Um, Anyone Read The Series Of Articles In Dogs Vic Magazine?

[JeffnCel]

Lablover are you talking the differnce between either food rewards, or toy rewards?

[Kelpie-i]

As many trainers have advised........watch our dogs. Reallly watch them.

Not all rewards suit various dogs.

This is true LL although I am not too sure where you are pointing here. By watching our dogs we can try to ascertain what is of high value to them but unless we learn to walk on all fours and master the art of barking, our reward offerings will only ever be limited to that which is humanised ie. a rope toy, a ball, a pat, a piece of liver treat or release from an ear pinch!!

[Tapferhund]

"If so, he's been around for over 50 years and unfortunately his techniques have not evolved over that time."

Just another slant on the on the discussion........

All techniques work and why would you change when you have had 50 years of SUCCESS with a particular method. Most likely in another 50 years time there will be people(trainers) frowning on what they consider "old school" methods - our motivational methods in the use of food or toys that we use today. ??

WE ,as dog people , understand our dogs and we know how to get the best out of our dogs through motivational training ...and also remember our dogs know their place within our households...........but the greater majority of 'jo and jane public' are absolutely hopeless with dogs, they are not dog savvy ,their dogs usually 'rule' the household and through playing the wrong type of games with the wrong type of temperamented dog ...end up creating all sorts of problems for themselves.

MT's articles IMO are directed towards this type of person......Jo and Jane Public...who have absolutely NO idea ,nor do they want to, on motivational games for drive.

"He's very "old school" and shuns anything that remotely points to motivational or "positive" style training of today.Sad really It's all aversives and "make the dog do it" type of mentality."

Well so does ADT today (make the dog do it mentality) .....so what's the difference????

[helen]

Why change? Maybe because now we know there are better ways of doing things

The person who wrote the response to the article has been breeding and training Rotties for over 30 years and keeps learning, trying new things and using what works best. Things would have been pretty much the same 30 years ago but made a choice and says positive training is better.

The willingness to continue learning and adapting seems to be happening big time with agility instructors attending seminars and trying different ways of doing things and as a result agility has been taking leaps and bounds in Australia even in the short time I have been doing agility.

Edited to add - people think that there has only been positive training in the last few years. When I had my first dog as a kid, probably about grade 5 or 6 (sadly a long time ago) neighbours who were good family friends taught me how to get the dog to do a few things like sit - all done positively with food reward (taught using her dinner) without laying a hand on the dog, we decided the cue was 'what do you say' and when the dog sat that was her way of saying please

Edited October 10, 2007 by helen

[leopuppy04]

Just another slant on the on the discussion........

All techniques work and why would you change when you have had 50 years of SUCCESS with a particular method. Most likely in another 50 years time there will be people(trainers) frowning on what they consider "old school" methods - our motivational methods in the use of food or toys that we use today. ??

WE ,as dog people , understand our dogs and we know how to get the best out of our dogs through motivational training ...and also remember our dogs know their place within our households...........but the greater majority of 'jo and jane public' are absolutely hopeless with dogs, they are not dog savvy ,their dogs usually 'rule' the household and through playing the wrong type of games with the wrong type of temperamented dog ...end up creating all sorts of problems for themselves.

MT's articles IMO are directed towards this type of person......Jo and Jane Public...who have absolutely NO idea ,nor do they want to, on motivational games for drive.

Why change?

simply because ideas like 'letting your dog win tug makes them more dominant' is ill founded and (I believe) been proven to be not true (provided you don't have any pre-existing dominance issues).

While I understand what you are saying about 'jo and jane' public - my guess is those 'jo and jane public' wouldn't be getting VicDog to begin with .

Add to that - although some can 'ruin' a dog with positive training ("oh my dog won't do it without food etc,etc).... you can also ruin a dog with misinterpretation of these methods too. I may be wrong - but ruining a dog with force, would be much worse (i'm thinking learned helplessness, shutting down etc) than ruining a dog with food. Reason? Well - like you have already said - Jo and Jane Public simply CANT read their dogs and don't know when their 'training' is being detrimental to their dogs

JMHO

Edited October 10, 2007 by leopuppy04

[dogdude]

There are advantages, an disadvantages to both types of training, and it pains me to here all the purely positive trainers constantly knocking aversive methods and labeling them as history. As has already been pointed out, reward training is not new, or necessarily better.

Most forms of dog training are going to do society good, and I for one would not like to see this forum turn into the Yahoo obedience website with a big bold headline "Positive only trainers"

[leopuppy04]

There are advantages, an disadvantages to both types of training, and it pains me to here all the purely positive trainers constantly knocking aversive methods and labeling them as history. As has already been pointed out, reward training is not new, or necessarily better.

Most forms of dog training are going to do society good, and I for one would not like to see this forum turn into the Yahoo obedience website with a big bold headline "Positive only trainers"

Ok - i'll bite

If you are referring to my previous post - I was not knocking aversive methods.

I was simply saying that for "Joe and Jane Public" who do NOT have any concept of dog training whatsoever, can do damage to the dog by using ANY method of training.

But I would rather see damage done by 'food training' than 'aversive' training whereby they have corrected the wrong thing, forced the dog to do something that is not in the way intended etc,etc.

I didn't voice an opinion on any method, but I still think that what is written is 'dangerous' for someone who can easily misinterpret what was well intended.

Also the theories are out of date - I mean...... never tug with your dog? Never rough house?! These are not dependent on the type of training used.

Oh - and i'll bite on this bit as well... there is no such thing as a 'purely positive trainer'.... if they are - they won't be any good! Consequences happen for ALL actions

[Staranais]

I have found several things in them that made me cringe to be frank. Last month it was the comment that people in the UK have found they need a Border Collie to stand any chance of winning Obedience tests (what are all their other dogs stupid or something over there?LOL).

I don't know anything about UK obedience tests, but I do know that the vast majority of serious high level NZ obedience competitiors do have border collies. If it's not the same in Oz, then I suspect that's because NZ obedience is a lot more competitive than Australian obedience. So I was wondering, perhaps UK obedience is really competitive too? I don't know much about how it works over there.

Leopuppy, as for whether ruining a dog with force is worse than ruining a dog with food, I think that depends on exactly how ruined the dog becomes! I imagine that for some dogs, really poorly mishandled food training (e.g constantly reinforcing the wrong things) could lead to the dog becoming uncontrolling, domineering, and even aggressive - and therefore could result in the dog being abandoned or PTS if the owners decided that they just can't handle it anymore. Just a thought.

[Silvawilow]

There are advantages, an disadvantages to both types of training, and it pains me to here all the purely positive trainers constantly knocking aversive methods and labeling them as history. As has already been pointed out, reward training is not new, or necessarily better.

Most forms of dog training are going to do society good, and I for one would not like to see this forum turn into the Yahoo obedience website with a big bold headline "Positive only trainers"

Well said and nicely put dogdude!

I do a mixture of both methods, a lot of food rewards for my hungry dog, a lot of verbal parise/rewards and pats for my smooch dog (he is always sidling up for a smooch) and a bit of everything for Kira, toys, voice, tone, depending on the situation, i.e. how hyped up she is! My dogs all understand the meaning of the word no and my tone is very effective for when they are a bit ott.

[leopuppy04]

Leopuppy, as for whether ruining a dog with force is worse than ruining a dog with food, I think that depends on exactly how ruined the dog becomes! I imagine that for some dogs, really poorly mishandled food training (e.g constantly reinforcing the wrong things) could lead to the dog becoming uncontrolling, domineering, and even aggressive - and therefore could result in the dog being abandoned or PTS if the owners decided that they just can't handle it anymore. Just a thought.

Yep - totally agree - but that same dog if treated with aversives by someone who doesn't know what they are doing, could also become domineering and aggressive. It can happen both ways, i'm certainly not denying that. But I still stand by what I said

[dogdude]

Hi leopuppy04

I was not responding to your post alone, there are too many to highlight. I do think however that training a dog in either fashion will do more good than harm, and I dont go worrying about about the odd idiot that dosnt know what they are doing. Many dog clubs still train using aversive only methods, and I think it is sending out the wrong message IMO.

My point is that it is always a positive trainer that manages to make negative comment on aversives almost every time. I see merit in both, and it gets a little boring hearing the same old tune all the time. These comments would offend a great many people, and they only drive people away from being involved with the forum.

[poodlefan]

Dogdude:

My point is that it is always a positive trainer that manages to make negative comment on aversives almost every time. I see merit in both, and it gets a little boring hearing the same old tune all the time. These comments would offend a great many people, and they only drive people away from being involved with the forum.

Isn't the author of these articles bagging positive training methods?? The obedience writer for the DogsNSW mag is another old school trainer who poo poos any use of food as "bribery".

As was put so eloquently at the APDT seminar, bagging other trainers training methods serves to make you look unprofessional and to divide a sport that needs to unite to survive.

If you ain't seen it used and haven't tried it yourself then shut the hell up I say unless what you have seen with your own eyes is abusive.

Border collies excel at the "wrap style" heeling popular in the UK. It's hard for many many breeds to emulate what passes for "total focus" in such a stylised approximation of close work and focus. I don't doubt that it's hard to do well with other breeds and the serious competitors will buy the dog for the job. The sport will be the poorer for it if it really catches on here.

Personally I think of lot of wrap style heeling is crowding the handler and should be faulted as such. If you can't turn a corner without banging into your dog, it's crowding.

Edited October 11, 2007 by poodlefan

[kelpiechick]

My point is that it is always a positive trainer that manages to make negative comment on aversives almost every time. I see merit in both, and it gets a little boring hearing the same old tune all the time. These comments would offend a great many people, and they only drive people away from being involved with the forum.

I don't want to take part in a training debate - I believe there is not a 'one size fits all' approach to dog training.

(and we all know the only thing 2 dog trainers can agree on is what a 3rd trainer is doing wrong)

I do believe that we all bring our own interpretation to the comments posted tho' - I actually find this forum the other way round Dogdude. Often feel that the positive trainers get flamed a lot by people defending aversives.

So my point is, not that one of us is 'right' and the other 'wrong' but that we are approaching the issue with different viewpoints.

I think we take the comments that we disagree with to heart sometimes and gloss over the others.

Hopefully there is room for all views here.

[dogdude]

Poodlefan:

My comment was directed toward the forum, not outside of it, but interestingly, as you have pointed out, the shoe was on the other foot on this occasion, and not directed at this forum even.............amazing how many people it has outraged?

Perhaps they can take the time out to think about how others may feel when they make similar comments!

[poodlefan]

Poodlefan:

My comment was directed toward the forum, not outside of it, but interestingly, as you have pointed out, the shoe was on the other foot on this occasion, and not directed at this forum even.............amazing how many people it has outraged?

Perhaps they can take the time out to think about how others may feel when they make similar comments!

Show me two dog trainers Dogdude and I'll show you a debate. I have a violent allergy to dogma and believe it behoves any trainer to keep an open mind to all dog training methods that aren't abusive. The use of e-collars has been debated on this forum ad nauseum from both "positive" and "negative" training perspectives.

Personally I don't fully subscribe to one or the other. As I've said before I judge the results of a training method by the reaction of the dog and the effectiveness in teaching the desired behaviour.

I'm as tired as hell of these "I'm right and you're wrong/cruel/ineffective debates.. there is no one right way to train a dog. Perhaps we could all agree on that.

It would be a way forward.

[Rom]

Good points PF.

I was having a discussion with a friend today about how some competitions are biased towards a certain type of dog (eg one example raised in the discussion-if you have a dog that has high pack drive, you are allowed to have the dogs primary motivator in the ring with you). The reality is that ANKC obedience is biased towards certain types of dogs, so the fact that Vic Dogs would publish such articles, even though I haven't read them..just commenting based on others opinions, doesn't really surprise me. Also, in a set of circumstances where ANKC and their affiliates in each state are bemoaning the fact that memberships are dropping across the board, is it really helping them to promote those obedience methods of training that only suit a certain type of dog? Joe Public turns up to these clubs too and he wants results regardless of the type of dog that he has. If he is not getting results, then he is certainly not going to consider competing and therefore becoming a member.

[poodlefan]

Never ceases to amaze me how the obedience rules preclude the use of "training aids" in the ring but allow check chains.. wait until you've seen a handler rattle the chain to get the dog's attention.

Some dogs I reckon you could train using any method and some more prominant handlers really haven't hit a "challenging" dog (or if they have they've rehomed it). The true test of a training method is how it works with "hard to train" dogs IMHO and no one method will solve those kinds of challenges.

[Staranais]

Border collies excel at the "wrap style" heeling popular in the UK... Personally I think of lot of wrap style heeling is crowding the handler and should be faulted as such. If you can't turn a corner without banging into your dog, it's crowding.

If UK obedience is anything like NZ obedience, I'd say that the Border collies are favoured simply because they're so smart and biddible, that it's relatively easy to get them to do very precise obedience work (relative easy compared to getting, say, your average terrier or hound to do very accurate work). And there's no point even thinking about seriously competing in the top levels of obedience here unless you're scoring nearly perfect scores. Perhaps the UK is similar? (Don't know much about them).

Strange if they don't get penalised for bumping into their dogs on the corners - over here that would definately cost you points, and probably the match at higher levels.

[leopuppy04]

I'm as tired as hell of these "I'm right and you're wrong/cruel/ineffective debates.. there is no one right way to train a dog. Perhaps we could all agree on that.

So my point is, not that one of us is 'right' and the other 'wrong' but that we are approaching the issue with different viewpoints.

*puts hand in air* - oh me, me! I'll agree to that!!!!

A couple of thoughts re: BC's, Obedience and such.....

I've noticed that in the UK it is very BC dominated - particularly for obedience/agility.

I also wonder if this may be because people think "i'm going to get a BC so I can do obedience or agility" rather than simply obtaining a dog and entering with that dog????

Just a thought.

ETA: Amhilite - I think NZ obedience is based very closely on UK obedience

Edited October 11, 2007 by leopuppy04

[poodlefan]

Amhailite:

I'd say that the Border collies are favoured simply because they're so smart and biddible, that it's relatively easy to get them to do very precise obedience work (relative easy compared to getting, say, your average terrier or hound to do very accurate work).

There are plenty of smart and biddable breeds. They simply don't happen to be medium sized and as lithe. Try doing obedience with a dog below knee height and see how hard it is to get good scores.

You get penalised for "exaggerated signals" because you want to deliver them in front of your dog's face (like handlers of larger dogs do) so you have to bend. One inch out of position in the heel is far more noticeable on a smaller dog.. as are crooked fronts. Or you get told "your dog heels wide".. .really? You mean it holds a position so it can see my face like the larger dogs are doing??

Or try with a larger breed that doesn't drop like a rock or corner as easily...

BCs or GRs get the good scores for two reasons.. they ARE good and they LOOK LIKE what the judge expects a good dog looks like. They don't have to translate it into "SWF" or "huge dog" good heeling or recalling or whatever.

Edited October 11, 2007 by poodlefan