m-j

I feel like a terrible owner not walkign him as often as I should. I always want to take him out but it's just usually such a stressful experience it's not enjoyable for me or him

Great news I'm so glad you feel better about going for a walk. Don't feel bad the experience wasn't pleasant so why would you want to do it. The main thing is that you realised the dog needed the walk and rather than give up you looked for advise obviously took on board the harness suggestion and it has worked for you, fantastic!!!. There are many people out there (not on this forum) that wouldn't.

I would like to applogise for going off on a tangent in your thread

cheers

M-J

But that assumes that there is a positive solution that can be applied successfully and as efficiently as a correction in all situations and I can't agree that's always the case.

Off the top of my head LLw is one area were I can think that this is applicable as dogs need to go for walks and as I have mentioned I do give a tool that will issue a correction but when it is a behaviour that can be managed and/or avoided until the training is complete I will advise this...maybe you can think of another?

You need to take into account the handler's ability too; the deadline the trainer may be working with;

I always take into account the handlers ability and if I need to extra training is provided, the deadline, if the handler wants a quick fix/can't be bothered spending a couple of months out of the years they are going to have the dog for training I send them to someone else. My experience has showen me quick fixes aren't always permanent. Before the client comes to me and actually spends any money I always warn them of a possible time frame and costs.

Sometimes you also can't avoid the dog practising the behaviour, what do you do then if you that's not the time to apply a 'positive solution'?

I make sure I set the training scenario up so they don't get to practise the behaviour. Yes sometimes I don't get it right first time but then we do set it up so it does become right, also I generally have a plan B when I go to a client just in case. By the time I start working with a client I have a very good understanding of background of dog and handler I don't just go to a training session no questions asked although this isn't always completely reliable.

cheers

M-J

Not everyone has the luxury of trying 1000 different "positive" things during which time the behaviour you are trying to stop can become more and more ingrained, then requiring a stronger aversive/correction to stop it by the time you do exhaust all the "positive" avenues.

I don't agree with this as when applying a positive solution to something you shouldn't get the dog in the position where it feels the need to practise the behaviour, if you are intentionally you aren't doing it right jmho. Applying a gentle correction in which the dog does get to practise the behaviour (to some degree) in order for you to be able to apply a correction which doesn't work with will create a dog that will have a stronger extinction burst and you do have to up the ante. Just as distracting a dog that has loaded up (with the emotion/drive that creates the behaviour, without actually displaying the behaviour) with a motivator will not work with a low (motivation) drive dog or an ingrained habit.

The way I see it positives and corrections are worlds apart, not a modified version of each other if that makes sense .

cheers

M-J

Isn't Koehler all about markers these days?

Markers being as we recognise them, not what I was told as a kid, how I understand the book or in more recent years the info on the website I went on. If it is he will be turning in his grave, if he has passed away. Pure Koehler is about 100% corrections no pussy footing around you only need to look at the illustrations in the book to see that. Well that was the way I interpreted this info. What has been described in this thread is what I would call traditional training, a dilute/modifided version of Koehler. When I was a kid and receiving some instruction from a friend of the family who did train using Koehler, I do remember him telling me my training corrections didn't have enough omph. It did work I had an obedient dog along with the others that followed (even though I mellowed as I got older), but I like my dogs attitude to training better with the training philosophies I apply now.

Gee, disappointing to hear of such a terminal reaction to Koehler leash training with the dog you have described.

Yes not nice. The dog fine was on a flat collar and a lead, just the check chain. That was her reaction to when the owner tried to put one on her as the training was done on the check chain.

Koehler was anti treat training I remember that too,

Not only anti treat, anti soft also the constant reference to the "wimps" who wouldn't do this training in his book is testament to this.

That's a nice story with the elderly lady handling her Malinios, she would be happy with that. I have enough trouble at 49 years old with an over exuberant working dog sometimes If it works for her and her dog, well done

Thanks but I actually didn't do anything except provide her with a tool and instructions on how to get it on and off with a short walk up the road. She has done it, because that tool provided her an opportunity to give an effective "correction" that didn't end up with her hips sore from a walk with a pulling/lungeing dog and a tool where the corrections were not very effective. My appologies the dog is a Malamute.

Case in point, I sat through a series of physiology lectures in 2nd year in which our lecturer argued that battery chickens weren't any more stressed than uncaged chickens, since their plasma cortisol levels weren't any higher. According to his definition, he was completely correct. But I still am not personally convinced that the battery chickens were as happy as the free range ones, as he also tried to suggest. Cortisol and adrenaline don't measure "happy".

I'm with you, Corvus put this in another thread,in it they mentioned the experiment of the dog in the pavlovian harness that was monitored whilst and after recieving shocks over a period of time....... this may account for the chooks physiological responses to being a battery hen being in contrast to what we see/feel, maybe???

The Opponent-process Theory of Motivation paper is available in full for free here: http://dionysus.psych.wisc.edu/lit/Article...lomonR1974a.pdf

cheers

M-J

There was a time when Koehler style obedience training won everything and the dogs trained that way were millimeter perfect in their routines but some that were under heavy handed training (Koehler to extreme) although perfect in obedience, were considered flat in performance, didn't have "happy feet" I remember someone describing the flatness as.

When Koehler was in vouge that was all there was. If you used food or were "soft"you certainly didn't admit it Training with food was scorned and you were not considered to be a dog trainer's rear end. In his book Koehler makes constant reference to those he considered to be wimps (not his words but something similar). As has been mentioned how many were written off as too soft (not saying that rehoming a dog because it doesn't suit your requirements isn't ok, as long as it goes to a good home) At least the handlers these days are training all types of dogs not just the ones that could take the knocks or had preparedness to conform to humans, to me these are real dog trainers as they know more about motivating all dogs, not just certain types.

As far as using a harness goes try to tell the 69 yr old lady I was talking to today they aren't an effective training tool. She was nearly crying tears of joy (so was I, as her mood was very infectious) and she also gave me a huge hug, because she can now walk her 5yr old male Mal without her hip hurting her from correcting the pulling and the lunging at other dogs. In just 9 days this behaviour has ceased, she can now walk down streets she has avoided because of the dogs that rush the fence. You might ask why did a older lady take on an entire male Mal (as I did initially) but long story short she saved him from death row because his irresponsible previous owners. He is a lovely dog and didn't deserve to die.

I don't know anyone who has done the Koehler method of loose leash walking by the book who has an issue with it. I'm not sure if I'd use it again for my own dog, though.

I do, he followed it to the tee even when the dog had an extinction burst similar to the one described in the book. After that show this dog a check chain and it curled up into the foetal position, it was very sad to see The modified versions you get now seem ok not that I've ever done it.

cheers

M-J

I agree in essence, that this is the ideal and to strive to achieve the behaviour we want and extinguish the behaviour we don't this way is the optimum. But it is not always possible to do this in an efficient manner with some dogs, and to not be efficient isn't always or necessarily often the best thing for the dog either. Consequently, my aim is to work with teaching what TO do first and foremost, and then, if corrections are required, it is only for the residual unwanted behaviour which hopefully has reduced, meaning less corrections than if approaching training from the opposite angle.

Yes This is exactly my point I just don't see why we need to set the dog up to fail so you can correct it before it knows what is the right thing to do, which is how I interpreted BB's comment.

cheers

M-J

It's only people who don't like the method will tell you that corrections are crappy training which is only an opinion. I think having people mess around with head collars for two years and when the collar comes off, the dog bolts like startled chook is real crappy training when the dog's hopeless without restraint. Dog's need to learn the consequences of good and bad behaviour and be able to make the choice for themselves with a clear definition what's likely to occur in both cases. Not allowing a dog to experience the effects of bad behaviour IMO is unfair on the dog.

I don't agree The example I gave with the trial heeling is quantifiable (which is why I mentioned it) From what I have read in this thread your examples are your opinion. Myself who was also around in the days of correction training only doesn't agree with your opinion, based on my experiences and perspective, who is right who is wrong, my answer is who knows because of the variables in both opinions.

Why is it unfair? I think correcting a dog for something that we determine "bad behaviour" which in most case is very normal dog behaviour is unfair. Why not just teach it what it needs to do instead, rather than correct the many things it does wrong (bearing in mind that when correcting or rewaring a dog, most of the time, they think receiving the correction or reward to be for what they are thinking of ,not their behaviour)?

cheers

M-J

In years gone by, off leash obedience determined a training system's credibility

If this is the case then check chains rate pretty poor as an effective training system. If you look at the average trial ring heeling score of ALL competitors when the training system was all check chain compared to these days I know the average is far higher these days where the majority of training is done with positive motivational methods, not to mention the recalls.

If you can use a management tool to get an opportunity to provide the dog with reinforcement for llw I really can't see what the issue is

cheers

M-J

Horses (broken in and unbroken), cats (pet and feral), goats and a chook.

I have found the same as others but one of the other things I have also gained from teaching other animals is how important the size of successive approximations are and that going up in very small SA does absolutely no harm as long as you don't stay on a SA. They must be forever onward (if possible) for the easiest results, for both the actual training of the behaviour and the generalising. This is not to say that going back doesn't work/help.

that I am a much better dog trainer than kid trainer!

Me too.

cheers

M-J

Hi

I don't own racing greyhounds but work in a rearing kennel (and take on the rejects to be rehomed into pet homes), I treat the pups, as much as I can, like normal pups and the feedback we have been getting back from the breaker in has been really good. They do need to learn to handle being in a kennel and not to bark if you are sending them off to a trainer as trainers don't like that but if you train your dog I don't see why you can't have them inside etc if you take into the consideration the exercise, dietry requirements and rest etc. Personally I think it would be better for them but I have never trained one for racing so can't really say, but from what shantiah says sounds like it would work well. I have also heard enough stories from small trainers that have taken on dogs from large kennels to back this up .

I have found that treating them like pets is benefical as they learn lots of stuff they need to learn early in their lives rather than learning the whole lot at once when they go off to the breaker in, which is stressful enough on it's own.

cheers

M-J

So, what do you tend to use when training dogs?

Any method/technique that is positive, mainly luring and targeting.

Why do you find that technique is preferable?

I like the idea of rewarding the only thing they can do right as opposed to making them at best feel uncomfortable about not understanding what I want them to do. I know not receiveing a reward can be stressful to a dog but that I use that as a learning curve for me and just go for a smaller increment.

Would you ALWAYS use that technique no matter what or would you move to the other if you think it would work better for the dog?

No I will change positive techiques. In the past I have gone back to the GSP technique but not for a long time I generally end the session and go and rack my brain as to how I can make the dog work better. Even with dogs that won't eat, my thoughts are that all dogs eat I just need to think about why they won't eat in a training situation or why they won't take a "freebie" treat off me etc. I know this can take a bit longer but to me training is not about how fast the dog can achieve something, but how the dog perceives the training and what long term results will be like. Plus I like a challange at least if I'm determined to do something using positives only I won't be stressing the dog out too much, being exposed to small amounts of stress is a good thing, but more importantly I learn from it.

I am one of those anal retentive positive trainers (I'm a crossover trainer and you know what reformed whatevers are like) but I certainly don't think traditional trainers are cruel (if I did I wouldn't have many friends left as in this area it is still very popular, although change is happening ) only when it goes to extremes and the dog receives a huge correction for not understanding.

But I like to introduce a combo and then GSP only. Which means the dog will learn each, singularly and a combo. Shaping I will use if necessary.

Teaches the dog to follow the hand and also teaches the dog it's ok to be 'put'.

I agree with the highlighted but I still prefer to teach that as an individual exercise not when I'm teaching a change of topography of the dog with a cue.

Also, you have to remember that just getting out of bed in the morning sets off a very small stress response.

Hmm I can't agree with that I don't like leaving my nice warm bed on these cold mornings

cheers

M-J

It looks great, I just missed the demo. You guys did well I heard a few people give some really good comments.

I spy a long coat shepherd ooooo hehe

My girl (greyhound) met her tonight and thought she was lovely too!

cheers

M-J

I'm doing some scent dectection work with my Kelpie and tonight was the first time where she came to the training ground and was asked to search. Tonight she searched all the old hiding places several times, asked me to help (she has never done this as I have tried to keep me right out of the search other than to cue her to search) she did eventually find it but because this was he first time she did become a little creative, but her persistance waned a little which is what I have found when I ask her to do a little more (that could very well be a handler fault though) I fairly certain this will change with a little more experience .

cheers

M-J

ETA Roxie's persistance I'm saying will change with a little more experience, the handler will need a lot more experience. "sigh"

Putting a new cue on an old behavior is easy and mostly they pick up on it very quickly from my observation.

Did you change anything with the old cue? If so did you find it difficult because the dog went ohh this is like xxx and the bit you were trying eliminate/change was still there? If that makes sense

cheers

M-J

QUOTE

You don't have to use English commands in obedience trials, you just need to ask the judge before hand if they mind if you use a different language. I've never heard of a judge saying no

I have!!!!

So have I thats why I mentioned it.

if I retrain some parts could I have a better result with a different language. Interesting

Apparently you can retrain something using another cue and fix the "bad bits". I have never done it but I can't see why it wouldn't be possible. Sue Hogben calls the old cue (the one with the bad bits) a poisoned cue.

cheers

M-J

Will the fact that we speak Afrikaans at home but all her commands are in eng make it more difficult for her to learn if we decide to do more advance obedience training?

If you decide to do obedience trials you will need to give your commands in English.

From the dogs perspective all commands are just sounds regardless of what language they are, so if you are consistant like everyone has said no problems, except if someone else wants your dog to do something and they don't speak Affrikaans:laugh:

cheers

M-J

In answer to the original question I think it would depend on many factors - breed, as has been mentioned here and the dogs individual drive ie being able to be put off from doing what is an innate behaviour and in the case of prey drive how far into or how close to drive satisfaction they are ie if the dog has been chasing something like a fox ( which in my experience the majority of dogs find far more fascinating than a rabbit) and is very close too catching it that is a tall order for a dog to recall out of. Whereas if the prey animal was a distance away it is easier and if the dog is close to you it is easier. As I think diva said it would be very difficult to stop a dog that will badly hurt itself and still continue chasing. I have seen a dog snap it's crutiate and that dog still continued running. One example that I can think of that most would probably remember is the horse (I think it's name was Triple Crown) that broke its leg during the Melbourne cup one year. The jockey had a great deal of difficulty pulling that horse up and even when he wasn't racing with the other horses he still wanted to continue racing dispite the fact that the end of one of his front legs was waving around completely detachted from the rest of his leg. It was a horrible sight. Even though this horse wasn't being called he was still being asked to obey a cue which he initially chose to blow off despite the fact the cue was being constantly applied and he was badly injured.

That breeds previous experience - I have/have had several rescue Greyhounds that I find are harder to teach a recall from prey items than a GH that hasn't had their previous experience. I would certainly never say they were 100% reliable even though most end up good under reasonable distraction. My advise to the new owners is never let your dog offlead in a place where if they choose to ignore your recall they could get hurt or hurt something else, just to be on the safe side.

Other factors could be repoire you have with that dog, your skill as a dog trainer.

So are you saying that you think its ok to manage a dogs environment and always have a bag of treats on board to get a really good recall?

Yes the safety of my dogs is the most important thing to me. Dogs do have minds of their own and 100% reliable recall(every time , immediately, fast, no exceptions) in/with my experience is not possible so having the dog on lead where I know they could get hurt or hurt something else to me is a good idea. I also don't have any problems with having the dogs reinforcer avaliable, it doesn't mean I always have to have them to get a reliable recall. On the other side of the coin if corrections from the handler is the reason why the dog is recalling the reinforcer is always present also.

cheers

M-J

I do find the difference between the two, BB, is that the "quiet" command is the more difficult for the dog to embrace self-control over, because it does not demand an alternative conditioned behaviour to exhibit instead of barking, so it is (I find) the more difficult for the dog to learn.

I agree from what I understand of Aidan's methodology, it is shaping. Shaping makes the alternative beahviour the dogs idea and because they are choosing to do it as opposed to what they were doing or what someone else wants them to do they will "take notice" of it. I suppose you could say you are pitting one "hard-wired" behaviour against another. The trick is to create the behaviour you want in the first place, which I'm assuming is why you need to throw the treat on the ground in the first place??? to get the lack of barking so it can be followed by other treats while the dog is quiet.

As I'm not and haven't been involved in the training process I could be completely wrong

cheers

M-J

Can a predictable punisher ever be "kinder" (in the sense of making the dog happier) than an unpredictable reinforcer?

If a punisher was predicable the behaviours that cause the punisher shouldn't be displayed, unless the punisher isn't effective. Another possibility is that the behaviour is desirable enough for the dog to display and basically ignore the punisher even if it is considered unpleasant by the dog.

If I was being taught to do something with my teacher using punishment by someone that couldn't communicate to me exactly what I was doing wrong, if it took several trials to work it out I would become frustrated/worried. I had this experience when learning a new job once I became very worried until someone who understood how to train someone taught me. I imagine most dogs would probably feel the same.

Can a positive training session be perceived as "negative" overall by the dog, if it's frustrating?

Yes but if the dog isn't receiving positive reinforcement or drive satisfaction (eventually) could you call it a positive training session? I think this would be very frustrating to both dog and handler. This in my opinion would be a trainer fault by not setting the dog up to succeed.

Can a training session based on punishment be perceived as "positive" overall by the dog, if it enhances the dog's feeling of understanding or control?

Yes, but the dog has to learn and eliminate the unwanted responses to achieve control of the punishers, up until that point I can't see that a dog would perceive the training session as positive. Particularly with behaviours that have several criteria to be achieved for the behaviour to be executed correctly i.e. walking at heel. I also think that possibly the dog would feel positive in the respect of the relief at the absence of the punisher (which can be extremely satisfying) as opposed to actually feeling good about the actual training process. If you were up to that stage of training wouldn't it be maintenance training as opposed to actually teaching something?

Just some thoughts.

cheers

M-J

Once they were diagnosed that was basically the end of any medical interest, apart from being referred to a paediatrician regarding their physical development.

Both sets of parents were left to sort things out for themselves - no support groups - no special schooling advice or anything. Both these sets of parents (are unknown to each other) and yet they both seem to have been to their own devises. One has a child who is about 11 and she has been warned that as her boy hits pubity watch out. The other child again a boy about 15 is driving his parents to their wits end. The boy is getting violent and the parents are getting scared.

That is terrible my son was diagnosed at eight and his primary school and the high school he goes to are fantastic (I originally got the diagnosis because I wanted to find out why the primary school were having trouble teaching him)I actually taught him stuff the same methods I use on my dogs because it worked so basically I didn't have many problems even though at that stage I didn't know he had Aspergers. The psychiatrist we went and saw told me just to keep going the way I was. The high school listened to me when I explained some of the strategies we were using and he is doing very well.

Another good resource for them is any books by a guy called Tony Attwood he is renowned throughout the world as an Aspie guru. He is in Australia and I think based in Brisbane (but don't quote me on that). He actually got the faces put on the Thomas the Tank Engine trains to assist Autistic kids to recognise facial expressions I have been told. He does seminars all over the place and he does have a website. Violence can be an issue with Aspies and something that needs careful management. Another option is contacting any department that deals with disabilities or Autism, possibly found in the front of your phone book.

My son does have a repore with dogs and is very switched on to them and how they feel which surprised me due to his indifference to them, he doesn't have the same skill with people. Even my boss at the kennels I work at, has noticed. Funnily enough most of the time he finds my dogs annoying but they adore him.

cheers

M-J

you cant have a half arsed search dog.

Yes you could end up with a dead person, this is one of the reasons positive training is used as it is tried and true by the people with working dogs, in real life situations with a huge variety of distractions that are intrinsically rewarding or terrifying to the dog.

If Kohler's method was effective, it would still be used in these situations where the end product of the training is about reliability and endurance, not about being a nicer handler.

cheers

M-J

Some cats are good problem solvers, and I suspect that over time they'll evolve to be better at it as a species the longer they are domesticated.

I have actually thought the opposite is true just from having feral cats I have trapped and quietened to having cats that are domesticated. When teaching them things, through shaping and luring, I found they learned quicker. The ferals were all from the same family though (just different generations).

cheers

M-J

Oooh I love that book. Read it ages ago, must pick it up again!

Yes after reading my respect for the Kelpie skyrocketed. Working in 2 rural hotels I get told many stories about dogs that have done things they haven't conscientiously been trained for. Some of these stories you could probably take with a grain of salt but when others verify the stories they aren't all alcohol, pride induced fables

Therefore it might be a case of : brain growth + learning to learn (cognition) + reinforcers/motivation + instinct + experimentation = behaviour? I hope this question makes sense as I am thinking aloud.

I think this is very probable as most of the shearers, drovers and farmers I have talked to do let their pups work and use their instinct with no or very little interference (they only interfere if the pup sis too pushy, on lambs ducks etc at this age. As the dog gets a little older they start directing and utilising that instinct and teaching the other things that don't come instinctively. They say it makes better working dogs.

ETA At the Greyhound kennels I work at the difference in adult dogs chasing if I teach the pups to chase (a toy) at 5-6 weeks old compared to 12 + weeks is amazing.

cheers

M-J

I can't remember the exact words. I don't know any dogs that work for the greater good, but I'd love to hear about it if you do.

Australian Working Dog stories has quite a few anecdotes where dogs have done things where there is no direct reward in it for them but has been beneficial to something/one else.

In regards to motivators inducing tunnel vision in dogs, My thoughts are what you are teaching the dog to do and the "naturalness" and / or complexity of the behaviour being taught could have an impact on this along with the dogs enthusiasm for the motivator. An example is I was teaching a food obsessed Lab I had, to do a foot target through pulsing, touching the foot naming it and then after many reps holding my hand above her foot waiting for her to touch my hand. After many unsuccessful trials I had to remove the food and teach it with pats and praise, I don't think she even realised that I was touching her foot with the food present, everything else was incidental the only thing she saw was the food. Maybe she thought that I was just conditioning her to another secondary reinforcer

cheers

M-J

edited for spelling

using a target as a secondary reinforcer

A friend of mine does this with a hand target (she does obedience trials) and it seems to work for her. All her dogs have done and do work brilliantly and she does very well. I'm imagine she must reinforce the target from time to time (I have never seen her do it tho), but a huge reinforcement history is a very powerful tool, plus her delivery and the act of the dog targeting seems to be very reinforcing to her dogs. To me, just from watching her, it acts like a KGS sort of, I haven't really discussed this with her so can't really give you any info on the hows and whys.

cheers

M-J