corvus

Sometimes, fuzzy, you could be me. I mean that in the nicest possible way! You said it all.

Holy moley, people get badly injured with their dogs! Kivi took off from my foot at the beach last week and left three deep claw marks in the top of my foot. I whined about it for days! Making a mental note that it could always be worse...

One time I was jogging with Kivi using a walking belt. He was a pace behind me and I forgot to remind him to pass a signpost on "this side" and so we went on either side and the first we knew about it was when we were both nearly jerked off our feet when the loose leash snapped tight. Ow. Kivi and I exchanged pained looks and took a few moments to recover. Not as bad as yours, though. But this one time I was doing field work in the bush and had a Harrier trot out of the bush right up to me with a leash attached. Intriguing... I picked up the leash and walked him back with me to the carpark, wondering what I was going to do with him. Eventually I saw someone on a bike calling out and we caught them up and it was indeed her dog she was out looking for. Her husband had been walking the pair of them and put his foot in a hole, falling over and badly rolling his ankle. The dogs got loose and took off. The female got her leash caught on something pretty quickly, but the male ran several km before he found me. Hubby was at home with his foot elevated and an ice pack on it, poor thing.

Just agility? We use Susan Garret's 2x2 method to train weaves at our agility club.

That wasn't what I was suggesting. That is a black and white interpretation of what I said, which was profoundly grey, thank you. I don't know what the OP's specific situation is, so I'm just saying there's no need to be black and white about it. It's worthwhile taking a lot of different things into account, but nothing is likely to be a deciding factor on its own. The Vollhard test is about the best pet owners have got at the moment, but behaviour is difficult to predict and temperament is notoriously difficult. I've never found a study that has a reliable predictor in dogs under 8 months old, although who knows, hair whorls might turn out to be it. Over 8 months, tug and retrieve consistently come up, but that's not to say all successful dogs are good at tug and retrieve. There's usually a sociability aspect as well, but depends on what job the dog is being assessed for. Unless I was spoilt for choice or the dog was obviously exceptional, I'd want to see the dog more than once before I made a decision.

No, but then, we don't have kids so it's kind of weird to us to call each other "mum" or "dad". We don't go there! OH's parent refer to each other and themselves as "grandma" and "grandpa" when talking to their dog. I guess it makes sense seeing as he was originally their son's dog. They call themselves grandma and grandpa around our dogs as well. This may have something to do with why we carefully avoid referencing having children in any way shape or form. Most of my extended family refer to my animals as our furry family. That's what I call them as well. Me and OH are the head of the furry family, but not mum and dad. It's really sweet, actually. I have relatives that have never really kept pets and don't really understand why they are so important to us, but they gathered on their own that our pets are our family and very important to us and always ask after them all and always include them when they are wishing me well. I am very appreciative that even though they don't get it they acknowledge how important our animals are to us and at least understand what they mean to us.

I did notice that. I wouldn't write a dog off as a retriever if it didn't instantly race after a toy and bring it all the way back to me. There's a lot you can teach, is all. But I don't have any experience with retrievers. I have one dog that started out a natural retriever and doesn't really do it much anymore and one that isn't a natural retriever but I'm teaching him to retrieve. Mostly I think I just never played fetch with my dogs when they were young so they don't do it much. You never know what kind of untapped potential could be under the surface ready to burst out with a little coaxing.

Man, I just love this article about dog aggression for just getting to the point and sending a simple and effective message. http://www.poochmag.com.au/advices/145/4/2...Like_Other_Dogs

Don't put too much store in play. In unfamiliar surroundings it wouldn't be uncommon for him to be a little inhibited or disinterested. For example, exploration tends to be antagonistic to play, so sometimes it's hard to get even a very playful dog to do their thing with a tug toy if they are busy checking out their surroundings. Most people that select working dogs for training programs tend to place a lot of stock on whether the dog retrieves naturally or not. It's not the be all and end all, but dogs that naturally retrieve tend to do better in working dog trials according to some studies. They call it distance play - the willingness to play with an object at a distance from the person. The willingness to play with a person is a separate factor, and also looked upon favourably. Personally, I'd take a clicker and some good, tasty treats and just teach him something. And test the retrieve and tug as well.

A Greyhound was the star of my pilot study, which involved learning a discrimination task. The Grey was a brilliant problem solver and a nice, steady thinker. He got through quicker than the other dogs. He was beautiful to watch work. Good luck with it.

Figure out what had him so worried and counter-condition him to it. Sometimes we just go a little too far too fast. If he isn't up to practising trained skills, you need to work on just getting him confident in the environment. I would start with just rewarding for his attention and basically teaching him that in this environment you are still the surest bet for rewards. Increase your reward rate so you're giving him something every second he's focused on you, but then release after a few seconds so he doesn't get distracted before you're done with him. Then just build it up from there.

Yes, I think this goes in the book of "Universally understood words". My boy also understands and responds to my cocked eye-brow, which is generally accompanied with a "I don't think so" look from me. Haha, I used to think that.

maybe, but you still didn't answer my questions. Never mind. I did, and then deleted it because I thought I had answered in the one paragraph and didn't want to go off on a long and convoluted post that wasn't even on topic. I proof same way everyone does. Ask for the behaviour in new places and new ways and reward when they do it. Same with distractions. I differentiate between good and great with criteria, I guess. Or maybe reward rate or jackpots depending on the situation. I don't set my dogs up to fail so I can show them what to do. I just show them what to do. Sometimes they make mistakes and I take that to mean we need to do some practice. I will keep training this way as long as I am getting the results I want. As I said, with a world full of potential reinforcers our dogs don't really have to go without. MRB, I chain behaviours by rewarding with a cue for an easy behaviour.

That is so true. Especially classical conditioning. Whole text books have been written on just one specific application of CC! I also am disappointed how this aspect of training gets overlooked. Kelpie-i, I guess I don't really differentiate between training and behaviour modification. I use the same methods either way. Behaviour is behaviour. Behaviour modification I guess tends to encompass the emotional state of the dog, but I honestly think this is useful in just regular training as well. I am often mindful of my dogs' emotional states and arousal. I think things tend to go more smoothly when I am, but maybe that's just wishful thinking on my part.

The point I'm trying to make is that the "won't work on this kind of dog" and the "us vs them" kind of thing are red herrings getting in the way of good training. The theory is sound - we know it's sound. But there are a myriad of ways to apply it and a vast range of subtlety. To me, saying that a method won't work is grossly simplifying the matter. Whatever it is, if it's based in science it will work if applied correctly. The question is what aspect of it is best suited to the particular animal and particular situation at hand. Can you apply it correctly? Do you have the skill? The necessary reinforcement? How much control over the environment do you have? What are the animal's current skills? Can you identify what is driving the behaviour? There are dozens of questions we can ask ourselves that will help us decide how to apply the theory. And we have to decide what compromises need to be made and how kind our training can afford to be. It annoys the hell out of me that we apparently can't see beyond the methods and whether they work on a very small scale. Personally, I accept that they work, even the ones I don't use, and if they are not working there are pieces missing in their application. No one can use purely positive methods with any dog, but a lot of people have achieved exceptional results with positive reinforcement on a large variety of dogs. That is not to say that it is always appropriate or the most effective, or even that people make compromises they don't need to make when they don't use it. It just works. That's all. If it doesn't work, it's the application that is at fault, not the "method". ETA Oops, I meant to bring this back to the topic. I would like to see people have more faith in operant conditioning and understand that it all works on every dog, it's just a matter of finding the right way to apply it and deciding what is the best way of applying it given the limitations you have to work with. I would like to see us get past the "us vs them" thing, although I doubt that will ever happen. I would like the focus to be on troubleshooting behaviour rather than troubleshooting traininers, but I doubt that will ever happen, either.

This makes me so annoyed. I have one of those dogs that is pushy, opportunistic, exploitative, proactive, and a touch high on stress reactivity. He is not a walk in the park. We do not simply wave food in front of his face and watch everything fall into place. It is just so much more than that. It took a lot of groundwork to condition him to be receptive to rewards in many circumstances. We have spent the last 18 months carefully shaping him into the dog we want, and it has not been easy. We learnt about a lot of things outside of operant conditioning in the process, because sometimes his behaviour seems to defy learning theory. We learnt when it's necessary to punish and then learnt we don't usually need to if we are paying attention to what he's learning and make a decision early about whether we want it or not. We are not successful with him because he is a normal dog. We are successful with him because we are smart about reinforcement and don't leave him behaviour voids to fill with whatever he happens to come up with. Do not assume that because you have had to use punishments (I assume that's what you're talking about) everyone who doesn't (much) must have an easier dog than you. You don't know what kind of dogs we have and how we have found success with them. Learn some theory, live with our dogs, actually find out what we have had success with and why, and then you can feel annoyed when we insist positive reinforcement can be very effective.

I don't understand the above at all I am pretty sure I've been through this before at least twice. It's nothing controversial or heretical. I just reliably pay. That's all. I'm a sure bet. With a world full of potential reinforcers I don't see why I shouldn't pay whenever I can, which is nearly always. Doesn't mean I always pay with the same thing and the same amount, though. I'm a vending machine in that I cue, my dogs behave, and I reward. I don't generally bother with variable reward schedules. But I'm one of those vending machines that have graffiti all over the front so you can't quite see what you're going to get when you press the buttons. And sometimes I spit out extra coins instead of the goods. Kelpie-i, this is not a BB or CM bashing thread. It was more a comment on possible misinformation being spread by trainers (and lay people, for that matter). I was careful to point out that I wasn't sure if it even was misinformation. It certainly does disturb me at face value, though. Does it disturb you? Why/why not? Am I right to feel disturbed by it in your opinion?

I love how rewarding liberally equates to... well, I'm not sure what you're claiming, there. A dog that is not treated like a dog, maybe? Although that doesn't make sense because all animals respond to rewards, including dogs. A dog that doesn't respond favourably to confrontational training methods?

Not only are there dominant dogs, but there are dominant breeds? You learn something every day.

Why do you think it wouldn't work...or why would you question it?? Just because you don't agree/like Cesar and his techniques, doesn't mean some of them won't help stop unwanted behaviours. Excuse me. Did I say I thought it wouldn't work? I've spent half of this thread saying I think these methods DO often work. I just don't think they work for the reasons claimed. I was genuinely interested to know whether murve thought this was a case where it had worked for the reasons claimed or whether it worked for some other reason. It wasn't a loaded question.

Why do you think it worked, murve?

True. The point I was trying to make is that in negative reinforcement we are often using a stimulus that in different circumstances and if a little stronger could be positive punishment. For example, I use pressure with my hare to move him, but I release the pressure by leaning away from him or looking away or using a safety signal once he's moved to where I want him. If I were to put on too much pressure, get too close, push a little bit for too long maybe, I run the risk of panicking my hare. That is highly aversive to him. I'm always conscious that I am walking a line between enough pressure to get him moving slowly and calmly and enough pressure to make him feel scared. I guess that if I cross the line I'm not punishing any specific behaviour, but chances are anything that he was noticing or doing when I crossed the line could become associated with fear and he won't want anything to do with it again until I manage to desensitise him again. It's hard work. My training treats are all like the vending machine. It doesn't bother me. My dogs rarely have to go without rewards. I have never found this to have much of an effect on their reliability. If they don't get a reward they figure something must be broken and just kinda shrug it off as bizarre. They'll keep doing that for half an hour. Erik probably longer, but I've never tested it. He can find so many things rewarding I feel sure I could find something. Lots of fun tricks he likes doing. Extinction can be pretty aversive IMO as well. The frustration of an animal that KNOWS they should be getting paid and somehow aren't can be pretty full on. They can even become violent. I remember reading a story about a walrus who responded to a little frustration by trying to impale whoever was causing it on his tusks. He could be trained, but only with spotters who could shout out a "hold still" cue if the trainer got themselves into trouble with him. He was very reliable with behaviours he knew, luckily.

Barking is the sound of a language. ;) Like Persephone says, to stop barking you really need to know why they are barking in the first place. A "quiet" command is only useful if they didn't have anything pressing to say. Some dogs think everything they have to say is very pressing. :D

We don't use much in the way of dry treats anymore, as the dogs tend to choke on them! Not real choking, just inhale them and cough it up for another go. Kind of disruptive during a training session, though. Doesn't seem to happen much with soft treats, so at the moment it's 4Legs rolls cut up. Maybe a bit of cheese or roast meat. Boiled heart for recall treats. Or we have some little Whitebait that come out as recall treats.

How do we define what is aversive? It becomes a circular discussion and I don't think it really matters. I guess that is what it comes down to. :D I don't know if it matters or not. I'm wary of negative reinforcement because I don't want it to slip into punishment. Maybe I'm especially careful about this because I'm not brilliant at deciding when to release the pressure. I know what behaviour I want, but some days I find the animal to be more tolerant to pressure than others, so that leaves me guessing how tolerant they are feeling today, which I find difficult sometimes. I guess I rank things in terms of their potential to go bad. I think that too much of a stimulus whose removal reinforces behaviour can go very bad. If I think of it as aversive, maybe I'll be extra careful about how much I use. I just spent 9 months trying to fix the results of too much pressure on my hare. It's the same stimulus I use in -R training with him in a positive way. That is always in my mind.