Aidan3

M-sass, it's my opinion that you are not experienced or competent enough with behaviour modification, particularly positive reinforcement, extinction procedures, functional negative reinforcement, classical conditioning and classical inhibition to have an opinion. Is that fair? In any case, not recommending a prong says nothing about my experience with correction collars. You make a lot of assumptions.

You posts reflected that your mind is closed to the likes of prongs etc and I recalled seeing a photo of the dog wearing a prong said to belong to your training group and assumed that you do use prongs when required in certain cases? There are a lot of trainers who will not have anything to do with aversive tools and methods whatsoever and they take on dogs way beyond their training capabilities which are the character of dogs easily remedied with aversive methods and they restrict people achieving good results by limiting their regimes to select methods only which may not be the most appropriate methods for the particular dog. My point depending on the character of the dog, if a behavioural issue needs to be addressed, a trainer with a full toolbox with experience of using a 'full' complement of tools and methods is more appropriately equipped to handle a wider range of issues than a trainer who knows only one method with limited tooling??. Nope, I've never recommended a prong. You seem to have this idea that the dogs a person is equipped to handle is correlated with the number of tools they use. Sorry, but it's not about the tool. What is "method-pushing" (your label) if not what you've written above? Who are you to decide for dog trainers what the "most appropriate method" is? You're entitled to your opinion, but what you've written above is a judgment of the ability of other trainers which is based on opinions, not facts.

Probably, I had one recently who came wearing one. Same dog went to a big doggy charity event without one just recently, and was marvellously behaved. I'm not sure if his owner is on DOL, but she might chime in if she is. I've never claimed to be 'purely positive'. I have used aversive tools but not directly in dog aggression behaviour mod. But you missed the point anyway, I am pragmatic, I use aversives, but I do not argue that they are necessary or that anyone who doesn't use them is incompetent. Eta: and no, I did not recommend the prong collar for that client. Another behaviourist did.

Well I'm glad that at least you acknowledge that it's purely your opinion, because those of us who can and do would understandably hold a different opinion :laugh: Given that the OP's dog is a Labrador, a breed at least as biddable and handler-focused as a GSD or Kelpie, it's good to know that even m-sass thinks the "mamby-pamby" methods have a shot.

A recall is a very good example. If the reward is there every time the dog comes to you, there is no incentive to get there quickly - as the reward will still be there when they eventually do. They can therefore do what they want until they are ready to come and get the reward. No that is about criteria. If you only reward fast recalls you will get fast recalls. If you reward anything as long as the dog comes back you will define "come" as come whenever the heck you feel like it. But that is a variable schedule - as you are not rewarding the dog for every time it comes on command, just when it comes fast on command. The variable schedule is used to 'shape' the behaviour. It's continuous differential reinforcement.

I only have one dog right now, so his place is well established and unchanging :laugh: Poor guy will have to pre-chew his own bones, though.

A day where I can just go for a walk without having to get back in time for something else. One can dream...

If you give a reward every time you will [probably] get more of that behaviour, it just might not be exactly what you want. I most often see this with poor recalls. Dog receives reward because owner is relieved and wants it to be a good experience, but fails to improve the recall.

I prefer not to use Haltis on reactive dogs because they are mostly inconsistent with the way I work (I like the dog to be engaged and making choices). Some veterinary behaviourists use Haltis to limit the dog's options dramatically, which is fine, and can yield an easy to handle dog - but I like to get a bit more than that if I can. DOLer "Snook" has been having great results with a behaviourist in SA, I suggest you contact her.

Fair point, but remember that some people enjoy these sorts of discussions. However, with clients I rarely discuss theory (unless they want to) and usually present some limited "rules" or "methods" that I think will work best for them. For example, I often use the "300 Peck" method for increasing criteria. I don't use differential reinforcement or even variable schedules because it's hard for people to know when to change schedules.

Sorry, I'm really busy. You'll need to tell me exactly which one says somewhere that continuous reinforcement weakens responses and preferably where. Maybe Aidan has a reference for this? I thought espinay2's comment was fine, making a behaviour more erratic is weakening it, on average. Continuous reinforcement also weakens resistance to extinction. Some analogies are useful in this sort of discussion, but they quickly turn into a game of "spot the difference" because all analogies break down at some point. The sort of behaviour we ask of dogs is usually choice, and often a different choice to that which they would make in the absence of training.

I'm not sure that any poster here has said that their way is the "only" right way except for those who insist that you have to use a "full toolbox". What some of us take exception to is the insistence that "method X doesn't work for every dog" because they've seen whatever method used some way that didn't work. Or that "method Y" is "necessary with some dogs". The fact that method Y works does not provide evidence that it is necessary.

I'm a "mamby-pamby" trainer and I've never had this sort of problem. Maybe I've been lucky? Glad the OP is going to see a behaviourist and vet.

Really? Says who? I just keep hitting that channel button on my television remote control, regardless of the fact it seems to result in the channel changing every time. Skinner for one ;) It changes the channel, but I am betting not every show on the box you get when you do is a reward! That is why you keep hitting it. Bob Bailey makes the point that ABE used Differential Reinforcement, which is Continuous Reinforcement but only for above par responses. Continuous Reinforcement does produce inconsistent and unreliable behaviours. People who reinforce inconsistent responses get what they reinforce! Continuous reinforcement is also easier to extinguish when not reinforced. This has been amply demonstrated in the lab and in real world dog training. However, for obedience I think a lot of people are switching to a variable schedule far too soon. Variable schedules also produce a lot of variance in responses.

I'm not surprised, sounds like there are plenty of dogs in training out there, whether it be with reward or correction. I laugh when a certain ecollar guru brags about how reliable his dogs are, yet he always seems to have a finger hovering over the button.

I think there are some assumptions being made about the Lab in the other thread. If a dog doesn't learn that it's inappropriate to bite, that doesn't mean that it's status seeking when it does. This is the dangerous assumption with dominance in training. Although we've largely moved on from the Woodhouse or Koehler approach to this sort of problem, there's still a lot of superstitious behaviour modification that fails to address the problem safely or adequately in its place, based on assumptions about pack structure rather than actual behaviour.

Great answer.

None of my food trained dogs have needed me to have food in order for them to work for me. I wouldn't say they were "trained" if that were the case.

Double post

Hierarchy is contextual, it changes depending on the situation. This has lead a lot of people to wonder whether we might be better off attributing it simply to reward and punishment? In wild groups of dogs who do have a hierarchy which is useful for cooperation and survival, the highest ranked dog does not eat first. 99% of what you will hear about hierarchy is nonsense.

Probably yes, but the harness may be easier for some handlers, especially inexperienced ones like myself. A harness does a brilliant job of getting the leash out of the way completely. My old girl usually wore a harness because she was usually dragging a long line. What happpened if she dragged a long line from a neck collar? They step on them, and if they get snagged on a rock it gives them a collar pop. Not a big problem though.

How do you know she "needed" it? I think that's the point corvus was making, just because something works doesn't mean it was necessary. It's more important to know that you are competent and not doing harm. We tried many different avenues and this is what she responded to and it suited her abrupt yet forceful nature. The arguments go that "some dogs need this, some dogs need that". I doubt that anything is truly "necessary" in training a dog. What you really mean is "I had success training one dog with a check chain, and I was not successful in training this same dog a different way". Chances are there are probably other people who would have had success training your dog a different way. I don't know how many dogs I have trained, but I take very few dogs who are not reactive or aggressive, and I have never needed to use a check chain. This is not a value judgment on the myriad of different ways that a dog can be trained, it's just a statement based on probability. It might sound like an argument in semantics, but the reality is that it seems a majority of people truly believe that certain things are "necessary" - as in "there is no other way to do this" - which implies that because someone else doesn't do it that way, that person must be wrong. Well I resent that, and I think we all should. I don't say people "need" to be able to use food, because clearly they don't. (The exception is when they're paying me to help them with their aggressive dog, because if they don't do what I tell them and their dog doesn't get any better, that reflects badly on me, and puts others at risk.)

How do you know she "needed" it? I think that's the point corvus was making, just because something works doesn't mean it was necessary. It's more important to know that you are competent and not doing harm.

Yep - the trainers were feeding my Labrahoover from their bumbags - and not just when we were training either... even after I expressly asked them not to... If my dog is doing what is asked of it, and enjoying the praise and/or pat when doing it well, why persist in insisting that it needs to be fed as well? There is no need. My current dog is not trained with food. He is one of those rare dogs who finds praise and attention almost as valuable as food, at least for what I ask him to do. I realise that there are lots of dogs who find praise and attention reinforcing, but it is rare for praise to be almost as valuable as food. He comes when called, even if he is playing with another dog. He walks reasonably nicely on lead (I do have higher standards for this usually, but he is better than most even when excited to be getting out the door). I have no idea of what their agenda allegedly is, but their method sounds highly dubious. I train with food. All of my client's dogs are trained with food. They are not clients because their dog is easy to train or safe to be around, and they need to be trained to a reliable standard. They do not "only work when food is on offer" and they do not mug others for their bum-bags. These are utterly basic principles, but I suppose not everyone got the memo? Food is a universal reinforcer. All animals depend on food for survival so all animals have evolved a "reward system" that puts food as a very high priority in modifying their behaviour. It doesn't really matter what sort of dog they are or what sort of temperament they have, but people will still manage to find ways to stuff it up :laugh:

No assumptions need to be made about the Calgary model. They collected the data, it works.