Why Is Balance So Good?

[persephone]

I tried that once, long ago. Never tried it again

did someone get it on film?? I know it's hard!

[Kelpie-i]

What kind of behaviours can't be modified with rewards alone?

Ingrained stock or wildlife chasing. Try being more interesting than a fleeing rabbit.

I tried that once, long ago. Never tried it again

SSM, I woudn't advocate chasing stock or wildlife..they are much faster than you are and you could stumble and fall sorry, sick humour

[poodlefan]

ETA I don't think there are many people on this board that wouldn't consider punishments. But that's not really the topic. I want to know why "balanced" is apparently so important.

Actually PF, I ain't gonna be convincing myself because I'm biased and I'm not going to take up a dog sport just so I can answer a question the collective brain of DOL might be able to answer for me with a more "balanced" viewpoint than mine. Where's that ironic emoticon?

Well then Corvus, this is shaping up to be yet another pointless thread where people will express a bunch of views in response to your question and you'll hold to your original viewpoint. Where's that "futile" emoticon?

Until you've actually trained your dogs to do something other than be manageable pets though, your view is based on quite limited experience. Bear that in mind when you evaluate the views of others. If you never actually needed your dog to behave reliably on cue, you can stay in the reward quadrant. Why? Because there are no consequences for you or the dog for non-performance.

Personally I think you need to broaden your views of "correction". Your dog uses them, even if you can't see it.

Edited October 6, 2009 by poodlefan

[persephone]

..."correction". Your dog uses them, even if you can't see it.

Indeed!!

[SkySoaringMagpie]

Corvus i don't understand how you can say you haven't tried using punishment with Erik when you say in another thread you've scruffed him to stop him mouthing.

Scruffing is one of the main reasons I don't consider myself PP. I don't use check collars and I don't alpha roll but I occasionally scruff when the girls are in season and my boy is thinking with his (even) smaller brain. In order to stop the girls being stressed, I need to get through to him fast. In any case, I know that me being more interesting than a bitch in week 2 of her cycle is pushing it up hill with a pointy stick.

Tho' recently, one of the older bitches has been doing a very decent job of discipline herself. She has amazing bite inhibition, she has an impressive air snap and snarl and manages to just snag his muzzle with her teeth but she never rips or punctures. After she does that he's all "OK, lady, I didn't mean nothin'" until about 1 minute later when his hormones take over again and he forgets that she could take his eyeball out like a cocktail onion if she wanted to

[Erny]

Actually PF, I ain't gonna be convincing myself because I'm biased ...

Are you saying that you've started a thread to ask a question that no matter what answers are given you won't take them on board anyway?

ETA: I now see that PF is of the same thoughts as myself. I would say to you that your thread is pointless, if it wasn't for the fact that at least others are reading and may be willing to learn from it, if not - as is seemingly the case - yourself.

And I'm interested in your response to this question to you by Cosmolo :

Corvus i don't understand how you can say you haven't tried using punishment with Erik when you say in another thread you've scruffed him to stop him mouthing.

Edited October 6, 2009 by Erny

[poodlefan]

Actually PF, I ain't gonna be convincing myself because I'm biased ...

Are you saying that you've started a thread to ask a question that no matter what answers are given you won't take them on board anyway?

You sound surprised Erny.

[SkySoaringMagpie]

I tried that once, long ago. Never tried it again

did someone get it on film?? I know it's hard!

No thank god

Picture me in a paddock with a saluki streaking after a hare that came up out of nowhere. Me yelling "Lucy, come!" into the wind. I could have been saying "eeny meeny miny mo" for all she cared. Fortunately the hare was a rat bastard and found a hole in the fence that she couldn't where I could corner her. Nearly dislocated my shoulder taking her back up to the house tho'.

[Jumabaar]

I tried positive to train a recall for my dog. I ALWAYS reward when she comes back I have tried lying down/running wasy when she does it, Hell I have even driven off and left her behind (with friends watching her however i guess that was negative reinforcement). I put her on a long line- perfect recall, pretended to take the long line off- perfect recall, Acutally took the line of- NOTHING she took off in the other direction!

In the end I found the most effective recall was a big NO as she was hightailing it away. In the past I had used that when she was doing something very very wrong ie about to jump on the stove!! She turned around and came straight back- I managed to squeeze in the come command before she arrived. She then got a big run around with me for being a good girl! I got into a little trouble from another trainer for saying NO but I have to ask if it worked, it didnt hurt her why is it so bad.

So I guess I use both not rewarding (some nights there is more time spent in time out then there is training) and also a marker word for an incorrect action- Be this running away or going through the tunnel when i said the A-frame. I dont yell t her but calmly say no in a firm voice. Depending on what it was she will either be put away if she was being naughty or I will correct her by performing the task if it was a mistake

I think I use it mainly when she is self rewarding (something she does so well) and so I need to let her know that she should not be rewarding herself and that I am not happy with what she is doing. I tried positive only however I ended up with a dog that had me wrapped around her little dew claw!

I do think it also makes a differenece what you want out of your dog. If you want a companion that you can train in your own time that doesnt have any vices then positive only would probably work. However if you are in an environment where the dog CAN self reward easily (and they have the inclination to do so) and you need them to do something then I think balance is the key.

I think a dog needs to know what they are doing wrong so the can work out what they are doing right. We always finish on a positive and I ALWAYS set her up to succeed so she really does get more positive than negative!

[Erny]

Actually PF, I ain't gonna be convincing myself because I'm biased ...

Are you saying that you've started a thread to ask a question that no matter what answers are given you won't take them on board anyway?

You sound surprised Erny.

Ummmmmmm, actually .......................................... I'm not.

Going by another earlier thread by Corvus I thought Corvus was not going to simply be argumentative anymore, though.

Leopards. Spots.

[Janba]

What kind of behaviours can't be modified with rewards alone?

Ingrained stock or wildlife chasing. Try being more interesting than a fleeing rabbit.

I train herding which is very similar to chasing a fleeing rabbit in that the biggest reward for a keen dog is to be allowed to work regardless of whether what it is doing is correct or incorrect.

I have never used physical correction or long whips, plastic bags on whips etc for my dog but I do use a verbal correction of "no" or a gruff "uugh" for a really bad error. I also use a marked reward word for when the dog does something difficult or when teaching something new.

At the moment I am training my dog to drive sheep. His instincts tell him to bring the sheep back to me and to stay in a balance position (basically me, sheep, dog) and I am telling him to drive the sheep away from me (me, dog, sheep). When he disobeys a command and tries to bring them to me I tell him no, regive the command and then praise when he does it right. You can really see the dog beginning to un derstand because he is getting both positive and negative feed back on his actions.

I don't know that I would call myself a balanced trainer but I do think dogs respond to knowing they are wrong as well as knowing they are right, but I do think they need to know a command properly before negative feedback works.

[Staranais]

I use correction since my dog appears to learn and behave better with them. If she learned worse with correction, I wouldn't use it.

My puppy escalates when her "bad" behaviour is ignored. She appears to quite cheerfully push the boundaries on purpose, to find out where they are. If you don't give her boundaries, she keeps on pushing and escalating her behaviour until she finds them.

She learns quickly, and happily, when I give her clear boundaries using verbal (mostly) and physical (sometimes) corrections.

An example from a few months back?

I ignore her being slow to get out of the drivers side car seat on request (which she has been taught patiently, gets praised for doing, and appears to fully understand)? Then she'll start to refuse to move unless I physically push her out of the seat.

I ignore that? She'll bark at me when I push her out.

I ignore that? She'll snap at me when I push her out.

I ignore that? She'll growl then bite at me on the arm with lovely, fast inhibited bites when I go to get in the car.

I ignore that?

Actually, I don't know where she would have gone from there, since I stopped the behaviour right there with correction (verbal warning followed by water bottle squirt in the face next time she didn't move over on request, followed by huge praise when she moved over). She was immediately happy to move from the seat upon request after that one correction, and has been ever since. She also seemed more relaxed that I'd laid down boundaries. Really, she did. She was a happy, relaxed little puppy who still loved car rides and still loves hanging out with me, and who now listens when I ask her to get out of the car seat since she knows I'm prepared to back up my request with a consequence.

I suppose I could have given her food or a toy for getting out of the car seat on request without biting me, but I personally don't:

a) want to have to carry food and toys every second of the day to pay my dog to do routine tasks

b) think that doling out food constantly helps our relationship at all. I pay my dog very well for doing new or difficult things. But I also expect her to comply with simple, easy, well known tasks like moving over on request just because I've asked her to, the same way I would do with my own parents or anyone else I respect. That's not unreasonable, I feel.

If your pup learns better using positive/ignore only, then I think you should use that. It's daft to use corrections if they're not helping. But if we swapped pups for the weekend, I'm fairly certain you'd end up agreeing that some form of correction is best for my pup, just like I may agree that positive only was best for yours.

[Vickie]

I don't think being "balanced" is important for you right now Corvus. To date, you have done very limited training with a young low drive dog who came with a clean slate. His behaviour is not perfect but you seem basically happy with all that he does. That is all that matters right now, but I do think you need to be prepared that the future may bring you situations where your current approach is not the most effective...or even effective at all.

Right now I have a number of tools in my toolbox and use them all as & when I need to. I have a pack of 4 dogs who I do tricks, agility & herding with. I have between 5-12 other dogs coming on to my property each week, some known, some unknown to my dogs. I can assure you my 4 dogs use a balanced approach with visiting dogs and following their example has served me well, we are yet to have a problem that we have been unable to sort out. I have also started volunteering at the pound each week, where I encounter all sorts of behaviours from all sorts of dogs...again I need to use a number of tools to deal with what these dogs are offering.

I use a mix of training methods because I am yet to see someone who claims to be purely positive whose dogs I could live with. My training is mostly reward based, I don't hit dogs but I will interrupt dogs verbally or physically for anything I don't like or want. If I have 8-10 dogs here at once, I want to be right on top of what is going on.

I just had a young dog here for 4 days. When she came, she was resource guarding food & people, she was movement reactive, had no recall & was willing to use her mouth to prevent anything she didn't want happening. With 6 dogs in my yard for 4 days, this was obviously not going to work. On day one, I kept my dogs out of it & started working on each of her issues. On day two, I allowed her limited access to my dogs. By day three, she had a basic recall, full access to my dogs, had stoppped all resource guarding & was less interested in the birds & ponies. By day four, she was just like any of my dogs. I used a balanced approach with her & it worked.

Edited October 6, 2009 by Vickie

[Bubitty]

Kivi doesn't use both. He ignores behaviour he doesn't like, or he walks away. He is more even-tempered than I am! He gets a long way without aggression or warnings.

Hehehe Bubby does that and all he gets for it is a ratbag puppy who gets away with murder and sits on his head!

[poodlefan]

Kivi doesn't use both. He ignores behaviour he doesn't like, or he walks away. He is more even-tempered than I am! He gets a long way without aggression or warnings.

Hehehe Bubby does that and all he gets for it is a ratbag puppy who gets away with murder and sits on his head!

Bub the day will probably come when Bub decides he's had enough of that. The licence adult dogs grant to pups doesn't last forever. When he roars at the puppy, don't panic and don't tell him off for it ... he'll just be using a balanced training approach.

[Aidan]

I've never claimed to be "purely positive", despite the fact that my ezine has "Positive" in the title and I write for Karen Pryor's publications (who I'm pretty sure doesn't claim to be "purely positive" either). In these arenas I discuss positive reinforcement methods mostly because that is what I do best and that is what our readers want to know more about, but in one article for clickertraining.com I wrote a protocol that relied entirely on negative reinforcement - using a clicker what's more!

Neither would I claim to be "balanced". I don't like the implication. I wouldn't use an aversive if I didn't need to and I don't think I take a balanced approach. Others may disagree that this is the implication, though. I think Corvus might see it the same way that I do.

I think it is completely pointless to avoid any operation because it falls into a particular QUADRANT that you claim not to use. The quadrants are the way we explain something, they do not operate directly on the organism. It is not negative reinforcement that increases a behaviour, it is the reinforcer that increases behaviour. It is not positive punishment that suppresses a behaviour, it is the punisher that suppresses behaviour.

We all make our own choices about what we will or won't do. I don't think those choices should be dictated by which quadrant they might fall into, but rather the consequences of our actions. Of course we can only guess at what those might be, and personally I err on the side of caution, choosing and teaching methods that I know are unlikely to have unwanted fall-out.

Any effort to be either "balanced" or "purely positive" does not really come into it.

[Keshwar]

This article on balance is from my favourite online training resource http://www.dogstardaily.com/

A Balancing Act

August 21st, 2009 by Erica Houck Young

Lately, I have heard many people toss around the phrase “balanced trainer”. Some of the people behind this phrase incorporate both reward-based and aversion-based methods to train dogs. Many use reward-based training with puppies, but are heavy handed and forceful with adult dogs – as if the emotional needs of each are different even though they are both dogs. I disagree with this definition of a ‘balanced trainer’. You cannot have your cake and eat it too –there is no balance in choking an adult GSD during one session followed by using lure-reward training with a 12 week old beagle. The entire picture of your philosophy is in question here. To say you are “balanced” after that is just an act of illusion. Either you are a positive, reward-based trainer or you aren’t.

To me, a ‘balanced trainer’ is actually one that incorporates the many methods of humane, scientifically-based dog training along with a boatload of empathy for both the dog and the owner. It is extremely difficult to feel immense empathy for a suffering dog and still be able to function in the way that is needed in order to help rehabilitate the dog and the owner. As a dog owner and trainer, I struggle with feeling sorry for my reactive ACD while utilizing my training education in order to help him during those moments where he seems to be drowning. The balance needed is not as easy as it appears to be in theory.

Let’s not beat around the bush -- the application of something unpleasant for a dog that he will work to avoid is an aversive. Included in this list are things like water spray bottles, citronella collars, the infamous bitter apple spray, along with the other usual suspects involving pain, choke, shock, and startle. Many will argue the semantics of what constitutes hurting a dog, bringing forth the old “high pain tolerance” and old-school “dogs are just animals” justifications. True, they are animals, but so are we and pain tolerance is really an irrelevant point. What about being JUST in the grand scheme of things and doing right by the emotions of the dog?

I have also read (and reread)a few opinion-based articles trashing positive, reward-based trainers while portraying them in the same light as Desperate Housewives tossing cookies. Pot-shots negating their gender, experience, knowledge of other methods, and dog ownership were among the listed traits of these “weak” professionals. I, for one, do not believe for an instant that competing in agility, walking my dog on a harness, or focusing on puppy classes makes anyone a weaker or lesser dog trainer than another. Everyone has a forte, be it aggressive dogs, new puppy classes, or housetraining issues. I don’t know of any positive, reward-based trainer that isn’t acutely aware of the use and effect of aversive equipment, either. To say we “do not understand” or are “ignorant” of these tools and methods is to point one finger at us and four back at oneself. We have done the research and voted in favor of using safe, humane techniques that are fun and effective for both dog and owner.

I had the pleasure of meeting a dog trainer a few months ago at a seminar who almost solely takes housetraining clients and has overflowing amounts of business offering board and train for these dogs in her home. How genius is that??? I think she may even be a BETTER dog trainer for her bulls-eye focus on her strengths. She is also obviously a fantastic marketing and businesswoman.

So, regardless of whether you wrestle aggression cases or play with puppies all day, if you are choking, startling, shocking, tapping or otherwise causing physical discomfort or mental anguish to any dog in the name of training do not, by any means, call yourself "balanced". Own up to what you do and save the term “balanced” for those of us who truly are.

NOTE: I do not necessarily agree or disagree with everything written in this article.

Edited October 7, 2009 by Keshwar

[Staranais]

Ah, but that's the problem, isn't it? Terminology is always a problem.

Many times on this board I've seen this topic come up. Someone mentions the phrase "purely positive" and then a "I don't use punishment if I can possibly avoid it" type trainer points out that they don't like being called "purely positive" or even "anti-aversive". The "I don't use punishment if I can possibly avoid it" type trainers apparently prefer just "positive" if they must have a label.

Fair enough, but that raises its own difficulties in that then according to some "positive" trainers I've talked to, I shouldn't call myself "positive", even though I use mostly positive training, since unlike them I use mild aversives on a daily basis and have no issue with using stronger aversives if I think they'll be useful. Apparently that means I am not a positive trainer.

Now, if I call myself a "balanced" trainer it's apparently offensive to some positive-only trainers by implying they're not balanced or something (I think it was Sky Soaring Magpie who thought the label was obnoxious, and the article above clearly does not like trainers like myself using the label), but I refuse to call myself a "traditional" trainer or a "punishment based" trainer as some trainers would prefer, since I am neither particularly traditional nor do I base my dog's training on punishment.

Perhaps I should just call myself a trying-to-be-sensible-and-kind trainer, but that's not exactly informative, is it?

So what should Corvus have called the "I don't use aversives if I can possibly avoid it" style of training as opposed to the "I use aversives whenever I think they'll be helpful and not harmful but use heaps of reward too" theory of training? Describing them each time is rather a mouthful, it gets people upset, and IMO it would be kind of handy if everyone could agree on labels that offend noone.

Edited October 7, 2009 by Staranais

[Kelpie-i]

Ah, but that's the problem, isn't it? Terminology is always a problem.

Many times on this board I've seen this topic come up. Someone mentions the phrase "purely positive" and then a "I don't use punishment if I can possibly avoid it" type trainer points out that they don't like being called "purely positive" or even "anti-aversive". The "I don't use punishment if I can possibly avoid it" type trainers apparently prefer just "positive" if they must have a label.

Fair enough, but that raises its own difficulties in that then according to some "positive" trainers I've talked to, I shouldn't call myself "positive", even though I use mostly positive training, since unlike them I use mild aversives on a daily basis and have no issue with using stronger aversives if I think they'll be useful. Apparently that means I am not a positive trainer.

Now, if I call myself a "balanced" trainer it's apparently offensive to some positive-only trainers by implying they're not balanced or something (I think it was Sky Soaring Magpie who thought the label was obnoxious), but I refuse to call myself a "traditional" trainer or a "punishment based" trainer as some trainers would prefer, since I am neither traditional nor do I base my dog's training on punishment.

Perhaps I should just call myself a trying-to-be-sensible-and-kind trainer, but that's not exactly informative, is it?

So what should Corvus have called the "I don't use aversives if I can possibly avoid it" style of training as opposed to the "I use aversives whenever I think they'll be helpful but use heaps of reward too" theory of training? Describing them each time is rather a mouthful, it gets people upset, and IMO it would be kind of handy if everyone could agree on labels that offend noone.

Staranais you are completely correct. Terminology and how it is interpreted is the problem. Whatever you label yourself, it's going to be misinterpreted by someone.

there is no balance in choking an adult GSD during one session followed by using lure-reward training with a 12 week old beagle

The quote above is from the written piece provided by Kewshwar and it clearly demonstrates the writer's lack of knowledge of what a "balanced" trainer is. This sort of garbage is what provides readers with an incorrect description of the way balance in training works. Until such blinkered people stop writing this sort of crap, there is absolutely no chance of ever setting the record straight. Instead of writing what they perceive a "balanced" trainer to be, they perhaps should go and have a look at one in action.

Let’s not beat around the bush -- the application of something unpleasant for a dog that he will work to avoid is an aversive.

No shite Sherlock!!!

if you are choking, startling, shocking, tapping or otherwise causing physical discomfort or mental anguish to any dog in the name of training do not, by any means, call yourself "balanced". Own up to what you do and save the term “balanced” for those of us who truly are.

This sort of muck can only come from a PP trainer.

Edited October 7, 2009 by Kelpie-i

[SkySoaringMagpie]

Now, if I call myself a "balanced" trainer it's apparently offensive to some positive-only trainers by implying they're not balanced or something (I think it was Sky Soaring Magpie who thought the label was obnoxious), but I refuse to call myself a "traditional" trainer or a "punishment based" trainer as some trainers would prefer, since I am neither traditional nor do I base my dog's training on punishment.

My primary concern with the word is that it's a euphemism for "I am prepared to correct and punish" that gives no signal at all to that effect to your average listener. If someone described themselves as a "balanced parent" or "balanced boss" would you infer that they are prepared to spank (the parents) or punish (the boss). Most would not.

Out of some people's mouths it's almost Orwellian, because their approach is anything but balanced. For those people it's part of their PR set to draw attention away from what they are doing and to legitimise it, and I find that disturbing.

I believe that if we are prepared to correct and punish, we should shoulder responsibility for making sure it remains appropriate. We hold ourselves more accountable if we tell it like it is, than if we allow the dog training fraternity to talk about as if it were a Bhuddist precept.

How about "I'm a dog trainer" as a way to describe ourselves?