Staranais

Hey, that was quick! I'm amazed at the service round here! :D Seriously though, thanks Steve. So basically, you mean teasing the dog with a favourite toy, and then teaching him that he has to show self-control in order to actually get the toy? So if I work my Staffy up over his tennis ball, but only actually give it to him after he sits nicely, that's training in drive? How is that better than training with food? (Just clicked - you're the same Steve that I brought a prong collar off last week! Shipped it all the way to NZ for us too, thanks. )

Hello again helpful people! I've seen "training in drive" mentioned in several old posts - paticually posts involving K9force and his students. Can someone explain what this means, exactly, and what is good about it? From reading the posts, I get the idea that it's rewarding the dog by giving him something to chase instead of something to eat. But I'm sure there must be something more to it than that?

Thanks I've contacted them - hopefully we can come along to a course starting in June or November. I think my dog will really enjoy it, if I can teach him to keep his mind on the course instead of the other dogs! We have OK obedience, but sometimes the distractions are just too great, lol.

I can't recall if she ever uses the actual phrase "purely positive" - as you say, few people do. What she does say is that she is a clicker trainer, and defines this as a "positive reinforcement training system, based on operant conditioning". The blurb on the back cover states that her methods are "all grounded in positive reinforcement". I think the problem is that when most clicker trainers say they are "positive trainers", they merely mean that they use little or no P+. It's confusing to people who know a little bit about operant conditioning since we use the word "positive" differently, and it's obvious that clicker trainers use at least R- as well as R+ (and sometimes P- as well). Just my 2 cents. Yes, I would recommend the book - especially if you've got a fear aggressive dog. Lots of good ideas in there.

Hey, Dlmckay! I'm in Wellington, and I'm not involved in agility... yet! I'll definately be enrolling myself and my boy in a beginners course later this year. We've already done a little basic stuff at our obedience school, and he picked it up pretty quickly.

I agree it's not common. However, I'm currently reading a PP book ("Click to Calm") in which the author claims that a dog should not be removed from a mildly stressful situation unless it behaves politely, as to do otherwise might encourage the aggressive behaviour. To me, that definately sounds like negative reinforcement. The author may not have actually created the adversive stimulus, but still she's only removing it when the dog behaves appropriately, and that in turn will encourage the desired behaviour.

I've met a couple of several people who claim they train purely positive. I think most PP people merely mean that they train without P+, because the ones I've met definately use negative punishment (P-) as well as both positive and negative reinforcement. A bit off topic, sorry

Don't worry, you're not alone!

I thought the Koehler method used both positive and negative reinforcement? So although it uses positive reinforcement, it's not PURELY positive. (I don't know much about the method, but that was the impression I had).

I doubt my dog would learn to avoid unhealthy food just because it made him feel less healthy. I mean, I've seen him vomit half-digested food up, then immediately attempt to re-eat the vomit. "Look mum, it's still got yummy bits in it!". Mind you my dog is not the smartest tool in the shed! And perhaps you are right, perhaps wild animals are better at regulating their own food intake.

Aaah, but stick a bowl of french fries and a salad sandwich in front of my young niece, and see which one she goes for. Does that tell you that fries are better for her than a sandwich? Don't get me wrong - I agree that meat is healthy for dogs. I just don't think that the things we prefer to eat are always the healthiest for us. If I fed my Staffy his preferred diet, I think it he would probably be eating mainly chocolate, pizza, hamburgers and roast chicken - maybe with a smattering of raw bones.

If feeding meat is against your morals, but you're not sure if your dog will be healthy on a vegetarian diet... Why not feed them semi-veg? Feed them enough meat to keep them healthy, but no more than they need. Most feral dogs I've seen in 3rd world countries don't eat meat at every meal, and they seem pretty happy. They have evolved as opportunist scavengers, not as pure obligate carnivores (like the big cats, for example). Also, perhaps you could replace some of the meat with fish, if you find that ethically preferable? It is also a source of high class animal protein. (BTW my dog eats about 1/3 raw meaty bones, 1/3 kibble, and 1/3 vegetarian table scraps. He's healthy as anything! )