Curious

[JulesP]

Everyone just needs to work out what they are comfortable with I guess. I will physically put a dog into a drop or sit. Any sort of aggression gets delt with very firmly. Brock growled at me when he was a pup over a bone, he got alpha rolled. I wouldn't use a e collar or a prong collar though.

[dogdude]

Ok, here's my two bobs worth

I believe that dogs that are trained properly using aversive methods don't respond out of fear once exercise is learn't, but because they have clear boundarys set in concrete, with no confusion or grey area's.

If taught properly they are happy and willing workers that love spending time with their owners, and get lavish amounts of praise or other rewards.

Just like the positive trained dogs, they are all individuals with different potentials, some with more than others.

My first trialling dog was trained that way, was a really happy worker, who was very successful in the ring too. He was the most reliable dog that I have owned both in and out of the ring.

I have never quite had the same feeling with regards to reliability since switching to more positive methods, I always feel that although the dog appears much sharper, refined and spiffy in the ring, I feel that the dog seems to have grey area's when it comes to knowing exactly who is "running the show".

I am not sure if this is a good trade off when it could mean life or death in an everyday situation (incident). I do prefer the dog to have its excitement level off the richter scale while training though.

[Jeff Jones]

leopuppy04

Just in the instance of getting the dog completely onto a normal collar - you have to wean them off the weight of the collar so that they will be just as reliable with a normal collar. But like you said - if the owner is happy for it to be permanently on - there wouldn't be an issue

MrsD

I found that if you get the dog used to wearing the collar first for 3 or 4 days they very rarely realise when it's not on or twig that that's where the correction is coming from, well mine didn't anyway, it's not that heavy really & they usually don't even realise it's there.

Correct if you properly intruduce the e-collar the dog wont get collar smart, if a dog has become collar smart it is from the handler introducing corrections too soon.

[leopuppy04]

Cosmolo - i'm a great lover of your posts - not only coz you can explain things so well, but because it always makes me nod my head in agreement too!!

Positive reinforcement for the horse is the removal of pressure and/ or a stroke/ pat/ verbal reward. But i never stopped mid show jumping round to give a carrot.

Perhaps not - but that would be funny to see

- i worked with a number of dogs who were difficult/ impossible to motivate using a treat or toy or praise- even if they would work for it before a meal, they would not do so afterwards.

so what did you use as a reward? I admire people who continue to train with these dogs - boy do they make life tough!

- I believe that clear, well timed and appropriate level corrections can make things clear for both dogs and owners. There are many owners who will use a 'correction' regardless of being instructed not to- isn't it better that they know how to do it properly? For the dogs sake?

Yes, I agree 110%. For all my singing on positive training, I have used aversives before and *do* know how to use them - with the exception of a prong as i've never used one before .

- I also believe that corrections can build a dogs attitude and confidence. 6 months ago i had a dog join our family with serious fear based psychological issues- others had tried and failed and we were unsure as to what we would achieve. After much work- some corrections and plenty of positive reward- georgie, is a happy dog with mild- moderate issues that no longer impact her daily life.

Again - I agree - Kinta also when she first came to us was a little 'nervy' - just at that age and so many things changed for her. I think she took a great deal of confidence from me taking the head role and not accepting any of her 'nonsense'.... she is infact so much more confident with me than anyone else in the family

- LP- the reason why corrections are not used generally in agility/ tricks etc, is because the dog you are working with is considered to be high drive so the removal of the reward is enough. When you are utilising drive, speed etc and doing exercises that are rewarding within themselves- positive training works very well. I use corrections because not every dog is like this AND many owners want to reduce drive, not increase it. (and yes of course i tell them the dog has to have an outlet etc etc)

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, why is it that obedience isn't as rewarding as agility/tricks? Isn't obedience just a whole bunch of tricks joined together?? This is where I love Arya's anaolgy - i'd like to train to the point where I don't *need* corrections of any kind because the dog loves the work so much ... Is it the running of agility that makes it more exciting? But then, Leo goes nuts for trick training, and he doesn't move any more than he does for obedience

In all honesty - I don't have any huge reservations to e collars (ok, ok, get up off the ground now ), or correction collars etc, etc. I'm just (as i've said many times this thread) confused that the dogs 'let us get away with it' while we can't with other animals.... perhaps it is the strong pack drive... as the horsey people have pointed out - it is exactly the same with horses

ETA:

dogdude

I have never quite had the same feeling with regards to reliability since switching to more positive methods, I always feel that although the dog appears much sharper, refined and spiffy in the ring, I feel that the dog seems to have grey area's when it comes to knowing exactly who is "running the show".

Funny - so many people seem to draw this, yet i've never had that experience... perhaps i'm more of a 'traditionalist' than I think??? Or I just have really lazy dogs

JJ

Correct if you properly intruduce the e-collar the dog wont get collar smart, if a dog has become collar smart it is from the handler introducing corrections too soon.

I don't understand - can you elaborate a little please JJ?

Edited June 12, 2007 by leopuppy04

[Jeff Jones]

I don't understand - can you elaborate a little please JJ?

When first introducing the e-collar to any dog you should go through with steps of collar conditioning so the dog doesn’t associate the e-collar itself with the stimulation.

A basic way of doing this which Mrs D has already said is to fit the e-collar a few days before you plan on applying the stimulation to your dog.

This should be done with all collars not just e-collars otherwise your dogs will show avoidance to the particular training tool.

[SwaY]

Where is that cart i can't bring out no more

[MrsD]

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, why is it that obedience isn't as rewarding as agility/tricks? Isn't obedience just a whole bunch of tricks joined together?? This is where I love Arya's anaolgy - i'd like to train to the point where I don't *need* corrections of any kind because the dog loves the work so much ... Is it the running of agility that makes it more exciting? But then, Leo goes nuts for trick training, and he doesn't move any more than he does for obedience

My dogs always work well in obedience because I make it interesting & exciting & very self rewarding, especially by the time you have got to open level. Problem with my old boy was it was *too* much fun so I did have to correct for naughtiness, but very rarely for any mistakes in the actual work. He always got brilliant marks very close to perfect scores for the work he did. But at the beginning of any training, no dog is excited to start with, it's only when they learn what's coming that the penny drops & the excitement takes hold. For an example, a dog who's never been trained with a clicker wouldnt find the sound of the clicker exciting, no matter how many times you clicked it. Only after the dog has built an association with what the clicker means would the dog get excited about it if it were brought out. The association would then carry over to the actual tricks themselves so it becomes self rewarding. Same thing with agility - no dog the first time it sees an agilty course or jump thinks "Ohh how exciting", it's only after the asscoiation is made that the jumping etc becomes rewarding.

I think that obedience can be as rewarding as tricks or agility, you just have to help the dog make the association.

(did any of that make any sense what-so-ever? )

Cosmo & Dogdude - great posts :rofl:

Edited June 12, 2007 by MrsD

[Tapferhund]

Leopuppy, good topic......but , I have to agree with what MrsD said in post #8

I also get a bit fed up with people downing what they call "traditional" methods of training as if it is something to be shunned. (By 'traditional, I take it you mean physically placing the dog in to position(compulsion)....and only using voice/pats as praise and nothing else?)

If this is the case Leopuppy....then there is nothing wrong with using this method of training........it is only another method afterall...and one that has stood the test of time in working for many years for many people.

I also don't understand how you believe "traditional" training involves correcting the dog when it is still learning? If this is what you have witnessed in your few short years in dog training, then you have witnessed bad training by a bad trainer. Traditional (as you call it) trainers use just as much encouragement and praise in the teaching phase of their dogs training as anyone else does.

Also, you really need to experience different types of dogs with their different types of temperament before you can start questioning others or their methods of training.

I have an example here , an example I would like to know 'how' YOU would approach and deal with the situation. What would you do if faced with a dog like this (and PTS is not an option)

A guy I know , Tom ,who is in security, has had GSD's for many years...all fully trained for the work that he does with them. Some years ago he was given a GSD called Wolf, a dog that nobody else wanted because the dog was so hard , dominant and beligerant no one else could do a thing with the dog.....I mean this dog was TOUGH.......not even the Police wanted him...........so the dog ended up with Tom.(Even Tom's other dogs had great respect for this dog)

Over time Tom , who BTW was an excellent trainer (traditional), did everything possible to train this dog as his new top security dog.....and everyday the dog would put up a fight challenging him in every way shape and form........even in the truck when Tom tried to get in , the dog would have a go at him......it would eventually let him in but always not without a fight first.

Anyway, to make a long story short, this went on for months, Tom ended up correcting the dog, he thumped the dog,used e-collars etc ........he literally tried everything to get this dogs compliance and respect but nothing worked.........and then one day the dog was sitting in the truck and once again it flew at Tom when he tried to get in................and Tom finally lost it, he had enough........he picked up a shovel and as hard as he could he whacked the dog over the head and thinking he had killed the dog he opened up the truck door, dragged the body out and threw it on the pile of horse sh*t near by. Ten minutes later the dog came to ,staggered to it's feet .........and from that moment on WORSHIPPED the ground Tom walked on .....'Wolf' became his best working dog and closest companion.........AND it didn't do it out of fear either but out of respect .

So LP......do you think R+ and P- would work on a dog like this? Would walking inside and taking the 'game' away work in this situation with a dog like this?

What "method" would you implement for a dog like this?

Edited June 12, 2007 by Tapferhund

[leopuppy04]

Leopuppy, good topic......but , I have to agree with what MrsD said in post #8

I also get a bit fed up with people downing what they call "traditional" methods of training as if it is something to be shunned. (By 'traditional, I take it you mean physically placing the dog in to position(compulsion)....and only using voice/pats as praise and nothing else?)

If this is the case Leopuppy....then there is nothing wrong with using this method of training........it is only another method afterall...and one that has stood the test of time in working for many years for many people.

I also don't understand how you believe "traditional" training involves correcting the dog when it is still learning? If this is what you have witnessed in your few short years in dog training, then you have witnessed bad training by a bad trainer. Traditional (as you call it) trainers use just as much encouragement and praise in the teaching phase of their dogs training as anyone else does.

Also, you really need to experience different types of dogs with their different types of temperament before you can start questioning others or their methods of training.

TH - I am sorry if you felt that that is what I was insinuating. I don't think traditional methods should be shunned at all. I think they have their place in the world of dog training.

I also didn't say that traditional training involves correcting the dog while it is still learning (whilst I have seen it) and know that this is not the norm, or at all a good example of that form of training.

All I was merely trying to ask (and perhaps I didn't word it correct) was how come we can effectively train a dog through corrections, yet no other animal can be trained through this method. Also why we can't/don't (as far as I know) train complex skills through compulsion.

I certainly don't see myself as an expert - I was merely asking the question to get answers from those who have more experience than I!

As I have said in other posts in this thread - I don't shun any form of training and if I needed to will use a correction chain etc. But as I said - how is it that we can train our dogs with compulsion, yet not any other animal

[MonElite]

But as I said - how is it that we can train our dogs with compulsion, yet not any other animal

Im not qualified to answer as I havent trained another animal but Id say Soviet Bear Trainers werent using pure positive methods.

And what about elephants, or camels?

Edited June 12, 2007 by myszka

[Cosmolo]

LP- the answer to your question regarding why we don't train other animals that way is simple. The dolphins at seaworld do not have fish swimming in their pool. Their mental stimulation, food and attention all comes through their training which means that positive only training works well- not getting the fish/ or conditioned marker is a significant consequence. But pet dogs live with their families and get pats, food and toys at other times WITHOUT working, so it loses some of its critical importance.

We also need to realise that all animals are different- i used much more negative reinforcement on horses than i do with a dog and less positive reward. The removal of the pressure in itself becomes a reward.

As for why obedience isn't 'as rewarding'. It can and in many ways should be as rewarding. However obedience is meant to have a practical purpose and play a role in keeping the dog safe- while agility and tricks do not. If my dog doesn't wave when i ask, there are no life altering consequences so removal of a reward may be adequate. If the same dog ignores a recall and runs across a road- i no longer have a dog.. So the reliability of obedience IMO is more important than the reliability of a trick or agility obstacle.

LP, in terms of what to use as a reward for unmotivated dogs, there are a few things that you can do- for example, if i devalue the very thing that makes the cow more rewarding than my toy by applying a correction at an appropriate time, the value of my toy increases. If using an e collar, the removal of low level stimulus can be the reward as well as a secondary reward that may then have a higher value.

And thanks for the compliment/s re: my posts, its nice to know i am coherant, even with all the thoughts racing in my head!

[Lablover]

You know all, just read the dog, have a conscience, and train the damm thing.

[Guest rhapsodical78]

First: I agree with everything Cosmo has posted.

I'd also like to add that many studies have been done to show that training only via inducive methods can result in an unreliable response. This is why corrections are still used in many of the professional fields, such as police work. It's also shown to be faster.

Obedience training is pretty important. It can save a dog. I want my dog to be reliable.

With regards to other animals, I'm sure corrections work very well. Rats and chickens have are hugely pack driven (pecking order anyone?). I own rats and have dealt with aggressive rats who respond well to corrections. Chickens...well. I'm not sure they're commonly trained.

Cats are often trained via corrections.

There are a lot of reasons to use corrections, and not just on dogs.

Edited June 12, 2007 by rhapsodical78

[PAX]

Chickens are often used to teach clicker training. I have seen chickens do a mini agility course.

[Guest rhapsodical78]

Chickens are often used to teach clicker training. I have seen chickens do a mini agility course.

That is most awesome.

I'd kick it though. Then it could learn the Flight of the Bumblebee.

[Erny]

Here's a LINK to an older thread that touched on this subject as far as it relates to comparison of training dogs -vs- marine mammals. Actually, the thread isn't about that, although it did wander off track (as threads do ) towards that topic. I'm being completely lazy by simply copying and pasting my response to a similar (although not same) comment made by another poster in relation to how other animals (in this case, a "Killer Whales" are trained).

... disappointed at your one eyed attitude toward positive training. If used correctly it works you can't make a Killer Wale co-operate by using negative methods so why choose to use coercive methods on your dog?

Erny:

Without forgetting that 'avoidance' training involves negative AND POSITIVE training methods (often overlooked when a discussion takes place on this sort of topic), it's not that negative methods are used to attain co-operation ............ Rather, it's the negative consequences that teach the dog which road NOT to travel on (in its best interest) and the positive consequences that teach the dog which road WILL achieve good things.

I've just returned from a trip from QLD, at which I visited Sea-World. Whilst watching the Dolphin 'show', the commentator made particular mention that when the Dolphins do their trick, they receive a reward (fish), but that sometimes, they simply don't want to do their trick (fish or no fish) in which case they'll just swim around on the bottom of the pool and avoid surfacing.

Apart from the points that HR posted (above) in response to your post, Baja, I'd like to add here that Dolphins, Killer Whales etc. etc. are hardly mammals that we adopt and expect to blend into our 'civilised' community as we do our dogs. We might expect the Dolphins (or Killer Whales, as in your example) to 'make mistakes' and refuse the 'tricks' (in which case, the spectators normally laugh and regard as 'cute'), which is fine. Their interaction with humankind is limited, given the natural limitations of their watery world.

But who will pay the price when a dog does not behave in "OUR" world in a manner which is acceptable to the general public, amongst whom we thrust our faithful friends? And who pays the price when a command to recall away from a (eg) busy road is not met? Can we afford to accept that 'cute' mistakes might occur when the price could be as high as our furry friends' lives? In those instances, do we accept that merely withholding the dogs' "fish" (so to speak) is and will always be sufficient to attain the higher degree of reliability we require in face of the fact of their high interaction amongst us humans?

I don't think it's that we are "one-eyed" ... but perhaps that the broader picture has some permanent unpleasantries that we seek to avoid.

Edited June 12, 2007 by Erny

[Tonymc]

I have trained other Animals such as Horses and Cattle.I do not see alot of Point comparing the Training of a Dog to another animal as each Animal has its own Species specific Psychology.

I will correct a Dog,but try to whenever possible dissasociate myself from the correction,so to minumise resistance towards myself.

In my view the Bottomline is to study the Animals Psychology,whether Horse or Dog and how he or she operates with members of the same Species and try as much as possible to replicate that in our Training. Tony

[Staff'n'Toller]

Cats are often trained via corrections.

Sorry, but do you have proof of this and where?

I know of a cat trainer here in Aus, and knowing her father, I can guarantee she wouldn't use correction based training.

Mel.

[Guest rhapsodical78]

Cats are often trained via corrections.

Sorry, but do you have proof of this and where?

I know of a cat trainer here in Aus, and knowing her father, I can guarantee she wouldn't use correction based training.

Mel.

People often teach cats not to jump on tables and the like by using verbal corrections. Sorry, I don't have any links to prove this. Though I do know people who have done it.

[Cosmolo]

Thats a great post Erny, sums it up nicely i think