"behaviouralist" -- What Does That Mean

[SkySoaringMagpie]

Wow! I think discussing and debating things (on-line or not) is one excellent way to learn. No-one says there has to be a "winner" in a debate or discussion or for that matter, an argument.

Sorry Anita, but if I were you and Ian's advice to "not discuss things with trainers online as it's worse than pointless" is the "best thing" I got out of the Dunbar conference, then I'd not be very satisfied and would probably want my money back.

That last para is an example of the problem. I said in my first post that I was planning to write a report but that that observation was one "one of the most useful things". I did not say it was "the best thing". I also clarified that the issue he was addressing was arguing over training theory, not about using the internet to assist people. Perhaps if you have a life as busy as mine, being reminded that you need to get off the online hamster wheel and start doing more of the things that will give you higher life rewards really is incredibly useful. Is that really so bad?

Seriously, if you have two people arguing over training theory, and they are entrenched, and the same discussion has already been had a number of times, and you can practically predict who will say what, wouldn't all those people be better off in their yards training their dogs instead? Does that kind of discussion really benefit the newbie? Or will the newbie get the impression that they could easily be dogpiled (so to speak) if they say the "wrong" thing?

[JulesP]

Errrr I was at work bored so couldn't really go out and train my doggies. You will be pleased to know that they have been trained prior to me logging back on. In the last week I have also gone to the Greg Derrett Foundation day, taken Poppy to trialling training and taught my class. Just because people like to chat on a computer doesn't mean that they aren't out 'doing' too.

[SkySoaringMagpie]

How to Teach a Border Collie Their Name

Determine If Your Dog Is Too Nervous to Train

Basic Dog Training Tips - Heel

(BTW the fellow in this video is wrong .... horses are traditionally worked on the handler's right; dogs on the left, but that's besides the point)

That last link returns to this thread. The other two are pretty sad sure, but certainly no worse in my mind than the Millan one I posted in General. For those who haven't clicked on the links, they do not feature Dunbar. Are they linked off dogstardaily? Anyway, as they are bad, it should be easy enough to do one that is better and send it along to him to link to instead!

If the use of aversives is cruel, wrong and so on and so forth, why wouldn't it ever NOT be important to convince us? I'd like to be convinced, because I feel nicer using positives than I do including aversives in training. But what I feel and what's best for the dog in its circumstances isn't always the same thing.

Who said the use of aversives is cruel and wrong? Poodlefan mentioned that she thinks the debate is one of degree. That's certainly my position, which is not that aversives are always cruel and wrong, but that one should be looking for the best way in any situation.

What I think is the best way won't necessarily sync up with what the next person thinks the best way is. Arguing about that is pointless because it comes down to personal experience and values in most online fora. Heck, sometimes it just comes down to who has the most time to keep debating. What stands is independent studies and demonstrations - particularly demos that are useful for the pet owner. Incompetents can be found in every field, it's sorting through what the competent have to offer that is important.

Edited because I can't spell.

Edited February 2, 2009 by anita

[SkySoaringMagpie]

Errrr I was at work bored so couldn't really go out and train my doggies. You will be pleased to know that they have been trained prior to me logging back on. In the last week I have also gone to the Greg Derrett Foundation day, taken Poppy to trialling training and taught my class. Just because people like to chat on a computer doesn't mean that they aren't out 'doing' too.

I didn't say that. I'm on a computer now for example and there is chat from me in a number of the forums today.

I am talking about a specific subset of discussions, arguing about training theory, particularly when it's going over old predictable ground. I also personalised it. I can say "I am not talking about JulesP" if you like, but I thought that much was obvious.

[Erny]

That last link returns to this thread.

Sorry. I've fixed it so if you really feel it worthwhile looking at (I don't), return to #40.

The other two are pretty sad sure, but certainly no worse in my mind than the Millan one I posted in General.

But what you posted was not a link to CM training demo/info .... it was a news report with a voice over which served to discredit, without any explanation of what he was doing or why.

For those who haven't clicked on the links, they do not feature Dunbar.

I didn't suggest they were. Don't know why you got the impression - it wasn't meant to. It was meant to show that in trying to gather examples of PP training, that's some of what is 'out there'.

If the use of aversives is cruel, wrong and so on and so forth, why wouldn't it ever NOT be important to convince us? I'd like to be convinced, because I feel nicer using positives than I do including aversives in training. But what I feel and what's best for the dog in its circumstances isn't always the same thing.

Anita : Who said the use of aversives is cruel and wrong?

I mentioned in my post that balanced trainers are and have been made to feel as though they (the trainers) are cruel, wrong, for using aversives ... . What I said above is in context with what I said before it and was in response to you saying that Ian Dunbar says it is not important to convince us of his methods. If they are so right and if the aversives that people such as Ian Dunbar frown upon are so wrong, why wouldn't it be important to convince us? That's what I'm asking.

Edited February 2, 2009 by Erny

[Quickasyoucan]

But as an inexperienced person, I like discussion, I like to see different points of view (unless it obviously turns into personal insults), how else is a person supposed to pick up on ideas to go and explore themselves and form their own opinion?? What might seem old hat to the experts is new ground to lots of people.

I am not particularly pro or con anything (that much is obvious since I haven't got off my butt to train my dog very much in the last 4 years). But the more I read, the more I realise I can do better by my relationship with this dog and even better hopefully with the next. And the more we learn and every tiny response I get from him that is better than before is a great experience for me.

Nothing is really bad by the way he is a great dog despite his owner But we are learning to do things better, to iron out a coupe of rough spots, and it is discussion like this that stimulates ideas and a realisation that improvements can be made.

I guess what I am saying, sorry OP off topic, is don't stop the discussion

[Erny]

Errrr I was at work bored so couldn't really go out and train my doggies. You will be pleased to know that they have been trained prior to me logging back on. In the last week I have also gone to the Greg Derrett Foundation day, taken Poppy to trialling training and taught my class. Just because people like to chat on a computer doesn't mean that they aren't out 'doing' too.

I didn't say that. I'm on a computer now for example and there is chat from me in a number of the forums today.

Must admit that when you wrote in a previous post something along the lines of "you're a busy person" and alluded that you've got better things to do than sit on a computer and 'chat on-line' (not a direct quote but that was the essence of it, I believe), I read it and thought the same as JulesP did. No biggie and I took no real offence as it didn't matter much to me, but it came over to me the same way.

[Erny]

But as an inexperienced person, I like discussion, I like to see different points of view (unless it obviously turns into personal insults), how else is a person supposed to pick up on ideas to go and explore themselves and form their own opinion?? What might seem old hat to the experts is new ground to lots of people.

I am not particularly pro or con anything (that much is obvious since I haven't got off my butt to train my dog very much in the last 4 years). But the more I read, the more I realise I can do better by my relationship with this dog and even better hopefully with the next. And the more we learn and every tiny response I get from him that is better than before is a great experience for me.

Nothing is really bad by the way he is a great dog despite his owner But we are learning to do things better, to iron out a coupe of rough spots, and it is discussion like this that stimulates ideas and a realisation that improvements can be made.

I guess what I am saying, sorry OP off topic, is don't stop the discussion

That's what I figure too, QAYC. When I'm involved in discussions that I know we've had before, I'm mindful that there's likely to be 'new' people reading. To me, the 'arguments' between people who don't share the same views opens up the 'question board' and leads to the exploration of ideas and understanding that other people might not have done without it. And how much exploration they want to do as a result of reading is completely up to the individual.

That's why I think it is great to entertain debates on methodologies and other things pertaining to training and behaviour on-line. It provides a broader base for people to see that there is more 'out there' than they otherwise might have thought.

Edited February 2, 2009 by Erny

[SkySoaringMagpie]

I mentioned in my post that balanced trainers are and have been made to feel as though they (the trainers) are cruel, wrong, for using aversives ... . What I said above is in context with what I said before it and was in response to you saying that Ian Dunbar says it is not important to convince us of his methods. If they are so right and if the aversives that people such as Ian Dunbar frown upon are so wrong, why wouldn't it be important to convince us? That's what I'm asking.

This is getting awfully confused.

At the conference he said that if he thinks a person will have a wide influence he will attempt to convince them - the issue at hand is not discussion, or attempting to convince someone, the issue is arguing about training theory. You can convince someone without arguing online about training theory, in fact if you want to convince someone with even one year's experience arguing training theory online is not going to cut it.

Are you convinced of someone's methods simply by reading what they have to say online? Say someone gets on here that you have never heard of and argues that they can train a completely bomb proof recall on any dog without an e-collar using PP methods. Would you simply accept that, and toss your e-collar training business and do what they said, or would you want to see a pretty convincing demo?

[Erny]

This is getting awfully confused.

... I admit that.

Are you convinced of someone's methods simply by reading what they have to say online? Say someone gets on here that you have never heard of and argues that they can train a completely bomb proof recall on any dog without an e-collar using PP methods. Would you simply accept that, and toss your e-collar training business and do what they said, or would you want to see a pretty convincing demo?

Someone simply saying "I can do it" doesn't convince me anything. Just as I wouldn't expect anyone to be convinced (enough to take it a step further at least) by me simply saying "I can do it with an e-collar". It's the explanation of the methodology and use of the technique/s behind it. Then exploring it and theoretically applying it to different models/situations etc. And answering questions as to how it might work to those who throw up a twist or a curly. The thing is, with the PP (yep - loose term), it CAN be used. There is no denying that and I don't think anyone does deny it. BUT it is whether it can be used effectively and efficiently to produce the best degree of reliability with every dog, is the point. And the thing is, the PP people (and no, I'll not say you're one as you've expressed you understand the use of aversives where needed, although sometimes some of your posts don't come over that way - but that probably isn't intended) are the ones who 'rule out' the use of physical aversives not matter what, on the basis that they are (eg) 'cruel'. They narrow the field of applied training, yet the pool of dogs out there with issues don't always match up with that narrowed view.

I'm not even sure how this discussion evolved to being one that seems to be about PP -vs- balanced (ie pos + neg).

[corvus]

I asked for suggstions in the Cesar Millan thread about what PP people would do with a red zone dog, didn't get any answers any referrals to links.

Meant to point out last night that more positive methods were suggested on that thread, both by myself and MJ, and those were just the pages I read. It depends on whether it's a flight or fight response or if it's a learnt behaviour. If it is F or F desensitise over time. It's boring and slow, but it works and it is the way positive trainers on other boards I know of do it. I know someone who rehabs aggressive dogs that go into rescue and she uses mostly that and a little leadership exercises thrown in. I would expect she uses very mild aversives once they are getting somewhere, but I'm not sure. If it is learnt, I would want to use Constructional Aggression Treatment, which is a way to teach dogs other ways to allow them to increase distance between themselves and the scary thing other than aggression. When you change the response from aggressive to calm, the problem is all but solved as the emotional response follows. Don't think there are any C.A.T trainers in this country, though. Both methods rely on not triggering an aggressive response. I expect that this is difficult in early days, but I have tamed people shy animals and I believe that even if your very presence triggers them in the first place, classical conditioning is a truly wonderful and underrated thing. When I was a kid I spent hours sitting in a pen with a calf putting in the ground work before putting a halter on her. I had seen what happens when you whack a halter on a scared calf and drag them around, so I and my friend decided to train this one ourselves with patience and avoiding frightening her at all. We did the same thing with 12 month old steers just taken from their mothers. You have to frighten them at first, but it's not that hard to stay out of range and keep triggering to a minimum and build the animal up to handle your presence. I don't see why, if you insist on working with a dog that is triggered by the presence of a human in the first place, you can't start with them in a cage or run and do it the slow and tedious way. You reap the rewards when you try not to scare animals.

I have heard that the book Control Unleashed also has a good method or two for dealing with reactive dogs.

[sandgrubber]

Sandgrubber ..... I'm so sorry - your thread seems to have veered off course somewhat and I am certainly a contributor to that happening. If you would prefer, and if people want to keep discussing along the lines that we are, I'm happy if you'd prefer a new thread be started so that this thread might return to topic?

No problem. Although something about the way the thread is behaving reminds me of how my mob do recall when they go out as a pack

[sandgrubber]

deleted . . . accidentally posted twice

Edited February 3, 2009 by sandgrubber

[Erny]

No problem. Although something about the way the thread is behaving reminds me of how my mob do recall when they go out as a pack :thumbsup:

.... very funny.