Simply Grand

Oh that's fantastic! What a great thing to do. I will look into it to see if any of mine could help with this.

If you want the behaviour to completely extinguish you do need to remove the reward the dog gets from it. Jumping up is rewarding in itself, and also getting a food reward sometimes from someone the dog has jumped on will make it very difficult to stop the behaviour. Training an incompatible behaviour (mine for Quinn is "stay down" which means feet on the ground when you greet that person) and removing the opportunity for any reward for jumping has meant that Quinn's default greeting for people, even little kids (which she loves!!!) is now feet on the ground. I still give her regular cues and rewards but I am confident now that she can greet people without jumping on them in her previous boof head manner. ETA I just re-read that you only let her have treats if her feet on the ground, do you mean only if she hasn't jumped at all, or after she has jumped she goes back to feet on the floor THEN gets the treat? If it's the latter I'd say she hasn't realised that the jumping up is undesirable because she gets the self-reward of jumping for that then another reward for feet on the floor.

Yep, it is operant conditioning thistle :) The whole of the squares thing is operant conditioning, and the terms don't matter so much if you understand the concepts, they just make it easier to explain (or maybe not :laugh: ) The shelter dog or brand new puppy scenario is quite clean cut for that type of training because it's starting right at the basics. As we build relationships and training histories with our dogs it tends to get much more blurry (for lack of a better word) and we can away with a lot more without it damaging our training too much. I say no or nup without really thinking about it if my own dogs offer me a different trick-type behaviour that what I'm asking for, and I've been known to say in the deep scary voice "don't even think about it" when Quinn is about to steal something off the bench. I tell them stop it, don't do that please etc in a conversational tone, and say can you come over here please, can I have that please, thank you etc all the time in everyday life because the dogs and I have enough history now that they understand what I want without the needing the whole training protocol. But if I am teaching something new, or if I manage to get my butt back in gear for sports, then I am much more careful about being clear with my cues, timing, consistency, rewards etc.

Karen, I'm assuming you are asking about in the case of the shelter dog training? It's because they don't know the cues yet. They haven't learnt than when I say "sit" I mean "put your bum on the ground and stay there". Saying it would just be noise to them. But without any prior training they can quickly understand that "when my bum is on the ground I get something yummy". You add the cue in afterwards, once they have the behaviour. We also want the desirable behaviour to be the default, without them having to be given the cue - as in, if you aren't told to do anything else, please put your bum on thr ground and stay there, if we are walking and you haven't been told something specific please keep the lead loose, etc Incidentally we taught exactly the same techniques in puppy classes, with the aim of avoiding the problem behaviours ever starting but with the same idea that an 8 week old puppy has no idea what human words mean yet but can understand "when I do this I get something good".

No and yes. Does anyone have links to people professing to train effectively in that no limits way? Are they REALLY doing or just saying they are because they conveniently don't consider things like using a collar and lead, shutting doors, teaching meal time manners etc as outside the "positive only" sphere? ETA sorry, I shouldn't assume, does anyone here train without doing anything to inhibit undesirable behaviours, only rewarding desirable ones? And if so, what the results been?

Sorry for my random, train of thought posts..! I feel like there is also confusion around the term "correction". In a lot of the stuff I've read, including the OP article, it says that a "correction" is something like a collar pop, tap, hair pull (!?!), or in Cesar's case a kick, that is to interrupt the dog's train of thought and get its attention back on the handler. That a "correction" is not a "punishment". But "correction" also seems to be mean a consequence that makes the dog behave differently, specifically to stop doing an undesirable behaviour. Well, that is a punishment, isn't it? And different from just getting the dog's attention.

Good blog When we would start to work with shelter dogs that were untrained and boisterous and had terrible lead and door and mealtime manners we never told them "no" (or stop or don't or whatever), we wouldn't say anything to them, they would just not be given access to the thing they wanted until they showed more desirable behaviour. So when they got excited and jumped around at having contact with a human the human would stand still and straight and not look at or touch the dog until it stopped jumping around a had a moment of four feet on the floor, which would then be marked and rewarded. If they pulled on the leash the person would stop, stand still and not look at or touch the dog until the dog moved to a position where the lead was loose, then the dog would gain the reward of moving on again. If they went to barge out open doors the door would simply be closed again, until the dog showed a more desirable behaviour of sitting or standing still, then the dog would get what it wanted, to through the door. We used clickers and food rewards as well as the "life rewards" like walking on and going through the door, so it was possible to do the whole thing without using any words at all, but it could certainly be done only ever using the word "yes", never telling the dog "no", and never using "force" or "correction" (bear with me on those terms, I can't think of better ones to use) (Oh, and we didn't do it without words or touch, we used lots of praise and pats, but technically it could have been done without them). So is that the kind of training people refer to as "positive only"? Or are there really people out there who take the approach of not doing anything at all to inhibit undesirable (and dangerous) behaviours and literally just ignore them and reward the good? Surely that's not the case, and as Denise says in that latest blog, people are getting confused around terminology and then digging their heels in to say whatever "the other side" is saying is completely wrong (not people in this thread, just in general).

Not really. For that to be the case, you would see a reduction across the board of that behaviour that failed to be rewarded. This usually results in general behavioural suppression, which is a pain in the arse for training. Rather, the behaviours that are not rewarded are abandoned through extinction. ...I made a second attempt to digest this, but na, I don't get it...???... I think she is saying that if the dog saw not getting the reward every time they do the behaviour as a punishment it would stop attempting the behaviour at all. They don't generally though, as long as they get rewarded frequently enough to know the opportunity is there they keep attempting the behaviour - and that goes for both behaviours we purposely train and self-rewarding things like stealing off the counter. And when behaviours stop under these circumstances it is because of extinction due to lack of reward, not because the behaviours are being punished. ETA - Corvus answered for herself while I was posting :laugh:

Giving the ticket is a consequence. The fine involved is intended to be a positive punishment, as in it is added to the situation in an attempt to reduce the behaviour. Whether it is an effective punishment depends on whether the behaviour reduces or not. Were you at the point where your licence was taken away as a result of the ticket that would be intended to be a negative punishment, in that a privilege was taken away from the situation in an attempt to reduce the behaviour. I'm not sure what your point is.

Ahh, it was to do with CMs' stuff starting to influence pet dog owners here in UK, they had enough of ineffective, expensive 'reward training', (which in fact is an attempt to use negative punishment as a base) and when CM, came on TV here he started to influence them as the way to go.....the same pet dog owners were potential clients or ex clients of reward trainers so Casey & the rest of them started to slag CM off to try to discredit him and put their own client base at risk........lol, instead they ended up with those vids filling about 2 3rds of page 1 of a google search for her name + the uni lawyer trying to stop them.......so thats how come those vids emerged...... . I think Cesar Millan's 'The Dog Whisperer' was one of the earliest dog training tv shows. He has been around a long time. And if you watch The Dog Whisperer throughout the seasons from 1 to 9 you can see how even Cesar has changed his methods to incorporate more reward based training. I'm pretty sure even Cesar would not claim his techniques were a response to people being unhappy with "expensive, ineffective reward training" ?!?

I'm wondering how much of this "argument" about positive only training vs other methods comes down to confusion about terminology... Words like positive, punishment, correction clearly mean different things in different contexts and to different people. And there is also apparently a lack of understanding about different methodologies. The article in Perse's OP talks about the use of luring and "cookie" and how using them means dogs won't work when they can't see the cookies, but the showing the food, luring and rewarding every time is only the beginning of the process of using positive reinforcement to train. If you don't get past the point of needing to have the food or toy reward visible to the dog, or even having it at all, in order for the dog to perform you haven't finished the training process, or haven't done it correctly. I also wonder how many people actually do use 100% positive reinforcement only, even they believe or say they do (and I don't think there are that many around that even claim that). Never saying the word "no" doesn't mean that someone never uses negative reinforcement or punishment. For example the article refers to moving away when a dog jumps on you as part of positive only training, but that is actually (according operant condition) positive punishment - dog jumps up, something unpleasant happens ie human moves away - so I think there is some confusion going on.

If they are on limit reg the certificate will say limit reg, so if it doesn't say either way, then yep, main.

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me, and clear for everyone involved.

Yup, Saxon my poodle cross is probably Boxer puppy sized as an adult (5.5kgs-ish) and he fits an extra small or small car harness. You could start Sebastian probably in a small at 11 weeks and it would last a while as he grows. You will need to replace everything a few times as he gets bigger, but that's part of the fun! If you have space for a crate in the car and prefer to use that that's great too, I just find harnesses easier.

What a good update, it sounds like you've found a great match with your breeder. I agree that Kikopup on YouTube is great for training stuff. And also yes, as the breeder has done some good early socialisation and you have some safe doggy friends I think you will be fine waiting until Sebastian is old enough for beginner obedience. You will need a car harness at least, unless Sebastian is going to travel in a crate, I really hate the thought of dogs being strapped in by a collar, imagine the pressure on the neck of the brakes are slammed on. I also walk my dogs in harnesses for various reasons, although they walk fine on collars too, polite walking is about training, not just the tools, so go with whatever you feel comfortable using. Incidentally, my oldest dog Saxon got his name when I dreamed I got a puppy called Saxon and it suits him perfectly too :D

Oh, great to hear :) They are such funny, unique little dogs.

If you need a temporary carer I am just settled in Ipswich, have a Sheltie and know their quirks and can take one into care if needed (unless there are contagion issues). But the breeder would be a better option of course.

Oh my god, how awful.

And (general comment not aimed at anyone in particular) people complain about other people who shouldn't be breeding producing all these dogs that end up in pounds and shelters but don't do anything about it, then when the RSPCA does at least put out something to try and discourage people breeding irresponsibly they dismiss then as having no idea about breeding as though they shouldn't be saying anything?? Maybe the RSPCA do know something about the side of it that isn't responsible ANKC breeders because they see the outcome of it every day (see my previous post).

Having worked in a shelter I believe the people breeding the dogs do play a large role in the dogs ending up there. Breeding with no thought to who is going to take the puppies, breeding dogs that have problem behaviors and shouldn't be bred from (resulting in very young puppies showing behaviors like aggression and resource guarding), not providing early socialisation to puppies (as in before 6 weeks) resulting in pups that are fearful and not confident, selling off pups at 6 weeks old so they miss that critical doggy manners period with mum and littermates, having no regard for the health of either parents or puppies, selling to whoever pays the money without confirming Rey are a suitable home and know what they are in for, providing no advice on what to expect or how to deal with problem behaviors, and taking no responsibility for taking back the dogs they have bred if there are problems. Yes, plenty of people buy a cute puppy on impulse with no idea of what they are in for, chuck it in the back yard with no training, stimulation or socialization and then find it too hard and surrender it, or just don't reclaim it when it escapes, but a responsible breeder (regardless of whether they are breeding pedigree dogs or not) greatly reduces the chance of that happening by addressing all the points I listed above.

Nothing wrong with a bit of anthropomorphising in my view! But - remembering that DOLers are not the average dog owner - many people use the "guilty look" to justify punishment. Dog becomes anxious, problem doesn't get solved, owner gets angry etc. I see a lot of this with regular pet owners!!! Off to try and pull my head in :D Yes. Plus I think it's interesting and useful to know when things are supported by research rather than just anecdotal evidence.

Yep Thistle, I'd suggest (although hard without seeing) that the dog Thistle licked was giving off "I am an assertive/dominant dog but I am happy to deal with dogs who recognize that" vibes. I say that because my girl Quinn, being the confident, bossy bitch that she is often gets lip licks from dogs that do have good dog/dog interaction awareness but are a little unsure. I've posted before about how Quinn is a very assertive dog who does not tolerate really rude dog behaviour and will react to aggression towards her or my other dogs, but she is very tolerant and appropriate with fearful dogs/puppies/boisterous but respond to doggy body language type dogs. When she gets the mouth licking she will generally stand there for a bit, move her head around to try and avoid it once it gets annoying and eventually walk away. She probably won't play with those dogs but won't tell them off either and if we see them regularly they generally become on of her "friend" dogs.

In seriousness though, yes. And like Mrs RB says, they are masters of association and will pick up on way more than we realise we are giving them. ETA - or not necessarily even full on fear but discomfort that "my human's reaction is not, or has not in the past with similar cues, been relaxed and happy, what does this mean?" And therefore caution...

Hahaha I was going to say the same about mine! I don't think Aussie Shepherds feel guilt in the slightest, ever

Sorry to crash the thread but I thought of it twice today! First I was at a fenced dog park that we occasionally go to and saw a very scared looking Whippet go running past outside the park all on her own, I called her but she wasn't stopping. A few minutes later a lady came past the park and asked if I'd seen her, explained that she'd just been rehomed from rescue and had escaped her new home and bolted I really hope they found her. Then tonight I got home, in the dark, to the place I'm staying temporarily and let my dogs out the back as per usual then went about putting my stuff away inside. After a few minutes I realized I couldn't hear the dogs outside (you know that suspicious silence?!?) and went out to find someone had opened the side gate which has been closed the whole time we've been here. I ran out to the street and called and thankfully the two escapees (Quinn and Riley) seemed to be just checking out the neighbour's front yards and came running from up the street looking very happy with themselves. They may be naughty and need constant watching so as not to destroy anything (well, not too much anyway) in my lovely hosts' house but thank goodness they are not inclined to bolt and have good recall!! Oh, and Saxon, as per usual thinking he is one of the humans, just stayed by the back door whinging to be let back in with us :laugh: