Kristov

Extinction training doesn't always work because behaviour can be reinforced by someone else and/or takes too long to achieve in the case of a large dog jumping up on a small child. I didn't say that it was always viable (although it does always work, it's just not always possible). I was responding to the assertion that "purely positive" was a misnomer because it necessarily includes negative punishment. The story goes that withholding a reinforcer is punishment, but this is incorrect (and probably irrelevant anyway). What I meant was that it's not always practical, can take far too long to achieve and the unwanted behaviour can quite easily return. I do like extinction training, but not for stopping behaviours that have the potential for harm/hurt or injury to any party. So what are we saying here, if a harmful behaviour like a big dog jumping up on a small child you could bring out the prong and give the dog a couple of good corrections, but if the dog was jumping up on a large adult causing no immediate harm or risk, you would use extinction training???. :D Kristov, it means exactly what it reads. The method a trainer decides to use should be based on many different factors of the situation... ie.,.capabilities of the owner, probability of inadvertent re-reinforcement of the unwanted behaviour, potential harm which can be caused by the behaviour, is the behaviour learned, instinctual or genetic based? The list goes on and on. No clear cut answers and no "one method fits all" approach. That was the point of my post. I am referring to your statement bolded above and in fact I agree with you totally ;) Extinction training is slow going, yes it's useful and yes it works, but there are faster ways of ending a behaviour and in the case of a behaviour that poses danger, I would personally use an aversive to nip something in the bud as fast as possible and the level of aversion or tools used I would guage on the genetics of the dog. Dogs jumping up on people is a flat across the board no no for a pet dog, an intolorable behaviour IMHO and has no value in the dog's future. I wouldn't not correct a dog training in Schutzhund or protection work for jumping up with an aversive when needing the dog to jump up in other applications and would take an entirely different approach. Neither would I use aversives for reshaping inapproptiate aggression dispalys with a dog training in protection unless abslolutely necessary, but a pet displaying aggression my approach would be entirely different.

Extinction training doesn't always work because behaviour can be reinforced by someone else and/or takes too long to achieve in the case of a large dog jumping up on a small child. I didn't say that it was always viable (although it does always work, it's just not always possible). I was responding to the assertion that "purely positive" was a misnomer because it necessarily includes negative punishment. The story goes that withholding a reinforcer is punishment, but this is incorrect (and probably irrelevant anyway). What I meant was that it's not always practical, can take far too long to achieve and the unwanted behaviour can quite easily return. I do like extinction training, but not for stopping behaviours that have the potential for harm/hurt or injury to any party. ;) So what are we saying here, if a harmful behaviour like a big dog jumping up on a small child you could bring out the prong and give the dog a couple of good corrections, but if the dog was jumping up on a large adult causing no immediate harm or risk, you would use extinction training???.

Did you miss the first post? Do you know what methods Bark Busters and Cesar Milan use? How is this about "positive only methods"? Bark Busters are relatively clear on their website about the role of "reprimands" in their training approach. We've all seen how CM uses aversives by now. This is NOT one of your "quite often" scenarios. And what's more, so far every lay person in my area I've spoken to who has hired a private trainer has hired BB, and one on numerous recommendations from others. So I think that your reasoning is a weak front for getting back up on your usual soap box about trainers misleading the public through their "positive only" methods that apparently don't work for every dog. Please, keep to the topic, or at least try to make your rants relevant to it. That's my answer to your definition of the thread Corvus, if you want on topic anwsers provide on topic definitions ;) You asked for spreads of training information and what leads people to make choices etc etc, that's what I answered, what you asked to discuss

A lot of the information spread about dog training to lay people promoted by training organisations is about training methods and quite often the highlight is about using positive only methods and the reasons why they don't use aversives as their marketing campaign to promote themselves as better trainers than the one's who use both. To a lay person the fact that no aversives will be used on their dog is an attractive option they will often go with. That IMHO is a spread of misinformation because before long, the training organisation that doesn't use aversives will hired to train a dog that responds to aversives best of all and the customer is going to get messed around and waste their money.

No doubt there are plenty of trainers out there who you have described quite accurately, but your history of animal training and learning theory and the motivation behind using predominantly +R has a few gaps. Whilst animal welfare is an important aspect of our training procedures, some rather cold and unemotional science is behind the push for the emphasis on +R contingencies, and that began with Skinner. If +R contingencies are leading to slower learning, then we can quite comfortably blame the trainer and not the learner or the technology. Or we might look at the observer, "slower" is relative and I think a lot of people only see what is immediately in front of them without any basis for comparison. Sometimes we "make haste slowly". You can't build fine furniture with a chainsaw. Winifred Strickland probably had a lot of wash-outs. Selection (which I think is very important in the breeding of dogs) is a big part of Schutzhund (or was). A lot of dogs don't do well with a slap on the nose, and arguably those dogs won't be producing the best workers, but then again those dogs who can bounce back from a slap on the nose would probably also be exceptional with the methods we find more acceptable today - and let's face it - Schutzhund has better tests of courage and hardness than whatever abuse the handler can dish out. What I don't see taken into account enough is the temperament and character of the individual dog where a dog will either respond best with positive reinforcement or punishment and using the less responsive method for the particular dog is a detriment in the training process and results whether that be positive or punishment. An example (true story) is a lady attending obedience class with a disruptive non responsive dog to positive methods lacking focus in distractions in a class where correction collars not allowed. The reason why the class restricts correction collars is due their policy of providing positive humane training methods, fair enough, understandable concept. After a few classes this lady attended with little result, she was moved away from the group as her dog was disruptive to others as her dog failed to respond as the other dogs did in the methods provided. She hired a trainer who assessed her dog as needing prong collar training to correct the behaviour which she did with instantaneous results. Back at the class, she attends using a new prong with a cover that at a glance looks like a flat collar and she was the star performer on the night and was congratulated with claps all round what a wonderful improvement she had made with the dog. She then revealed the prong collar and they freaked out and threatened to ban her membership from the class obviously in breach of their collar guidelines. The point is, that isn't a dog training class, it's a class for training dogs that respond to particular methods, so what happens to the non responsive dogs, tough luck or wash the dog out???.

Yes, I agree most definitely that positive reinforcement is used more today then ever before, but the question is: Is it used as more to avoid the use of aversives or because it provides a better training result???.

Drive training and positive reinforcement as we know it today began in the '60's and was largely recognised in trial dogs trained by Winifred Strickland who was one of the first to beat Koehler trained dogs in competition. Not because the Keohler trained dogs lacked precision, because Strickland had extracted animation in her routines popular with trial judges. Where the Koehler trained dogs performed in robotic fashion, Strickland's dogs had bounce in their step and "happy feet" as it was once referred, in other words it was noticable that her dogs enjoyed the work and provided a more glamorous performance. Strickland didn't develop her training methods to avoid using aversions, in fact, she was masterful at the smack on the nose punishment regimes and issued her fair share of corrections and aversive measures, but coupled with positive reinforcement to extract the animated routines. As time evolved and certain groups opposed to the use of aversives began to run with positive reinforcement methods, what was once a balanced approach that Strickland promoted to extract animation in trial routines, turned into an obsession about training dogs without them ever learning the effects of an aversive consequence. Where the concept of positive reinforcement gets out of hand which occurs in many modern training systems, is the emphasis on a ritual in almost a cult like obsession that a dog should never be physically corrected or suffer an aversive punishment. The emphasis is not about successfully training a dog, it's about sparing the dog an aversive experience where often a rediculous amount of routines are formulated with multi step time consumimg procedures to modify a behaviour that could be nipped in the bud instantly with a good leash correction. Training systems based on obsessions that dogs should never experience aversive punishment will work with some dogs, but not all, and a good training system IMHO is one that embraces every trick and tool available with a trainer open minded and knowledgable enough to read dog behaviour and apply what ever method is best suited to a particular dog.

Yes, I totally agree. I know with my mally she's so much more reactive and sensitive than my stafford, and her thresholds to go into drive are so much lower, she's quite a lot more difficult to handle in some ways than my old boy was (although easier in some ways too). Although I think it would be easier for a first time competitor to raise & train a high drive dog if they had an experienced training mentor to hold their hand and supervise them and give them advice. Which is sort of the point Kristov is making about training clubs, I think. GSD's and Rottweilers are similar in character and less tempermental than the Malinois and easier to get a handle on for the novice trainer I think, but many novice trainers who begin with a Malinios under guidence of a mentor do quite well. Often it's the experienced GSD handlers who struggle with the Malinios differences. GSD's and Rotties are a bit more forgiving to training errors where incorrect training is more easily ammended than it is with the Malinois. For the novice trainer, it's harder to mess up the GSD and Rotty from training error and provides a bit more buffer between getting it right and wrong.

There are specific breeds allowed under the FCI although some overseas clubs will train any breed but ultimately GSD's, Malinios, Rottweiller and the odd Doberman are the most common and the breeds that achieve the highest ratings. I don't think Labradors are sanctioned but there are some more rare breeds that are although I don't believe are very successful as a general rule.

In agility I have seen experienced handlers who have done very well with a different breed decide that to be more competitive they needed a Border Collie, but haven't yet figured out how to handle their Border Collie as well as they handled their other breed, as well as novice handlers with driven dogs who struggle with control. Schutzhund basically revolves around 3 breeds with similar work ethics which is more easily contained in a club training environment where I guess agility with so many variants, it's almost a free for all in a training perspective to provide personal tuition suitable for such a large range of breeds and character differences.

thanks for that, so can you explain the theory of this a bit more? Why would you sometimes want a dog responding to commands in low/medium drive & other times in high drive for the same commands? Is this a schutzhund technique? I also notice that the dog trots away with the ball...would you want/expect the same when the dog is in a higher drive? Do you work your own dogs on the same commands in both low & high drive? Sorry, so many questions, I'm always keen to learn new techniques & the theories behind them The medium low drive training with dogs with a high levels of prey drive is to suppress the drive to gain obedience, otherwise through puppyhood, they can easily develop into complete nut cases at the sight of a prey item with no self control so ideally, it's good to be able to turn the drive up and down to the level required for the particular task. The dog trots off after claiming the prey (ball) in an act of possession as he had to work to win it, so you let him have it then train him to bring it back and game starts over as the chase and capture is the satisfying enjoyable component for the dog, the reward for the work done. I use the same commands from low to high drive routines basically which are all based on marker words, command and release for reward. by speeding up the routine and teasing the dog before release for reward elevates drive. Tone and pitch of voice can also elevate and suppress drive also.

I'm confused. The dog in the other videos is responding to commands and the handler is using in tug & a ball. What is the point of asking for all that stuff while the dog is not in drive? How & when does the dog become extreme/ramped up? Just curious The dog in the video is in a low drive state, but yes it is working in drive essentially which is correct. If the dog is teased on a back tie to heighten the drive and build aggression from frustration then released, the intensity level is much higher and faster. Here is the same dog ramped up in heightened drive playing ball in comparison to a simple command and release catch as shown in the video.

Yes absolutely which is often evident with dogs of thin nerve where they will work pefectly in the back yard or a familiar field but taking them into a different environment with higher distraction levels, much of the focus goes out the window.

I don't think the original poster was thinking about competing in Schutzhund. She stated obedience and she probably meant agility etc. The most scary combination I have seen at dog club was the novice owners with a Malinos. That was just a time bomb waiting to go off. The dog was biting its owners leg as a puppy. There is simply no point in getting a high drive dog if you can't train it and you not going to have success if you can't train the dog. Top handler + high drive dog = no problems Low drive dog + anyone = various levels of frustration. Usually a super pet though. Medium drive dog + average handler = lots of fun, titles & some wins If you want to be competitive then I would also get a suitable breed. If you want to prove something with a different breed then fine, no worries but own it and don't whinge about the easy to train border collies beating you (sorry major annoyance of mine ). We can't work on that principal in Schutzhund having a low drive dog for novice handlers because the low driven dogs are too hard to train and can't do the work required. They join the club as a novice with a high drive dog to learn how to handle and train their dog. I agree there is no point getting a high drive dog if you can't train it, but isn't that why they join the club to learn???. I have never seen a novice high drive combination fail under club instruction, and the failures are generally the low drive dogs that don't perform well enough or they give up from having an unsuitable dog. I don't see why obedience and agility is any different unless the clubs conducting those sports don't provide training tuition to the novice handlers as they do in Schutzhund.

That's not a sign of protection, it's fear aggression common in GSD's bred with thin nerve. I agree that professional help needs to be sourced as the behaviour becomes worse with age if not addressed. I would also contact the breeder if the pup is a registered GSD breeding and inform them of the situation as more than likely, the rest of the litter are the same and the thin nerves need to be removed from their breeding program.