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.

I'm not saying the methods used will be exactly the same, but what I have learnt from having my dog and training her has given me so much that will assist with any dog I own or train. I wouldn't even know about drive if it wasn't for my beagle, that knowledge is something I can use with the next dog I get. You said that handlers with lower drive dogs get nothing out of training that dog apart from learning they should get a higher drive dog next time. I personally think that's bullshit. Compared to other beagles she would be one of if not the most driviest I've met, not just for food, but scent wise for sure. She has a very high instinct to scent so in that regard she probably isn't low drive (for the breed). Thanks that's very nice of you A high drive dog is only more suitable and easier to train IF the right methods are used. You basically said if the dog isn't a super high drive dog, don't bother training it for competition. Realistically, if only owners with WL high drive dogs competed we'd cut a massive number of competitors out of dog sports. I see people competing with dogs that aren't high drive all the time and you know what - a lot of them are thrilled with how their dogs work. They have no desire to live with or train a super high drive dog. Yet they still train and compete with a dog that isn't super high drive and have a great time. I also agree totally with what Vickie has said in her posts - there are dogs that owners may think are low drive that have a lot more potential with the right training methods than the owners realise. If we only bother training high drive dogs a lot of dogs that could do well if trained the right way would be written off entirely. Ok, thanks. Just curious because watching the other videos of the dog it doesn't seem that extreme in it's drive. I mean, even my beagle has faster sits and downs. JMO. If dogs assumed to be low drive are doing ok, I doub't their drive is that low. What Kavik described with one of hers sounds genuine low drive especially she has a GSD and Kelpies. Her low drive dog as she explained would be a pain to train in motivation. Perhaps Kavik can answer what benefits she gained in training her low drive dog compared with the high being in a position to provide a perspective, I haven't personally gained anything of value from low drive dogs compared with the training of higher drives???. The GSD pup isn't in drive in the video's, he's just meandering around, ramped up is a different story

I agree

Well I'm a novice trainer and I have heaps of fun training my low drive dog, I find it very enjoyable. I don't think having a high drive dog alone is enough to make training enjoyable for a handler - I know plenty of people who would be absolutely miserable training a truly high drive dog. I know novice and even experience handlers with high drive dogs who struggle with them and don't find training them fun. They struggle to get results with them. In some cases it can be like handing a leaner driver the keys to a porche before theyve learnt how to drive in the first place - it is a great car to drive if you know how to handle it. I think a lot of dogs get written off far too easily. At the end of the day it's easy to tell someone they "should" get a higher drive dog but what is the point if that's not what they have? If I told everyone who came through our club wanting to train and/or compete with their dog not to bother because their dog isn't high drive enough we'd have hardly any members. Out of curiousity - was the GSD in the vid you linked to yours? I am more referring to the original post as the topic between low and high drive dogs, but what you describe at the club is people having fun with their dog which is good, everyone is learning something and getting some pleasure, but what I am getting at is if the idea is to train for competition with the best opportunity for success, a high drive dog is more suitable and easier to train. I know the GSD's breeder. The pup went to a home in Adelaide for Schutzhund training as the breeder couldn't keep the pup as intended and train him under Victorian law. Apparantly the dog is extreme in drive but very calm and managable with the right training methods

Not necessarily Huski, this is one example: You have a nice focused heel on your Beagle who is low drive perhaps and the work you have done was to gain focus. With a highly driven dog that has natural focus, the same principals learned from training your Beagle will have the high drive dog jumping up in your face like a mad thing, so the heel will need a different approach. Sure you will learn from training any dog, but it doesn't mean because you can train a low drive dog that when getting a high drive dog that the same training principals apply and quite often, you basically have to begin from scratch to learn the different temperament and response.

Agree with this So basically, those of us who don't have a high drive dog should just give up without even trying to get the best out of our dogs? Why even bother in the first place? Gee, I've wasted a lot of my time, then. Competing is not just about winning (I know, I can't believe I just said that either). I am more than happy not to win when I compete as long as my dog goes out and does the best work she is capable of doing. That is still a win for me. I think generally, many people begin training with the dog they have and probably didn't get their dog originally for competition potential. There is a massive difference between training a dog bred for performance than just training any dog and is much more fun to train a dog that gets the idea straight up than one that presents a struggle all the way. An unresponsive dog to novice trainers is often the reason they give up training with the belief that they are no good at it or training is too difficult with the feeling they will never make it, where in fact with a good dog, the same people will enjoy their training and can be quite good at it from the inspiration that training a more responsive dog provides. Personally, I think a novice trainer would have the most enjoyment and learn more easily with the best dog they can aquire and provides them with more inspiration to work at it when results come a lot easier.

Here is a video of a young GSD that has been trained to switch off. This dog is apparantly litter pick of a more extreme GSD breeding of similar drive to a working line Malinois and responds to a "time for a rest" command demonstrating that highly driven dogs are trainable and adaptable to living in a home environment contrary to some beliefs

There is also the Adelaide Sportdog Club probably more appropriate for a Doberman perhaps. They predominently train with only GSD's, Doberman, Rottweilers and Belgian Malinois training under a highly experienced working dog trainer.

I don't see the point of training an unsuitable animal as it's hard enough to train a suitable one to achieve good results. I can't see exceptional trainer's that have the experience to extract the dog's potential wasting their time training something to a mediocre level when they could train a suitable animal with a greater potential to win and use their time more wisely. Often novice trainers think they will learn something training an unsuitable dog which is true, they learn rather quickly to avoid training unsuitable dogs in the future Highly driven dogs are the easiest to train for the highest level of achievements.

I have one and used it for some time. The press studs pulled through the webbing as someone else mentioned, but they are not really needed. It was ok but I didn't think it provided a lot more correction than a flat collar on my dog and was a hassel getting off a dog with pricked ears (GSD) I found, as the adjustment for correct use was too tight to get over his ears comfortably when taking it off and he would pull out and shake his head often as I tried to remove it. Adjusting it whilst wearing was a bit fiddly and now I just use a fursaver chain cut to length and held on by the leash clasp through the end links immobilising the corrective action for a quick release on and off and prefer that to the martingale

This is a sad situation for the child and the dog, but I don't know why the dog was PTS or why the owner has charges pending from what has been reported. There are no laws under the dog act or the Cockburn Council that prevents a dog being tethered in a public place, in fact it either has to be secured on leash by a person or tethered which it was, unless the leash was too long by legislation giving the dog extended range perhaps???. A dog has the right to defend it's self when provoked and entering a dog's personal space when tethered is exactly that. There is no need to approach a tethered dog or is there any threat that a tethered dog presents and the simple and sensible solution to avoid what happened is to leave the dog alone. Dogs can be unpredictable and it's a no brainer that a tethered dog presents no threat, so why go near it, get bitten then make a song and dance about it when the situation is so easily avoided. It's a silly as watching a car pull up in the carpark and then going over and grabbing the exhaust pipe of the car and complaining that the car burned your hand, but people for some reason believe that seeing a dog gives them the god given rights to interfere or try and pat it..........I just don't get that mentality. I am totally shocked by the amount people who allow their kids to rush over to pat other people's dogs, it's happened to me many times walking my dogs, the kid see's the dog and starts running over to pat it and the parent lets in happen. My parents had a golden rule "never" to approach someone elses dog and "never" pat it unless you ask if it's ok and furthermore to that, my mother's favorite was we have our own dog to pat, leave other people's dogs alone???.