Cesar Millan

[lea]

Cesar Milan is scrummy.

Sorry, but his intelligence of dog language and behaviour surpasses most I have seen attempt it, plus he's scrummy.

He always respects people enough to tell them politely what the true problem is and is a real gent.

...and he's scrummy

i was going to reply but i think Red Mal said it all for me

just one more is needed though

He is Scrummy

[Lablover]

Sorry LL. Have really taken your thread .

Goodness, I do not care about going off topic. Apart from my husband, I share everything.

[Erny]

Apart from my husband, I share everything.

Oh my goodness. You DON'T share him? Ooops. :p ..........................................

No - only joking. ;)

[Lablover]

Apart from my husband, I share everything.

Oh my goodness. You DON'T share him? Ooops. :p ..........................................

No - only joking. ;)

As long as you fed him, while on loan. He does not have much food drive.

[Erny]

As long as you fed him, while on loan. He does not have much food drive.

Don't you know?.................. present the food, give him 10 seconds and if he hasn't eaten it, remove his plate and voila!!! No more until the next day.

[Red Mal]

As long as you fed him, while on loan. He does not have much food drive.

Don't you know?.................. present the food, give him 10 seconds and if he hasn't eaten it, remove his plate and voila!!! No more until the next day.

....plus do not be tempted to change his food or he will start getting fussy

[Cosmolo]

I tend to agree with Erny re the swing back toward balanced training. I wonder if it is area specific as well though? I know for instance that 90% of the trainers in perth are 'positive trainers'. Melbourne seems to be 50/50? 5 years ago positive reinforcment seemed to be the buzz word of the decade. I'm not convinced its the same now though.

[Kelpie-i]

5 years ago positive reinforcment seemed to be the buzz word of the decade. I'm not convinced its the same now though.

Cosmolo, it still is....especially with those closely affiliated with APDT and Delta.

The other common buzz word now is "motivational" training which I only started noticing about a year after we started using it. Although I'm not sure what other schools consider motivational methods to be........we use it as a layman term for drive training. Note: I am definitely not saying that we were the pioneers of motivational training, only that I've noticed more and more people using this term of late.

[Cosmolo]

Do you think its still the buzz word/ theory among clients though?

[squeak]

I tend to agree with Erny re the swing back toward balanced training. I wonder if it is area specific as well though? I know for instance that 90% of the trainers in perth are 'positive trainers'. Melbourne seems to be 50/50?

I think it might be area specific, but it might also be that trainers in certain areas are lead by other people to do one course over another. Some instructors (not all) that I train with seem to quietly shake their head in disbelief that I am doing the NDTF course and not the Delta course. I have tried to explain to them that just because NDTF will discuss the use of remote trainers and prong collars that doesn't mean that you must use them... it just means that you understand their use and have the option to choose to use them or not (if the situation arises). Since the preference of some instructors is for the Delta course, then that has to influence anyone else looking to do a course. Having said that, we still have some very "old school" instructors who believe in correction only and very little, if any praise. I hope that by the time that I complete the NDTF course that I will have the tools I need to become a balanced trainer (with perhaps just a slight positive lean) and be able to teach other people that perhaps being balanced in training isn't a bad thing... but I am sure that I have gone very OT.

[leopuppy04]

I tend to agree with Erny re the swing back toward balanced training. I wonder if it is area specific as well though? I know for instance that 90% of the trainers in perth are 'positive trainers'. Melbourne seems to be 50/50? 5 years ago positive reinforcment seemed to be the buzz word of the decade. I'm not convinced its the same now though.

I think it is definately area specific - some states are geared more to positive, some more to 'traditional/ balanced'.....

I do agree that Mel is pretty much 50/50

But I also think that those which are not 'purely positive' have changed their 'name' from 'positive training' to 'motivational'.... I find there is a huge variation between 'motivational trainers'...... but that is just my observations

[Lablover]

I cannot help wondering due to most breeds being from show stock, if this is one of the reasons why (any) corrections are not considered worthwhile? For example golden retrievers, who IMHO, are a much softer dog than a labrador - I am generalising.

[Staranais]

I cannot help wondering due to most breeds being from show stock, if this is one of the reasons why (any) corrections are not considered worthwhile? For example golden retrievers, who IMHO, are a much softer dog than a labrador - I am generalising.

I don't know about that. Seems to me that if that were true (i.e. if people don't use corrections because most pet dogs are "softer" now and don't need corrections) then shouldn't that mean that positive-only training should be working very successfully for pet and show dogs (even if it can't work for the harder working line dogs)?

As far as I've seen, it's just not.

Many dogs at the positive-only clubs I've been to have been reasonably unfocused or even quite out of control. In my experience, at the end of the 8 week basic course, many of the dogs will still not have a reliable off-leash recall or a stay. Many will leave the area pulling their owners behind them on the lead! That makes me think that positive-only training just isn't helpful for the majority of pet owners, who simply want to achieve a reasonable level of control over their dog within a reasonable time frame.

I think the craze for positive-only training stems from a couple of things. First is our change of attitude towards our dogs - people generally treat their dogs more as members of the family now, compared to fifty years ago when a dog was considered "just a dog" instead of a little fur-person. Hence, most modern pet owners feel guiltier about correcting our dogs, and don't want to do it. Secondly, positive only training is so popular that corrections are just not well understood by many volunteer instructors, many don't even understand the difference between a fair and unfair correction, or understand the difference between the teaching, training and proofing stages of learning - so they don't want to teach corrections or even allow corrections in their classes.

I'm not saying that positive-only can't work, I know for sure that it can work for some dogs, especially under the guidance of skilled instructors. Just saying that in the clubs I've seen, positive-only generally isn't working for the people who attend, not in the time frame that the courses run for. I think most pet owners would be better off learning balanced training, so they know how any why to correct a dog, as well as how and why to reward. Even if they do just have soft show-line dogs.

JMO.

[ShellyBeggs]

I don't know about that. Seems to me that if that were true (i.e. if people don't use corrections because most pet dogs are "softer" now and don't need corrections) then shouldn't that mean that positive-only training should be working very successfully for pet and show dogs (even if it can't work for the harder working line dogs)?

As far as I've seen, it's just not.

Many dogs at the positive-only clubs I've been to have been reasonably unfocused or even quite out of control. In my experience, at the end of the 8 week basic course, many of the dogs will still not have a reliable off-leash recall or a stay. Many will leave the area pulling their owners behind them on the lead! That makes me think that positive-only training just isn't helpful for the majority of pet owners, who simply want to achieve a reasonable level of control over their dog within a reasonable time frame.

I do agree with you on this Amhailte.....and in some cases I have seen recently it has been entirely hypocritical...

A friend of mine is a 'positive' only person with her dogs....I doubt she would even frown at her dogs, let alone growl at them.....and yet when I was there the other week her son (2yo) went to touch the hot oven door and as she saw it out of the corner of her eye she yelled very loudly at him "no" then went and smacked him lightly on the hand and told him that "you know you cant touch the oven, its burnies". Her son cried for a few seconds, saw it wasn't getting any attention, so grabbed a car off the floor and wandering off to play as though nothing had happened

I asked her why she had "corrected" her son.....and she said because if he doesn't learn he would burn himself.....

When asked why she smacked him she said because they had been telling him off for months and it wasn't working so her hubby and her had decided to esculate the "correction" to include a light smack.

I pointed out that one day her dog might do something that could injure itself......and maybe if she corrected this behaviour now it might prevent it.....

Her answer was....."I wouldn't yell at my dogs, I use positive reinforcement only"

:p

I know dogs and kids are not the same......and I am not implying dogs should be smacked, or kids for that matter (before I get an earfull off someone) ......but her theory seems a bit odd!

BTW she has a 3yo shep that jumps on her all the time, she doesn't say anything but when it eventually sits (by that time she is muddy or scratched) she gives it a treat.....so it jumps on her again then sits, and gets another treat.....the dog will do this constantly because it thinks if it jumps up then sits, it will get a treat. SO without the correction she is consistantly rewarding the bad behaviour as the dog sees the whole action as what it is being rewarded for.

[Erny]

I know dogs and kids are not the same......and I am not implying dogs should be smacked, or kids for that matter (before I get an earfull off someone) ......but her theory seems a bit odd!

The principals of consequential learning are the same for all animals .... humans included. Your comparative analogy is a good one, IMO, SB. I'm surprised your friend couldn't (wouldn't?) see the contrast of her own two views.

[Monah]

Shellybeggs, excellent post!

[Rom]

Many dogs at the positive-only clubs I've been to have been reasonably unfocused or even quite out of control. In my experience, at the end of the 8 week basic course, many of the dogs will still not have a reliable off-leash recall or a stay. Many will leave the area pulling their owners behind them on the lead! That makes me think that positive-only training just isn't helpful for the majority of pet owners, who simply want to achieve a reasonable level of control over their dog within a reasonable time frame.

Yes, I agree.

But I sometimes think that the problem stems from more than just the fact that PP training is used.

At many clubs there are too many 'grey' areas for dogs in the training. Doing a heel pattern and working for a loose lead one minute, then having a break and allowing the dog to pull on lead while it plays with another dog. The dog sees someone it knows and they greet it, and its allowed to pull on lead to go to them to get some attention. One minute the dog is being encouraged to not pull on lead, the next being rewarded for pulling on lead. Its almost as though the dog is always making the decision as to when pulling on lead is appropriate, and the trainers are just rewarding it for not pulling on lead without realising that it gets rewarded for pulling on lead too. I wonder how many of those dogs that don't improve over an 8 week period and are unfocused are just stressed over the mixed messages? I've seen the same phenomenon at balanced clubs where one minute the dog is getting corrected for pulling on lead and the next its getting rewarded for pulling on lead.

I think the craze for positive-only training stems from a couple of things. First is our change of attitude towards our dogs - people generally treat their dogs more as members of the family now, compared to fifty years ago when a dog was considered "just a dog" instead of a little fur-person. Hence, most modern pet owners feel guiltier about correcting our dogs, and don't want to do it. Secondly, positive only training is so popular that corrections are just not well understood by many volunteer instructors, many don't even understand the difference between a fair and unfair correction, or understand the difference between the teaching, training and proofing stages of learning - so they don't want to teach corrections or even allow corrections in their classes.

And I wonder how many of those qualified behaviourists that sell all the PP books have recognised the trend and market their businesses to that end. After all, science is science. I wonder if they have read the science background studies and disagree with it, or base the views that they promote on market research? (Or am I being overly cynical )

I'm grateful for the PP movement for what it has bought to the dog training world...but extremism in any field can be dangerous.

I'm not saying that positive-only can't work, I know for sure that it can work for some dogs, especially under the guidance of skilled instructors. Just saying that in the clubs I've seen, positive-only generally isn't working for the people who attend, not in the time frame that the courses run for. I think most pet owners would be better off learning balanced training, so they know how any why to correct a dog, as well as how and why to reward. Even if they do just have soft show-line dogs. :p

JMO.

Back to the marketing perspective, I believe that the above is why the balanced training view will eventually win out. We can't change the fact that we do live in a throw away world. How many businesses would you return to if you never got what you paid for? We can't change the people, but we can change what and how we teach them.

[Staranais]

I'm grateful for the PP movement for what it has bought to the dog training world...but extremism in any field can be dangerous.

I agree. I don't want to go back to the days of Koehler, when the only motivational tools available were praise and then corrections. It's good that we know how to use food and markers and toys more effectively these days. I can't imagine it being much fun training in agility or competitive obedience or any other type of dogsport, or even just teaching a dog tricks, if we didn't have the motivational tools that we do today.

And you're probably right that a lot of the time, the fact the dogs often don't learn much at some dog schools might just result from poor teaching, not just the fact that the school refuses to allow any punishment of unwanted behaviours. But I guess that raises another question, which is, when did it become acceptable to have a dog graduate an obedience school and still be almost entirely untrained? Have we really come very far with dog training if many owners give up in frustration and many dogs don't actually get trained, despite our modern methods? Would in some ways be better perhaps if dog owners who just want reasonably obedient pets were directed to a traditional 12 week "Koehler" course for their basic pet obedience, just so their dogs actually do get trained, rather than getting them to struggle with more modern methods and risking having them quit in frustration?

(Yes, there's a question that could start a nasty flame war! It's not intended to, though I do think it would make an interesting discussion.)

Back to the marketing perspective, I believe that the above is why the balanced training view will eventually win out. We can't change the fact that we do live in a throw away world. How many businesses would you return to if you never got what you paid for?

Ah, but the extremist positive-only trainers have great marketing skills too. I have been told by positive-only trainers and students that correction collars are abusive and unnecessary (prong collars are "disgusting"). And that punishment might "appear to work" but really just a short term fix, and it ruins your dog's trust in you. And that trainers that use punishment are only doing it because they lack the knowledge to use reinforcers effectively.

So as an extreme-PP dog school student, you can be happy in the knowledge that even if your dog isn't trained, at least you didn't abuse him like the nasty balanced trainers down the road would have. I imagine that feeling like that is a pretty good incentive not to join a balanced training school, even if your PP school didn't work out for you particularly well.

[wheres my rock]

when did dog trinang get so complicated lol

its funny how opinions come about and how quickly epople will jump on abnd wagon and throw caution to teh wind

Im so glad i dont have to deal wiht other people and their dogs i think i'd go nuts

at the end of the day a fad is a fad anad agimmick is a gimmick and the majority of the joe publics arent going to put in the work they really need to to trian their dog they will blame the instructors the mthod the equipment rather than their lack of conviction to trianing their pooch

i se it all the time at club dogs dragging owners out to clas and back tt eh car marching up and down like little clones of each other regardless of the methd they choose very few use any method well enough to actually get anywhere they seek constant help wanting you to trian the dog for them or tellthm that its ok their dog is untrainable so they shouldnt feel bad

[Rom]

But I guess that raises another question, which is, when did it become acceptable to have a dog graduate an obedience school and still be almost entirely untrained?

You know, I don't think that its so much that it just became acceptable...also that there are elements that it is a case of necessity esp. in a volunteer run not for profit environment. People who raise their hands to volunteer are thin on the ground, but a regular intake of new members is relied on for the club to remain financially viable. If you hold those back that who aren't getting anywhere in training all of a sudden you have a massive beginners class and only one spare person to run it.

The club that I'm a member of charge an annual training fee. You start in beginners and you can keep coming back for the entire year. They have monthly upgrading and if you haven't progressed, you don't get upgraded. Its all good in theory, but because of the above, they end up having automatic upgrades regardless of the level that the dog is at because classes become too big for the number of available instructors. Despite this, they still have similar levels of drop outs....its just that the drop outs might persist in coming for a little longer.

Have we really come very far with dog training if many owners give up in frustration and many dogs don't actually get trained, despite our modern methods? Would in some ways be better perhaps if dog owners who just want reasonably obedient pets were directed to a traditional 12 week "Koehler" course for their basic pet obedience, just so their dogs actually do get trained, rather than getting them to struggle with more modern methods and risking having them quit in frustration?

(Yes, there's a question that could start a nasty flame war! It's not intended to, though I do think it would make an interesting discussion.)

;) No flaming from me.

Sometimes its not so much the method that is to be questioned.

I think that you'd still come up with some similar issues if you did just the Koehler method because we still have to rely on the handlers ability to implement it. I think what is needed is that more time is given to give the handlers the available options and the pro's and con's of each option, then let them chose which way they would like to proceed.

Its not always that instructors lack the ability to do this, sometimes its just that they don't have the time or resources to do it in the face of having to deal with so many people.

I think that the above could be over come if beginners classes included some class room time for the handlers. If the class goes for an hour, then at least half that time is spent in a class room without the dogs so that you can have the full attention of the handler who is not struggling with an unruly dog. Then get the dogs out.

Ah, but the extremist positive-only trainers have great marketing skills too. I have been told by positive-only trainers and students that correction collars are abusive and unnecessary (prong collars are "disgusting"). And that punishment might "appear to work" but really just a short term fix, and it ruins your dog's trust in you. And that trainers that use punishment are only doing it because they lack the knowledge to use reinforcers effectively.

So as an extreme-PP dog school student, you can be happy in the knowledge that even if your dog isn't trained, at least you didn't abuse him like the nasty balanced trainers down the road would have. I imagine that feeling like that is a pretty good incentive not to join a balanced training school, even if your PP school didn't work out for you particularly well.

Yeah, I know where you're coming from on that! But what if you could say...."We're happy to teach you PP if that is what you want, but it may take longer to get results". Or, "Lets figure out what level of cxn/punishment you feel comfortable with and we'll help you put together a training program to suit you"

Some class room time for the handlers could help facilitate that.

when did dog trinang get so complicated lol

When people got involved :p

Im so glad i dont have to deal wiht other people and their dogs i think i'd go nuts

Either that, or you'd start to become desensitised to the areas where results weren't being produced, or you'd say..."This obviously isn't working, what can we change to help things be better?"

at the end of the day a fad is a fad anad agimmick is a gimmick and the majority of the joe publics arent going to put in the work they really need to to trian their dog they will blame the instructors the mthod the equipment rather than their lack of conviction to trianing their pooch

Yes, you're right there to a certain extent....but sometimes we forget that some Joe Publics have paid to come along because they want things to be different, if they didn't, they wouldn't have paid to come along. Sometimes its all too easy for a trainer to blame the handler and the dog that don't get results rather than question whether the method really suited that dog and handler combination.

Edited July 18, 2007 by Rom