable" dogs who need behavioral modification.
These dogs can be "fixed" without ever turning to positive punishment.
My little RLI was one of those dogs on whom everyone had given up. I was told time and time again to let him go to the bridge, but I was determine to save this dog who had been thrown away and abandoned by so many.
His last bite was almost two years ago and I expect to continue to title him, justifying not only my faith in my methods, but also my faith in him.
Although drive training has traditionally, done using prongs, my friends do it without. They do use positive reinforcment to train high drive dogs and have managed to eliminate the use of positive punishment in their training.
Their reinfocers may not always be food, but they are reinforcers just the same and I fully expect a beagle to be capable of being trained as you describe.
There is also a movement to train gun dogs using positive reinforcement based methods. Here in the states, most gun dog and protection dog training is done with shock collars and it has been one of their strongest bastions, but clickers and bait bags are successfully invading even gun dog and protection dog training.
Dogone, you can use the word however you wish, but when discussing behavior, it is best to stick to the technical jargon to keep everyone on the same page. Maybe the people I work with are more capable of learning than the average joes where you live, but I have had no problem at all conveying the meaning of the four quads of operant condition to my clients.
And OC is all about the behavior/consequences sequence, but one must always remember that it is the dog, not the handler, who defines reinforcer/punisher.
I am not sure what that means because you have already indicated that you use negative punishment. Again, it seems you lack an undersatnding of behavior and learning theory.When "negative punishment" (except I would say negative correction) is eliminated completely and totally from the real world surrounding animals AND people, then maybe you will find me more willing to use it. Until that happens, I will continue to judge such corrections and their effectivness based on how I see the ANIMALS react to them...not on how a person who says they should react.
As to not being able to use those methods, I am a crossover trainer. I am well versed in the use of corrections, training collars of all kinds, alpha theory (and the reasons it is laughable), and all things involved in traditional training.
I do deal with rescued and abused dogs and from your comments on handling them, I assumed you did too. I guess you were basing your comments on watching what someone else does rather than your own experience. I am basing my comments on research, my mentors clients, my own dogs, my fosters and my clients dogs.
Again, this is a straw man arguement. It assumes only two choices. The ends do not justify the means.But when a trainer - of whatever persuasion - works with a dog that other trainers, other owners, and even VETS have said should be euthanized and this new trainer resolves the issues and the dog remains in his home, and the owners are happy and the dog is relaxed and happy....then it's hard for me to agree that the techniques used by THAT trainer are ALL wrong...if that is what others are saying about the techniques used.
I regularly work with dogs from the back room at the humane society. The room from which dogs seldom escape alive. With mill dogs, broken beyond recognition. With "untouchable" dogs who need behavioral modification.
These dogs can be "fixed" without ever turning to positive punishment.
My little RLI was one of those dogs on whom everyone had given up. I was told time and time again to let him go to the bridge, but I was determine to save this dog who had been thrown away and abandoned by so many.
His last bite was almost two years ago and I expect to continue to title him, justifying not only my faith in my methods, but also my faith in him.
Kim and Asher
“He is your friend, your partner, your defender, your dog. You are his life, his love, his leader. He will be yours, faithful and true, to the last beat of his heart. You owe it to him to be worthy of such devotionâ€
“He is your friend, your partner, your defender, your dog. You are his life, his love, his leader. He will be yours, faithful and true, to the last beat of his heart. You owe it to him to be worthy of such devotionâ€
I think there might also be some confusion when discussing "theory" and "methods'. When a trainer has adopted the theory of "positive based" training, then the methods follow-suit. The training methods are those that are positive based, that is, based on creating and maintaining a positive going forward attitude in your training, and encouraging the dog to do same. Positive based does not mean no corrections...like withholding a reward or a "no reward marker" like uh-uh or as said in my household..."Excuse me?"... But none of the corrections are methods involved hurting or scaring the dog.
While the "domenence" theory infurs that one has to be in charge and the dog must be controled and obey commands "or else". The general atmosphere is different. If your dog wags its tail and appears happy during these training sessions, it does not mean the dog is enjoying it at all. In most cases the dog is displaying appeasement behavior, meaning "please don't hurt me" and trying to calm the situation to avoid conflict. This is totally different in the dog's mind. And the whole training idea is to get the dog to avoid being scared or hurt. So the training methods are different, because the theory being followed is not the same.
I find it odd that someone who first uses reward-based training, and states that corrections are only used after the training has been learned...finds it useful to use a prong collar during training ..This is totally opposite of each other. Either the dog is trained first, then corrected, or the dog is corrected while being trained. Which is it? No wonder the dogs get confused. They either shut down (read "is stubborn" by punishment based trainers) or they keep trying to make the trainer happy, to avoid getting hurt.
So one has to look at how they feel and think about training. My dogs are happy, and well-trained, but certainly not perfect little robots. That is not what I want or need in a dog. I want my dogs to enjoy spending time with me, just as I enjoy spending time with them. And I let them be dogs, and make mistakes, just like I do.
Can we stop all this promotion of training methods (or theories or whatever) that are not positive-based? Meaning based on the positive training theories?
Simple- if it hurts or scares the dog it is not positive based so should not be discussed here.
While the "domenence" theory infurs that one has to be in charge and the dog must be controled and obey commands "or else". The general atmosphere is different. If your dog wags its tail and appears happy during these training sessions, it does not mean the dog is enjoying it at all. In most cases the dog is displaying appeasement behavior, meaning "please don't hurt me" and trying to calm the situation to avoid conflict. This is totally different in the dog's mind. And the whole training idea is to get the dog to avoid being scared or hurt. So the training methods are different, because the theory being followed is not the same.
I find it odd that someone who first uses reward-based training, and states that corrections are only used after the training has been learned...finds it useful to use a prong collar during training ..This is totally opposite of each other. Either the dog is trained first, then corrected, or the dog is corrected while being trained. Which is it? No wonder the dogs get confused. They either shut down (read "is stubborn" by punishment based trainers) or they keep trying to make the trainer happy, to avoid getting hurt.
So one has to look at how they feel and think about training. My dogs are happy, and well-trained, but certainly not perfect little robots. That is not what I want or need in a dog. I want my dogs to enjoy spending time with me, just as I enjoy spending time with them. And I let them be dogs, and make mistakes, just like I do.
Can we stop all this promotion of training methods (or theories or whatever) that are not positive-based? Meaning based on the positive training theories?
Simple- if it hurts or scares the dog it is not positive based so should not be discussed here.
Be responsible. Spay/ neuter your pets.
DogsRus, I hope you did not take this comment to mean I advocate those methods:
I have left the dark side far behind. I had kept my prongs, slips and ecollars to remind me that I was ignorant enough to use those methods in the past, but happily, I recently decided to quite positively punishing myself by dwelling on what I used to do, so I threw them all away.
If I caused confusion, I apologize, but I do not use are advocate any method that involves positive punishment or negative reinforcement anymore, and my dogs are much happier now.
I will clarify in case you did. I am a crossover trainer. I know how to use those methods and items my critisism is from experience.As to not being able to use those methods, I am a crossover trainer. I am well versed in the use of corrections, training collars of all kinds, alpha theory (and the reasons it is laughable), and all things involved in traditional training.
I have left the dark side far behind. I had kept my prongs, slips and ecollars to remind me that I was ignorant enough to use those methods in the past, but happily, I recently decided to quite positively punishing myself by dwelling on what I used to do, so I threw them all away.
If I caused confusion, I apologize, but I do not use are advocate any method that involves positive punishment or negative reinforcement anymore, and my dogs are much happier now.
Kim and Asher
“He is your friend, your partner, your defender, your dog. You are his life, his love, his leader. He will be yours, faithful and true, to the last beat of his heart. You owe it to him to be worthy of such devotionâ€
“He is your friend, your partner, your defender, your dog. You are his life, his love, his leader. He will be yours, faithful and true, to the last beat of his heart. You owe it to him to be worthy of such devotionâ€
-
DoggoneGA
"While the "domenence" theory infurs that one has to be in charge and the dog must be controled and obey commands "or else".
But you see, this is not any more necessarily true than that positive incentive trainers "bribe" the dogs to behave. And yes, I've heard that accusation from trainers who know nothing about it but what they've heard - which is mostly wrong.
If you are properly dominant over your dog...as you should be...then you don't need to make them obey commands "or else". What happens is that the dog stays properly balanced and is prevented from feeling like "no one's in charge, so *I* will have to take that over" and that eliminates the "you aren't in charge, I am" kind of "disobedience"
In fact, the very first of Victoria's shows that I saw was the one with Teddy Pom Pom...and Victoria said essentially the same thing when she put up the dominance tree: "This is Teddy Pom Pom's house and you are VERY privileged to live here with him" If he had been properly raised from the beginning they wouldn't have needed Victoria and Teddy would have know exactly who's house it was.
What you have described is not proper dominance, but POWER over the dog. And yes, that does lead to very unbalanced and even cruel "training methods" - which used to very common, but that have been debunked for many years now, but there are still people who don't know any other way to relate to animals.
"finds it useful to use a prong collar during training ..This is totally opposite of each other."
I don't think we can agree on this. I use the prong collar only under certain, quite limited circumstances - which is at running events were one of my dogs, in particular, gets so excited he hits the lead so hard it makes ME hurt. It has to be hurting him as well, but it doesn't seem to. It is not ME yanking HIM, it is HIM yanking ME. I tried the prong collar to see if if made a difference...and it did. I didn't even have to give any kind of correction, I just put it on him and his behavior changed.
He still gets excited, but he jumps up and down rather than lunging forward. I absolutely could NOT correct him out of this behavior, even if I wanted to. I can't yank him HARDER than he already yanks me...I don't have that kind of strength! So the prong collar was an experiment...that so far seems to be working. Whether it will continue to remains to be seen. If it stops working I'll go back to the "method" I was using before: a bungee cord lead that takes a lot of, but not all of, the sting out of his lunges.
I have this vision of you envisioning ME putting on a prong collar and then yanking the dog all over the place, with him screaming and cringing. Trust me, it was NOTHING like that. I put it on and he never even tested it, he just didn't lunge like he normally does. And, as I said upthread, I'm quite willing to agree that the difference in his behavior was caused simply by the difference in feel between this collar and his normal collar. But as long as it works, I will continue to use it.
" Either the dog is trained first, then corrected, or the dog is corrected while being trained. Which is it?"
Personally, I have always differentiated between teaching and training. That's may a distinction without much difference, but it helps ME determine my responses. When I am TEACHING I use no corrections. What is there to correct? The dog doesn't know the action I want, as I am still in the process of teaching it.
To me, training begins when the dog has demonstrated that he knows the actions and their attendent commands. At that point, if he does not obey a command I know he knows, then yes I will use an appropriate correction. For my dogs, taught the way I teach them, that is usually nothing more than a tug on the lead, or a touch of my hand. Most times, it never happens because it doesn't need to. I don't require precision obedience, just that the dog do what he knows how to do...and they do.
"Simple- if it hurts or scares the dog it is not positive based so should not be discussed here."
I agree...but were we seem to disagree the most is in what constitutes "hurting" the dog.
But you see, this is not any more necessarily true than that positive incentive trainers "bribe" the dogs to behave. And yes, I've heard that accusation from trainers who know nothing about it but what they've heard - which is mostly wrong.
If you are properly dominant over your dog...as you should be...then you don't need to make them obey commands "or else". What happens is that the dog stays properly balanced and is prevented from feeling like "no one's in charge, so *I* will have to take that over" and that eliminates the "you aren't in charge, I am" kind of "disobedience"
In fact, the very first of Victoria's shows that I saw was the one with Teddy Pom Pom...and Victoria said essentially the same thing when she put up the dominance tree: "This is Teddy Pom Pom's house and you are VERY privileged to live here with him" If he had been properly raised from the beginning they wouldn't have needed Victoria and Teddy would have know exactly who's house it was.
What you have described is not proper dominance, but POWER over the dog. And yes, that does lead to very unbalanced and even cruel "training methods" - which used to very common, but that have been debunked for many years now, but there are still people who don't know any other way to relate to animals.
"finds it useful to use a prong collar during training ..This is totally opposite of each other."
I don't think we can agree on this. I use the prong collar only under certain, quite limited circumstances - which is at running events were one of my dogs, in particular, gets so excited he hits the lead so hard it makes ME hurt. It has to be hurting him as well, but it doesn't seem to. It is not ME yanking HIM, it is HIM yanking ME. I tried the prong collar to see if if made a difference...and it did. I didn't even have to give any kind of correction, I just put it on him and his behavior changed.
He still gets excited, but he jumps up and down rather than lunging forward. I absolutely could NOT correct him out of this behavior, even if I wanted to. I can't yank him HARDER than he already yanks me...I don't have that kind of strength! So the prong collar was an experiment...that so far seems to be working. Whether it will continue to remains to be seen. If it stops working I'll go back to the "method" I was using before: a bungee cord lead that takes a lot of, but not all of, the sting out of his lunges.
I have this vision of you envisioning ME putting on a prong collar and then yanking the dog all over the place, with him screaming and cringing. Trust me, it was NOTHING like that. I put it on and he never even tested it, he just didn't lunge like he normally does. And, as I said upthread, I'm quite willing to agree that the difference in his behavior was caused simply by the difference in feel between this collar and his normal collar. But as long as it works, I will continue to use it.
" Either the dog is trained first, then corrected, or the dog is corrected while being trained. Which is it?"
Personally, I have always differentiated between teaching and training. That's may a distinction without much difference, but it helps ME determine my responses. When I am TEACHING I use no corrections. What is there to correct? The dog doesn't know the action I want, as I am still in the process of teaching it.
To me, training begins when the dog has demonstrated that he knows the actions and their attendent commands. At that point, if he does not obey a command I know he knows, then yes I will use an appropriate correction. For my dogs, taught the way I teach them, that is usually nothing more than a tug on the lead, or a touch of my hand. Most times, it never happens because it doesn't need to. I don't require precision obedience, just that the dog do what he knows how to do...and they do.
"Simple- if it hurts or scares the dog it is not positive based so should not be discussed here."
I agree...but were we seem to disagree the most is in what constitutes "hurting" the dog.
MissyMay, I understand exactly where you are coming from.
These comments are the ones that are conflicting:
And below, for the first time using a prong coallor, although not a young puppy, if we are in "training" mode, why the correction?
Anyway, I deal with broken dogs all the time, whose owners have been to trainers and watched CM, and used all the prongs and training collars etc. and guess what? The dog ends up at the shelter, totally messed up. Very few dogs trained with positive reinsforcement, and methods based on the positive theory, are given up. And it is very easy to tell what kind of training a dog has had in the past, if any.
It is much easier to take a puppy and bring it up. The puppy doesn't know any different and learns what to do and what NOT to do to avoid getting hurt.
Again, can we stop discussing how to mistreat dogs? Joe public may have heard that corrections are good, do a search, find this thread and take whatever they want from it...And anyone looking for reasons to make thier dogs "listen or else" will only read and absorb what supports their that thoery.
Anyone who does not support and promote positive-based training can go find another forum to participate on, where they might be made to feel more welcome. This is not one of them.
These comments are the ones that are conflicting:
And then the opposite..referring to prongs/choke collars:It's true I will defend proper corrections - NOT punishments - but I don't actually have to use them much because I begin my training with my dogs when they are just puppies, during which time I use NO CORRECTIONS of any kind,
The following sounds like a correction to me, and to a very young puppy, at that.I use training collars for training, and I use them for when we are traveling
BTW, it is apparent that this whole situation is totally misunderstood. The puppy yelps, the other pup is startled and stops, the "hurt" puppy doesn't play anymore. The "hurt" puppy doesn't stick his head into the bu;;y's mouth or force him to submit to pain. The "hurt" puppy tries to deflect the situation and calm it down..not make it worse.I do not use Victoria's "yelping" response - this is one of the things I disagree with her on. Especially to puppies, the one that yelps has just lost the "fight" and quite often, if the whole litter is together you will see the other litter member start to hassle the one that yelped. I push my hand INTO the puppy's mouth, or hold him down, or put pressure on his lips until he lets go. I teach him just exactly how hard he can bite me with no consequences. I teach him bite inhibition, just as his pack would.
And below, for the first time using a prong coallor, although not a young puppy, if we are in "training" mode, why the correction?
This is halfway there, but still not clear to me, so I cannot see how it would be clear to the dog. The dog gets a reward for doing it when asked, but not when it offers it on its own? If this is the scenerio, I wouldn't say there is a correction here at all. It is just nothing. Otherwise, if my dog sits outside in my yard, and I don't toss him a treat from my window he is being corrected?f hitting a buckle or training collar HARD enough to hurt ME doesn't bother him, why would a prong collar be worse? I will say I used the prong collar for the first time with a fair bit of trepidation because I did NOT want him hurt beyond his forebearance...what would be the point of making him associate pain with something that should be FUN? But he seemed not to even notice he was wearing it. I even tried giving him a light correction, just to see his reaction...there was none.
.And once that first trick is established you are forced to take a step away from PURELY positive training...because you MUST introduce the concept of a "correction" or you will end up with a "one trick pony" You must now indicate that when you DON'T use that trigger sound you DON'T want that trick, and if you get it the animal WON'T get a treat. THAT is correction
Anyway, I deal with broken dogs all the time, whose owners have been to trainers and watched CM, and used all the prongs and training collars etc. and guess what? The dog ends up at the shelter, totally messed up. Very few dogs trained with positive reinsforcement, and methods based on the positive theory, are given up. And it is very easy to tell what kind of training a dog has had in the past, if any.
It is much easier to take a puppy and bring it up. The puppy doesn't know any different and learns what to do and what NOT to do to avoid getting hurt.
Again, can we stop discussing how to mistreat dogs? Joe public may have heard that corrections are good, do a search, find this thread and take whatever they want from it...And anyone looking for reasons to make thier dogs "listen or else" will only read and absorb what supports their that thoery.
Anyone who does not support and promote positive-based training can go find another forum to participate on, where they might be made to feel more welcome. This is not one of them.
Be responsible. Spay/ neuter your pets.
-
DoggoneGA
-
thistledown
- Posts: 118
- Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2008 5:31 am
do we have a definition of 'positive based'? Before I get my coat?dogsrus wrote:Anyone who does not support and promote positive-based training can go find another forum to participate on, where they might be made to feel more welcome. This is not one of them.
oh, yes we do
that is a most inclusive definition of 'positive based', and will do very nicely thanks.dogsrus wrote: The training methods are those that are positive based, that is, based on creating and maintaining a positive going forward attitude in your training, and encouraging the dog to do same.
We can all stay
Actually, the APDT, of which Victoria is a member, supports Dog Friendly training, defined as:
[quote]“...training that utilizes primarily positive reinforcement; secondarily negative punishment, and only occasionally, rarely, and/or as a last resort includes positive punishment and/or negative reinforcement.â€
[quote]“...training that utilizes primarily positive reinforcement; secondarily negative punishment, and only occasionally, rarely, and/or as a last resort includes positive punishment and/or negative reinforcement.â€
Kim and Asher
“He is your friend, your partner, your defender, your dog. You are his life, his love, his leader. He will be yours, faithful and true, to the last beat of his heart. You owe it to him to be worthy of such devotionâ€
“He is your friend, your partner, your defender, your dog. You are his life, his love, his leader. He will be yours, faithful and true, to the last beat of his heart. You owe it to him to be worthy of such devotionâ€
This whole positive discussion has been interesting. I was talking with one of my trainers about positive training and positive trainers and she made the following comment.
Trainers using punishment, can correctly call themselves positive trainers. Those punishments fall under the positive punishment quadrant (+P). Because of this she no longer caller herself a positive trainer.
She now calls herself a reward based trainer which indicates the quadrant she uses +R.
What I find apalling about those using +P based training or advocate such is the lack of openess. Their refusal to approach training differently.
Trainers using punishment, can correctly call themselves positive trainers. Those punishments fall under the positive punishment quadrant (+P). Because of this she no longer caller herself a positive trainer.
She now calls herself a reward based trainer which indicates the quadrant she uses +R.
What I find apalling about those using +P based training or advocate such is the lack of openess. Their refusal to approach training differently.
-
DoggoneGA
"As for pushing hands into a puppies mouth, that, along with scruffing, is a great way to create a hand shy puppy."
And yet...I've NEVER had a hand shy dog. Not ever.
""Dog Psychology" (which, incidentally, does not even exist because psychology, by it's very definition, is the study of the human psyche). "
If you're going to make statements like this, it might be wise to be sure you are correct. The dictionary *I* checked says this:
1. the science of the mind or of mental states and processes.
2. the science of human and animal behavior.
So yes, there IS such a thing as "dog psychology"
"I don't have any problem with any dogs pulling or straining on lead because I teach them that the most reinforcing place to be is at my side"
Do you have competitive lure coursing dogs? I bet not. I don't want them to be "reinforced" at my side when they are supposed to be excited about "working." It's fun to them, they wouldn't to it otherwise, but it's still a job for them. When not at an event, that's a different story and I do train them to be quiet and easy on the lead.
I do not train my dogs for obedience competitions. That is not something that interests me. I train my dogs to be livable and controllable and I allow them to be independent of my control while they are working. Which means while they are actually running or racing.
I see none of the horrible results you would persuade me I should be getting. My dogs are confident, trusting, and happy. They will come and put their heads in my hands to be petted. They will put their heads in the collars. They love to travel and get very excited when they see me getting ready for a trip. They are quiet and content in their crates during the trip. I can walk all nine of them on leads at that same time and they will not take off or try to drag me. I can even do that at a lure event, because as excited as they get they do not get uncontrollable. It is only the one, especially, that is a "problem" because his expression of his excitement is to slam the end of the lead, which is uncomfortable for me.
I am on my third generation of dogs. So tell me: when can I expect to see all the problems that should manifest themselves because I use both positive rewards and "negative" corrections? How many dogs will I have to go through? How many years must I wait? WHEN will these predicted problems actually occur? Because they haven't occured in the past, they sure aren't occurring now...and given my past and present experiences, *I* don't expect them to occur in the future.
And yet...I've NEVER had a hand shy dog. Not ever.
""Dog Psychology" (which, incidentally, does not even exist because psychology, by it's very definition, is the study of the human psyche). "
If you're going to make statements like this, it might be wise to be sure you are correct. The dictionary *I* checked says this:
1. the science of the mind or of mental states and processes.
2. the science of human and animal behavior.
So yes, there IS such a thing as "dog psychology"
"I don't have any problem with any dogs pulling or straining on lead because I teach them that the most reinforcing place to be is at my side"
Do you have competitive lure coursing dogs? I bet not. I don't want them to be "reinforced" at my side when they are supposed to be excited about "working." It's fun to them, they wouldn't to it otherwise, but it's still a job for them. When not at an event, that's a different story and I do train them to be quiet and easy on the lead.
I do not train my dogs for obedience competitions. That is not something that interests me. I train my dogs to be livable and controllable and I allow them to be independent of my control while they are working. Which means while they are actually running or racing.
I see none of the horrible results you would persuade me I should be getting. My dogs are confident, trusting, and happy. They will come and put their heads in my hands to be petted. They will put their heads in the collars. They love to travel and get very excited when they see me getting ready for a trip. They are quiet and content in their crates during the trip. I can walk all nine of them on leads at that same time and they will not take off or try to drag me. I can even do that at a lure event, because as excited as they get they do not get uncontrollable. It is only the one, especially, that is a "problem" because his expression of his excitement is to slam the end of the lead, which is uncomfortable for me.
I am on my third generation of dogs. So tell me: when can I expect to see all the problems that should manifest themselves because I use both positive rewards and "negative" corrections? How many dogs will I have to go through? How many years must I wait? WHEN will these predicted problems actually occur? Because they haven't occured in the past, they sure aren't occurring now...and given my past and present experiences, *I* don't expect them to occur in the future.
As a matter of fact I do have competitive lure coursing dogs and know plenty of others as well.
The only reason one would choose to cause discomfort/pain when not necessary would be that one gets off on lording over their dogs. Having that power and control rather than a working partnership.
Why anyone would willingly want to inflict pain or discomfort when the same ends can be met by more humane methods is definitely worthy or some study. WHy do something you don't have too?
The only reason one would choose to cause discomfort/pain when not necessary would be that one gets off on lording over their dogs. Having that power and control rather than a working partnership.
Why anyone would willingly want to inflict pain or discomfort when the same ends can be met by more humane methods is definitely worthy or some study. WHy do something you don't have too?
