corvus

Steve is a brilliant trainer, but how does this support your argument that "in the pet dog training market that a balanced combination of all training methods works best"? You are comparing a rare talent against a lowest common denominator, and using the opinion of this forum (one of thousands around the world, and not a representative sample) to support your claim. Some forums recommend Cesar Millan, others recommend Susan Garrett, others recommend Uta Bindels. It depends on what people are training for, and who is the brilliant trainer closest to them. For example, if you ask on this forum who to see in WA, you will more than likely get the recommendation of one of several no-compulsion trainers. Steve's link I posted supports my argument Adian, so Steve is wrong in that case? I think the point Aidan is making is that great trainers are the best because of their talent, not the methods they use. Given the best trainers do not all use the same methods, then the argument that the methods those trainers are using is what creates their success not only appears to be inaccurate, but I think diminishes the skill of those trainers.

I think we absolutely need to work within the temperament of the dog, but I don't think this needs to rule out rewards. I will say that I find this a difficult concept to accept. Put a dog in a distacting enough environment and they won't be interested in food. But if you then say "Gee, he won't work for food, obviously we need to try something else" it's like trying to run 10km with no training and then saying "Gee, I didn't make it, obviously I'm not capable of running 10km." Sometimes if you want to use rewards you need to build a reward system, not just use what works from moment to moment. I don't think anyone needs to find an excuse for deciding to use corrections where rewards would work, or deciding to use rewards where corrections would work. As long as the training is sensitive and sensible it mostly comes down to personal preference. I'm not going to judge anyone who decides they don't want to teach their dog to be receptive to food around certain distractions. Your dog, your call. Just don't tell me you had to use something else because rewards don't work. I will be very doubtful. I will be doubtful if you tell me you can't run 10km, too.

Thanks everyone, keep them coming.

There was some interesting talk about purebred dogs and genetic diversity as well. His new book that is out might be worth a read. Trish McConnell says on her blog she has been getting a lot out of it. I think we can't judge him on a few training tidbits in an interview. One can't distill everything they know about dog training into 37 minutes. He knows a lot. His research group does some very good work, very well respected. He sends some kudos our way at one point. ;)

*bump* I'm closing this survey at the end of this week. I have had such a great response with almost 1000 completed surveys. Many thanks to everyone who has helped out filling out one or more surveys for their own dogs and passing it on to friends and family. If you haven't participated, this is a friendly reminder so you don't miss out if you wanted to be a part of it. The only requirements are that you live in Australia, are fluent in English, and over 18. http://sydney.edu.au/vetscience/teaching_learning/surveys/bias_dogs.shtml

Once again, "consequence" can be rewards. There is no such thing as training without consequence. It's part of the ABCs of training. Personally, I was heartbroken when I finally saw the fallout I had caused in my previous dog with corrections. Absolutely devastated. It took me nine years to realise and I only did because I raised an animal without much compulsion at all and saw the difference. I tried to fix it and I couldn't. Old habits die hard. I don't consider it a scare campaign to try to communicate to others just how horrible it was when I realised what I'd done. I wouldn't wish that on anyone. That dog worshipped the ground I walked on and no one but me could see what I was so upset about, but that didn't help me at all. It can be very subtle and insidious.

Here's an interview from NPR with John Brashaw, who's been studying dog behaviour for a very long time. http://www.npr.org/2011/05/26/136497064/the-new-science-of-understanding-dog-behavior Some interesting perpectives about training and military dogs.

I've never met one, either. :p Got pretty close in agility, but they never claimed to be purely positive. Funny thing, I was watching one of the dog park locals that has very well trained, very lean Labs. He teaches his pups with food, then once they know what they're doing he weans them off the food and if they do the wrong thing they get verbally reprimanded. I was feeling impressed with his dogs' behaviour and thought that he must think my dogs aren't all that well behaved because he has criteria that I don't worry that much about. My dogs are allowed to say hello to other people in the park, for example. But then it occurred to me that one of his dogs in particular stops by to say hello to us just about every time regardless of the fact she gets sternly told off for it. She checks our treat pouches and we never ever give her anything. When I hear that tone it creates an expectation for obedience and I see it even when it's not there.

I'm a fan of Sophia Yin's material. She talks about how to behave to get your dog to behave. She has just released a Perfect Puppy in 7 Days e-book that is available on special for $10 in pdf format. http://drsophiayin.com/products/buy

Mine wasn't. She walked on a loose leash, but almost never in the heel position where I had been taught she should be. My parents' dog was a disaster on a choke chain. Their previous dog was trained the same way and was rarely ever walked on leash as she stuck close without one. I just don't think you can make broad generalisations. There are lots of reasons why a trend might appear to be present when it actually isn't. I doubt it's a methodology issue. More likely a criteria/priorities/training skill issue.

Really? By what measure do you judge leash obedience? How do you know the time spent training is comparable? How do you know the dogs' learning ability is comparable, or the trainers' skill is comparable? How do you know this isn't an artefact of the skill and preferences of the professional trainers in your area? In my area most puppy schools recommend walking puppies on head collars or no-pull harnesses. It's not surprising to me that there are a lot of dogs around that are walked on those tools. I don't think it necessarily reflects a trend in training methods or their effectiveness. If only. I see A LOT of dogs that get roused on, leash popped and smacked when they misbehave. I'd rather see them on management tools. The punishments don't seem to be helping at all. Their timing is terrible and they are punishing dogs for emotional state or arousal most of the time. All it does is distract them or bring them down a notch it if does anything at all. What makes you think that speed is all that matters? I do a lot of clicker training. As Kathy Sdao says, behaviour is our currency. We want our dogs to be very comfortable offering behaviours. Suppressing behaviours is therefore counter-productive to our aims. What's more, I don't even consider punishment a viable option if I can't guarantee I can do it every time the behaviour occurs. Besides which, I'm not sure what you mean by motivational leash obedience, but I find training with rewards to be just as quick as training with punishments. If there's no change within a session, I question my methods regardless of what they are.

I wonder if, given breeds have changed appearance quite a bit since their conception, they have also changed diet tolerances and so forth?

This is probably off topic, but I'm wondering if anyone has ever taught a dog to smell something on cue and whether it's at all useful. I've been teaching both dogs to take a breath on cue lately, and because they both tend to sit around with their mouths shut, I was marking and treating flared nostrils. I have a sneaking suspicion I've taught Kivi to air scent on cue. That's kinda cool. Could it ever be useful for something other than taking a breath?

How well behaved your dog is tends to come down to your criteria and consistency rather than what method you use IMO. When we stick to criteria, so do our dogs. It's not really that difficult. Most people just don't pay a lot of attention to exactly what their dog is doing or what they are doing and don't have the motivation to learn to. I'm often grumbling at my partner for rewarding behaviour that doesn't meet criteria and muddying cues. He thinks I'm a criteria bore. He understands why I'm such a nazi about it, but he doesn't care if his dogs aren't precise. I care, but most people don't. Near enough is good enough. Little wonder their dogs appear semi-trained. Incidentally, consequences for behaviour are not just aversive. My dogs behave and the consequence is they often get rewarded.

Us nerds and geeks get nerdier and geekier people to do our statistics for us. But you're a Bayesian, aren't you? All the cool kids are Bayesians. They're all edgy and just controversial enough for people to think they are really smart and worldly rather than outright crackpots.

Just "interesting"?? But, but... behavioural ecology!

I can think of plenty of reasons why I wouldn't. Why would I?

Thanks, that was very interesting, as were the comments.

Or he needs a stronger reinforcement history. I wouldn't dream of correcting my low drive dog. He's easily put off.

I don't know why excuses based on breeds came up. I mentioned my dogs were spitz breeds and generally don't do things they don't want to do. Apparently that equates to me not asking them to do things they don't want to do and accepting that if they don't want to do something that's that, they don't have to do it. I do make it their choice, but that doesn't make me helpless if once in a blue moon they choose not to do it. I usually get the behaviour one way or another, and it's usually their choice when I do.

I don't know what you're asking me. That's a whole new problem, isn't it? If "come inside" is the behaviour, and the dog can't come inside, then it's a different behaviour you're asking for, right? Are you asking me what I'd do if I recalled my dog and he ran away and I couldn't catch him? What does anyone do? Try anyway? Run in the opposite direction squealing and hope the dog is fooled into coming after you? Whatever the case, obviously there's a big problem that needs more training. The anecdote was to demonstrate why I stopped enforcing behaviours. I am mystified why everyone thinks it's why I obviously need to enforce behaviours. I'm not sure how having fixed the problem without enforcing the behaviour makes my dogs disobedient. I'm not even sure what I apparently claimed or labelled anymore. So, yeah, I probably sound contradictory. I honestly do not know what we're talking about anymore. I try to respond to general ideas, but there are always exceptions and when people keep asking about the exceptions we get into these silly discussions about what I do maybe 2% of the time and people think I do it much more often than that seeing as I'm talking about it so much. What haven't I achieved with my own dogs? Reliability? Is 98% reliability not reliability? What have I worked around or not bothered doing? The inability to enforce a behaviour? Why does it matter if the result is still reliability? I kind of resent that. I worked really hard to get that reliability and I continue to work hard to maintain it and improve upon it. You don't have to believe me, but I'd rather you didn't claim that I haven't done it. ETA I don't want people to think I'm giving out advice. This is an internet forum, for heavens' sake. As far as I'm concerned the whole point is to share information. I try to be upfront about what I have done myself and what I know about through other people or theory. If the line blurs sometimes, I apologise for that. I'm not as clear as I should be. If people want advice they can count on they should hire a professional or single someone out who they trust.

No, dogs can't eat and bark at the same time. Erik has tried it and he always chokes on his treat. ;) It sounds good in theory.

Isn't the rule of thumb if a dead dog can do it, it's not a behaviour? ;) I have punished a behaviour I got instead of the behaviour I asked for. It was a behaviour I really, really wanted to make abundantly clear was absolutely not on. I've only done it once and I've no way of telling if it was necessary or not. Most alternative behaviours I don't reinforce one way or the other and they go extinct.

Sometimes E would rather not put his butt or belly on the cold wet ground. What I do then is different to what I might do if I think I've possibly found an area where he's not fluent after all, or if he's being obstinate or something. Who said I don't insist on the behaviour? Who said I shrug off non-compliance when the behaviour is fluent? I don't just go "oh well, he doesn't want to" and give up. I change the situation and cue again and get the behaviour. I thought I made that clear in my last post. Maybe what you're doing requires a rethink. No kidding! Why is this so difficult to understand? I had a problem; I fixed it. He doesn't do this anymore because I taught him to come inside on cue, which he does. Problem solved, no enforcement required. Wow, you're on a roll with the assumptions, aren't you? The little bugger has stewed plenty of times. It might get him inside, but it never reduced the likelihood of him balking again at some later date. So I question if it really was a consequence, actually. Why not? Didn't you want to do agility with Erik? I'm not even sure what obedience is anymore. I was happy to say that I had obedient dogs when they are 98-99% reliable, but apparently I have disobedient dogs. If that's the case, I don't want an obedient dog. I am very, very happy with 98% likely to respond correctly. I like hunting out that 2%. It's more fun than having perfect obedience. If I wanted perfect obedience I shouldn't have spitz breeds, but that's not to say I can't have very reliable spitzes. Apparently you missed the "My dogs are 98% reliable, if that's disobedient than I guess they are disobedient" rant despite quoting from the middle of it. Is 98% reliable not good enough for most people? I say to them, stand on a chair, and tell your dog to sit. Lie down and tell them to sit on your hand. Stand 10m away from them and tell them to sit. Tell them to sit while they are walking away from you. Tell them to sit when they are running across a field. I think most people would be surprised how 'disobedient' their dogs are when really tested. I test mine extensively, because it's fun. I love the look on their faces as they comprehend what I asked and try to figure out what the right response is. I got Erik to stand on my belly and then cued a down one day. He was a bit unsure, but he got it. Maybe it's a frivolous trick to some, but it's a fluent behaviour to me.

Feet on a target (CD) - I use "paw" for left, "other one" for right. I haven't got a both feet one, but I'd just use "feet". Nose touch on a target - I use "target". Drop on target - "Bugger off" Wait on the end of dog walk/Aframe - I don't have one for that, but I've seen "plank" used if they've been taught with 2o2o on a plank.