pgm

Tess32: "What do you mean by the dog's understanding? Understanding of the point of the behaviour or?" What I mean is something along the following: What is or is not reinforcing to the dog? It depends on the dog. Everytime you reinforce a behavior you are doing so within a particular context. Different dog equals different context - hence some dogs will work for food, some wont, some will work for toys, some wont. Equally, the same dog in one particular context (the backyard) will find a treat reinforcing, but in a different context (at the park) wont find the treat reinforcing. Training a dog is all about your ability to read the context in which you are using reinforcement. Same as being successful on the stockmarket depends on your ability to know what is and what isn't low, and what is and isn't high. What will work for one dog, will not necessarily work for another, what will work in one particular context will not necessarily work in another. So the question is: how does what the dog understands or doesn't understand change the context in which you are working? It can change the context significantly. It can mean the difference between applying a correction that the DOG INTERPRETS as positive punishment, to one that the DOG INTERPRETS as positive reinforcement. But can you see the problem? How the dog interprets (what's going on inside the dogs head) is irrelevent to theory of operant conditioning. The internal states of animals and how that affects behavior is rendered null and void in operant conditioning. But what is going on inside the dogs head - how the DOG ITSELF interpets the context - is the most important aspect of training. A good trainer knows this, whether implicitly or explicitly, and hence develops the right kind of understanding in the dog.

pewithers, I not currently in discussion with MattandBuddy. I am rather following a line of thought developed by Tess32 and myself. MattandBuddy may well find such discussion interesting or not. But as far as I know there is no rule that forbids a thread from developing into a different, albeit related, line of thought. You have said: "You suggest that there should be a separation between practice and understanding." I have suggested no such thing and fail to see how you have come to such a conclusion.

"pgm: Why can't you train a dog with operant conditioning?" I didn't say you can't. Many dogs and animals have been trained using operant conditioning. I just don't believe that in the case of dogs (in particular) such training develops the dog and its relationship to its fullest extent.

Tess32, I am sure that doing a bit of reading (indeed, the more the better) helps. But I would argue that it is not helping in quite the way you think it is helping. Indeed, I would argue that it often prevents people from coming to a fuller understanding of the training relationship. This is one of explanations for why people (not necessarily yourself) who advocate purely positive methods based on scientific theories are so often hostile to traditional methods. I for one understand the principles that inform the method I use (this is both helpful and interesting, but not necessarily necessary). Behaviorism on the other hand is incapable of understanding those principles. Why? Because it has ruled them out of the equation as irrelevant. B.F Skinner was famous, amongst other things, for completely dismissing the internal states of animals (their minds) as irrelevant for predicting behavior. But this is the MOST important aspect of the training relationship - developing the dog's UNDERSTANDING. As far as the theory of operant conditioning has no place in its theory for the role that UNDERSTANDING plays in shaping the context of reinforcment (meaning what is reinforcing in one context, is not necessarily reinforcing in another) the theory is hopelessly superficial at best, and just plain wrong at worst. Unfortunately, the slavish idolization of science (and bad science at that) is what prevents people from understanding this.

Tess32, you don't need a theory to train a dog, what you need is a good method, tried and tested. Method and theory are not the same thing. One no more needs a theory to train a dog than one needs a theory in order to speak. What one needs is experience, either one's own, or much better still, the experience of a successful trainer to learn. Personally I do not trust trainers that quote theory. And that is not because I do not understand it.

The theory of operant conditioning is like the theory of the stockmarket - buy low, sell high - if you don't know the first thing about the stockmarket, what it is so to speak, then the advise to buy low, sell high is useful. Beyond that, it is all but useless. The same goes for operant conditioning, if you don't know the first thing about a dog or animal (what such things are) then operant conditioning is useful. But likewise, beyond that it is useless. Find a good trainer and forget about theory.

"You definitely don't need a check chain or yelling." No matter what the method, you don't need yelling. A person yelling at a dog is a sure sign of incompetence. See a trainer yelling at their dog no matter what the method - walk away very quickly.

MattandBuddy all methods of dog training rely on positive reinforcement. The difference is that some people believe that you should 'only' use positive reinforcement - and no it wont work for all dogs. Indeed it is debatable whether it would work for any dog. Even people who use purely positive methods incorporate some use of negative punishment. Neg Pun is simply taking something away from the dog - whether be attention, or something the dog wants, such as treat etc.

Connie a long lead is as long as you need it to be. Anyone can make one. Simply go to the local hardware store and get some rope and a bolt snap. My dog is a vizsla, and when walking offlead (and off command) he ranges between 30 to 40 feet in front of me. I used a 50' piece of rope (very light) to teach him a reliable recall. How long the rope needs to be depends on how close your dog normally stays when walking off-lead.

actually Jintanut, the trick to building a reliable recall is never, repeat, never allow your dog to fail at recall. This simply means keep the long line attached at all times (and preferably in your hand) until the recall is reliable under even the most distracting of circumstances.

Jintanut, before taking your dog to the park where the distractions are strong, either take the dog to a quiet area, or use your backyard to set up distractions. By controlling the distractions you will have much better control and your dog will learn quicker. The park should be the last place where you proof your dog under distraction, not the first. The trick is to gradually increase distraction over time. And to make sure that you are always in control.

As Tess32 said, it all depends on how you taught the recall in the first place. If you explain how you taught the recall then maybe someone can help.

Tim's Mum, "He doesn't do this when he is on the lead, only off leash and when he is slightly in front of either owner." When he is 'slightly in front' suggests to me that the dog is taking the alpha role and protecting his family. Other than suggesting obedience, I don't know what the solution to this problem is. Being able to call your dog back into the heel position I imagine would help. Best to seek an experience trainer.

"If the RSPCA wants to spend it's time hunting me down to charge me for having safe, polite, healthy, happy dogs then that's going to be their problem." Very nicely put, Kitkat.

Personally i'm not much for obedience clubs (at least not those I'm familar with, which are run by well intentioned amateurs) especially with a dog with a few behavioral problems. On the other hand, I don't think I would go near a dog training 'franchise'. If I was going to spend money I would be inclined to look for an experienced trainer with proven results. I would ask if I could watch their training and ask about their methods before I committed myself. A good trainer should be more than happy for you to watch their work and discuss their methods before you committed to training. good luck with whatever you decide

I use praise exclusively and it works fine. Though I am inclined to believe that someone with good experience with using food will tell you that if your dog isn't working unless there's food you haven't taught him properly. It's the same with any method, if you don't apply it correctly you'll have problems. Good luck with your training though...

Alainnah, if you are happy to give the check chain a go (not everyone is) then try and get a copy of 'The Koehler Method of Dog Training.' You might find a copy at your local library or if not you can get second hand copies at Amazon or other online bookstores. Follow the method exactly and the problem should be solved within a week or two. pgm

Poodlefan, I doubt my comments help Whisper in the slightest. As to that, I m not qualified, so I don't offer advice on particular problems. I simply find myself reacting to what strikes me as an overreaction whenever somebody mentions using physical corrections on dogs. So I will say it again, physical corrections when properly administered and applied do not create fearful, aggressive or confused dogs. Bad training does that, not physical corrections in and of themselves. Unlike most people here, I am of the opinion that in the long run it is better to instruct people on the proper techniques when using corrections than laying huge guilt trips on people such as saying the following: "What it comes down to is this - if he is not doing what you want, it's your fault. You are the trainer and you haven't trained him properly. If you can't make him do something without force, you are being a weak trainer". By the way, these coments are not directed at you Poodlefan - whilst we clearly hold different philosophies in regards to training I don't find your responses to be an overeaction. I just disagree, that's all... One more thing - why is that people imagine that if one uses physical corrections that one is therefore 'constantly' abusing the dog. What on earth prompts people to say the following? - "if a kid is constantly belittled and hit he/she grows into either fearfull or agressive adult..it is only 1 of those two things nothing else,and dogs are no exception..." That is an overeaction. If people disagree then perhaps they could direct me to a method that instructs handlers to 'constanty belittle and hit the dog'. Such a method does not exist - only the ignorant think otherwise.

Poodlefan, while I'm here, I really do not understand the following sentiment - "Now put yourself in your dogs shoes (or should that be paws). The dog is punished for doing something wrong even though its actions (to it) are natural and justified. It is confused and possibly fearful." Firstly, if the dog is left confused or fearful after being corrected, then the dog has not been trained properly in the first place. Corrections properly administered do not leave dogs confused or fearful. Secondly, I can see no relevence whatsoever as to whether the actions of a dog are natural or not. It is natural for dogs to run across the road - so what? Does that mean we shouldn't correct them? Corrections are used to teach dogs how to behave responsibly in an enviroment that is not natural. Surely that is what training a dog in the first place is all about?

poodlefan, children do not learn language by being taught a theory. Neither is it necessary for the teacher to have a theory in order to teach. 'Pure theory' is completely superflous - indeed, 'pure theory' is an illusion. Having a method based on trial and error (experience) is another thing. Method is not equivilent to theory. Method can be passed on perfectly easily, and need not involve theory in the slightest. Furthermore, theory is never pure. It is always based on some set of governing assumptions. The difference between say, behaviorism and Koehler (to speak of the 1950's) is the different set of assumptions that each bring to the dog or animal. Personally, I have yet to read a behaviorist that actually understands Koehler. Why? Because they seem incapable of understanding, let alone recognizing, that Koehler works from a very different set of assumptions, than does the behaviorist.

Poodlefan, not meaning to have a go at you, but I simply can't agree with the statement - "Most methods these days are based on understanding dog behavior better." Most methods "these days" are based in one way or another on scientific behaviorism. It does not follow in the least that because you have a scientific explanation that you therefore have better understanding. Anymore than having a linguistic theory (science of grammar) will make you a better writer. I trust practical experience far more than any theory.

whisper, you are getting growled at because you are using physical corrections on your dog. Ignore the growling and check out K9 Force. The triangle of temptation is an excellent method. pgm