On The Effective Use Of Punishment

[Diva]

Thanks Aidan, that's exactly what I was trying to get my head around last night but I wasn't up to it!

[Aidan]

Thanks Aidan, that's exactly what I was trying to get my head around last night but I wasn't up to it!

I figured you were

When you are shaping you withhold the reinforcer for any response that does not meet your criteria. This will typically make the response stronger temporarily. If this is what you want, you then reinforce the stronger response. If this is not what you want, you can continue to withhold the reinforcer until the dog stops offering that response or elicit a different response (either way, the unwanted response does not produce any further reinforcement).

None of this involves punishment, only positive reinforcement and extinction. It is an extinction procedure and not a punisher because nothing was added or taken away contingent upon the unwanted response.

[corvus]

I guess that depends on your definition of punishment.

Perhaps people should define what their punishment is

Gah! No, people don't define the punishment; the dog does. Does he avoid doing things that get punished? Then it's a punishment no matter how you want to dress it. It's the very first rule in the list that is being discussed. And the second. Dogs ain't kids to be patiently told why one behaviour is preferable over another. They can only learn through trial and error.

Frustration in itself is not necessarily a punishment to a dog.

Corvus I disagree that it's possible to only use positive reinforcement.

Okay. Have you tried?

Is pausing instead of giving a reward not withholding it?

No. It is a delayed reward. The reward comes 3-5 seconds after the behaviour instead of instantly. Grey Stafford explains it in great detail in his book Zoomility. I have recently been watching Ted Turner (another exotic animal trainer), and he made the point that the longer the period between the behaviour and the reinforcement, the weaker the connection. The way I see it, the implication is a 3-5 second pause before reinforcing is a way to still reinforce the animal for participating, but weakens the link between the problem behaviour and reinforcement. Which sets you up for an extinction procedure without ever needing P+ or P-.

Do the trainers give the animal the reward even when they get it wrong, just with a pause in between?

Oh yes, EVEN when the animal gets it wrong. The LRS has multiple purposes, but even more important than offering minimal reinforcement, it prevents the accidental reinforcement of the wrong behaviour. Sometimes all you have to do is make eye contact or say something and you've reinforced it. The LRS is a neutral pause with no interaction with the animal. I use this method with my hare, as I've already mentioned. To not reward the hare is a wasted opportunity, whether he's doing what you want him to or not. I also use it with my dogs to a lesser degree, but I confess I do it wrong with them and sometimes add a meaningful look. OH adds "That was pathetic. You're only getting a little treat for that one." I don't use that for everything with the dogs, because they are such opportunistic animals that sometimes a pause and a treat is still a bit hot for them and a better LRS would be pause and another opportunity to earn a reward (i.e. another command).

I also disagree that anyone who uses anything other than P+ just "isn't clever enough" to do otherwise. Why the implication that if you use anything other than P+ you are somehow lacking as a trainer?

Ah ha, that is a leap I did not make . It isn't necessarily lacking in cleverness to choose not to do something. Everyone has their reasons. I merely said I wasn't clever enough. If you are, but choose not to, that's your prerogative. I'm not, but choose to try. That's my prerogative.

[The Spotted Devil]

3. The punishment must be of the perfect intensity. Too much and there will be negative fallout. You’ll end up hurting your relationship with the animal and loosing more than just that behavior. Too little and the punishment will only serve to desensitize the animal and build resistance.

This is why I try never, ever to use punishment in obedience or agility. It is just too much of a risk to take with a dog that is both incredibly sensitive and very independent in the same breath. Too much or too little and Zig would give me the doggy equivalent of the finger. I've had a trainer from a well known establishment approach me at the Pet Expo and tell me my dog is "having a lend of me" and needs a correction when he is simply just tired and "over it" after a day of being mobbed. Oh and he also told anyone who would listen at the Dalmatian Club stand that Dallies were stupid

Of course I'm sure I manage to punish the poor dog with my rubbish handling sometimes

Some interesting points about shaping, withholding rewards and frustration as Ziggy does not learn well when frustrated. When shaping for the retrieve, for example, I would always click/treat with one biscuit if he did something standard such as touching the dumbbell and jack-potted him if he took it a step further until that was a standard move. It was a really fun way for him to learn. I have cut my use of the NRM too and only ever use it in a bright cheery voice as if to say "oh well, I'll give you another shot to earn a reward". Most of the time it is either my handling or the criteria I have previously set. I prefer to cut my reward value down instead - so if his "front" is crooked or a bit far out, I'll ask him to come in closer and just reward with a scratch under the chin which is pretty low on the pleasure scale if we're training. We repeat the exercise and he always comes bounding in nice and close with even more enthusiasm in the hope that I say "good", which means a treat is coming.

[Bullbreedlover]

Perhaps people should define what their punishment is

Gah! No, people don't define the punishment; the dog does. Does he avoid doing things that get punished? Then it's a punishment no matter how you want to dress it. It's the very first rule in the list that is being discussed. And the second. Dogs ain't kids to be patiently told why one behaviour is preferable over another. They can only learn through trial and error.

Frustration in itself is not necessarily a punishment to a dog.

What I meant corvus is that how do people punish their dogs, what method do they use.

Your punishment, my method of correction and anyone elses methods are completely different.

I totally oppose many farmers methods of disciplining their dogs in training for work yet I have used a training collar when absolutely necessary on my kelpie.

I have a dog aggressive dog whom I do show and he is a wonderful example of the breed yet when he has his cranky pants on I let him know with my voice and my hand on his neck that I will not put up with his behaviour. When he is behaving he also gets food reward to distract him which does work and praise.

I have seen many many working dogs totally cowering at their owners, to the extent that you can see what method of training has been used and it is very wrong. I have seen show dogs and obedience dogs cowering at their owners which makes me wonder what methods they use.

at the end of the day a dog is a dog is a dog.

Yes they learn through trial and error but only because we want them to learn.

If we make it enjoyable with reward and correction when necessary they of course will learn.

Humans only get frustrated when the dog is not doing what we want them to do.

In bringing up dogs and children there are in fact many similarities. Routine, necessary correction, socialisation when they are young.

Children learn to play and share and are taught what we want them to learn.

Puppies are exactly the same.

Obviously there are differences but I know what I mean. Others may not.

[corvus]

What I meant corvus is that how do people punish their dogs, what method do they use.

Your punishment, my method of correction and anyone elses methods are completely different.

I totally oppose many farmers methods of disciplining their dogs in training for work yet I have used a training collar when absolutely necessary on my kelpie.

Ah, I see. You mean intensity rather than whether or not it's a punishment. Sorry, I misunderstood.

Yes they learn through trial and error but only because we want them to learn.

If we make it enjoyable with reward and correction when necessary they of course will learn.

Humans only get frustrated when the dog is not doing what we want them to do.

In bringing up dogs and children there are in fact many similarities. Routine, necessary correction, socialisation when they are young.

Children learn to play and share and are taught what we want them to learn.

Puppies are exactly the same.

Obviously there are differences but I know what I mean. Others may not.

Dogs learn whether we want them to or not. It's precisely why I'm always telling Erik what to do; otherwise he comes up with his own things, and I rarely like them! But I get the feeling that is kind of what you're trying to say. We give them structure and help them learn the things we want them to learn.

Ziggy sounds a lot like Kivi. He has trouble working through frustration, so we just make sure we don't frustrate him much. It makes it harder to teach him new things compared to Erik, but it's not impossible to do it without frustrating him. I've found that he tends to need a higher reward rate and he needs it for longer than Erik does. There's a point where he suddenly gains heaps of confidence all at once and he starts looking really happy. I've learnt to keep stuffing treats in his mouth every couple of seconds until he gets to that point. Then I'm safe to start working on duration or shaping it some more. As long as I take baby steps. Kivi's rewards need to be pretty decent, but Erik is much more motivated and sometimes they need to be lower key like a scratch. Erik's problem is that as soon as he figures out he's being consistently rewarded for something he gets super excited no matter what reward I'm using.

I don't use NRMs. For Kivi it's too much information and he needs me to shut up and concentrate on my timing and helping him work out what to do. Erik doesn't need them. He just keeps trying things until he gets marked for a reward.

[Diva]

I have recently been watching Ted Turner (another exotic animal trainer), and he made the point that the longer the period between the behaviour and the reinforcement, the weaker the connection. The way I see it, the implication is a 3-5 second pause before reinforcing is a way to still reinforce the animal for participating, but weakens the link between the problem behaviour and reinforcement. Which sets you up for an extinction procedure without ever needing P+ or P-.

Slightly off topic - I saw Ted Turner live in Sydney at the Hills (I think) dog club seminar several + years ago. Anyone else there? It was prettty good. Interesting work with tigers and marine mamamls. As I recall - and it's a memory so may be a bit off - he had a human agressive Akita he had to pts, which dented my faith a bit.

[Nekhbet]

3. The punishment must be of the perfect intensity. Too much and there will be negative fallout. You’ll end up hurting your relationship with the animal and loosing more than just that behavior. Too little and the punishment will only serve to desensitize the animal and build resistance.

And people need to credit their dogs a little more resilience. We all make mistakes in training but a dog can be trained out of the mistake or glance it off. It's making it sound like you're going to ruin your dog from one action.

If it's not enough, be logical enough to increase. If you accidentally go to far, fix it. We seem to be dancing about our dogs a little too much as if they will be emotionally traumatised for life from one big correction. If you know your dog you know what is enough for them and what works.

As for frustration I think more people need to work through it. If a dog shows frustration and unwillingness to continue learning or putting in effort, cut them off from the food source. Why do it on the dogs terms?

. I've learnt to keep stuffing treats in his mouth every couple of seconds until he gets to that point. tongue.gif

less food less often, I wouldnt bother feeding him out of a bowl if this is the method you want to use to train him. He has to appreciate you more not throw a tanty because it doesnt come in the quantities he desires. You'll probably find his enthusiasm for food and training will go up as well, hungry dogs learn a heck of a lot faster.

As for training zoo and wild animals - these are not domestic dogs. Zoo keepers cannot and do not want to suppress the natural instincts of the animal like we do (so it's OK for lion to munch on human)

[Diva]

as if they will be emotionally traumatised for life from one big correction. If you know your dog you know what is enough for them and what works.

Actually my dogs would be traumatised for a very long time - or at least have their relationship to me and to training severely impacted - by one big physical correction (P+ I mean) from me or even by a lot of smaller ill-judged ones.

As you say, you need to know your dog - and a lot of trainers and novice owners don't know much at all once you get into some of the less mainstream breeds/temperaments.

[Cosmolo]

Again it depends on the dog- the dogs i mentioned earlier that were super sensitive would not recover well from a big correction. I think lots of dogs are more resilient than we give them credit for but some are not. Dogs are individuals

[Nekhbet]

yes they are individuals, but coming from another perpective weak nerve is not a trait some people see as favourable yet it is becoming more and more common. Lack of resilience, over reaction etc are highly indesirable traits in any breed. I try to sift through those actually weak in the nerve, and those simply perceived that way by their owners and hence behavior snowballs

Edited January 5, 2010 by Nekhbet

[The Spotted Devil]

as if they will be emotionally traumatised for life from one big correction. If you know your dog you know what is enough for them and what works.

Actually my dogs would be traumatised for a very long time - or at least have their relationship to me and to training severely impacted - by one big physical correction (P+ I mean) from me or even by a lot of smaller ill-judged ones.

As you say, you need to know your dog - and a lot of trainers and novice owners don't know much at all once you get into some of the less mainstream breeds/temperaments.

Agreed Diva. Dog training principles might be the same everywhere but there are breed and individual differences. My first obedience/agility dog was an ACD and she did very well to achieve her CDX despite my best efforts to stuff her training up with very poorly timed corrections in the old 'jag and tag' days. There is NO WAY that my Dally could cope with that sort of pressure in structured training, even if it was well timed and executed. I'm not saying I never raise an eyebrow or sternly say "Oi!" to my dogs (and cats) at home - but structured obedience/agility etc is a completely different matter IMO.

ETA: I don't think it is a matter of "weak nerve" with my dog - it's a breed that was bred to trot by a carriage with the horses and sleep in the stables at night. Most had little contact with their owners and were not bred to herd sheep or be a guard dog or be a companion. I suspect it would be the same with breeds such as Salukis and other hounds.

Edited January 5, 2010 by The Spotted Devil

[Diva]

yes they are individuals, but coming from another perpective weak nerve is not a trait some people see as favourable yet it is becoming more and more common. Lack of resilience, over reaction etc are highly indesirable traits in any breed. I try to sift through those actually weak in the nerve, and those simply perceived that way by their owners and hence behavior snowballs

I'm sure a lot do get perceived that way unnecessarily. And in some breeds what you see as 'weak nerve' may be becoming a problem.

But I don't see my dogs' strong reaction to correction by me as 'weak nerve' at all. It's what the breed is, and it has been part of their working nature as much as in their pet role.

If you applied a large physical adversive, as stranger, they probably would bounce back, albeiting avoiding you like the plague everafter.

But if I, as their handler, did that - without them feeling it was a 'fair cop' for some gross and deliberate misbehaviour on their part - they would be very badly affected by it. It certainly wouldn't be instructive as a training technique. It would be destructive.

My breed used to be considered 'untrainable' by the 'traditional', western, obedience dog people - as I found out when I tried to joind an all-breeds obedience club with one back in the eighties.

But was just their crap - a failure of training methods which relied on punishment. Fortunately for me at about the same time I realised that that western attitude was despised in the country of origin, where people knew what they were and how to train them.

[SkySoaringMagpie]

ETA: I don't think it is a matter of "weak nerve" with my dog - it's a breed that was bred to trot by a carriage with the horses and sleep in the stables at night. Most had little contact with their owners and were not bred to herd sheep or be a guard dog or be a companion. I suspect it would be the same with breeds such as Salukis and other hounds.

I have been pondering whether to wade in here and so now I will - bearing in mind that like all generalisations there are exceptions

I was talking about this with a Saluki breeder a few days ago. She commented that they are actually very resilient. And they are, a well bred Saluki is stoic and they have high pain tolerance. However, they have a very low tolerance for human bullshit and inconsistency, and will simply shut down on you if you don't treat them with respect and if you don't "make sense". Unlike breeds bred to work directly with humans, they don't bother making up the gap if you haven't got your stuff together. It's not so much a matter of weak nerves - tho' there are weak nerved Salukis out there, and it's incorrect temperament - as it is a matter of knowing what makes them tick.

Precision, consistency and patience are key. I know that unless I apply strong limits to the positive punishment tools I use I risk a near permanent shut down - which, it should go without saying, would totally ruin my relationship with my dogs. Part of it is actually because to make an impact, you really have to make an impact - further than I want to go personally speaking.

I "uh uh" and "OY!" along with every other idiot out there, but most of the time it has a minimal impact and yet again, my new year's resolution for 2010 is to shut up and be more pragmatic about training. Whereas it's enough to say "uh uh" to some dogs and they're mortified. Salukis don't do mortified, but they do respond to firm boundaries of the "whoops, I guess if I want my dinner/pats/attention I really do have to sit" kind. The blog "Living with Infidels" gives a pretty fair if somewhat outrageous rendition of Saluki personality

On the other hand, negative punishment doesn't seem to hit my guys as hard, perhaps because they are so self-contained. I've heard people talk about how terrible time outs are, but for one of mine they're perfect when combined with a sufficient credit balance of positive reinforcement for behaviour I want to see. Horses for courses.

Edited to make a smiley work properly

And again to put a link in that I couldn't put in earlier

Edited January 5, 2010 by SkySoaringMagpie

[corvus]

If it's not enough, be logical enough to increase. If you accidentally go to far, fix it. We seem to be dancing about our dogs a little too much as if they will be emotionally traumatised for life from one big correction. If you know your dog you know what is enough for them and what works.

One thing I have learnt from trying to teach a hare to do something is that in some ways hares are easier. There's no mistaking getting something wrong with him. He races off, crashing blindly into things. Dogs are not nearly so obvious. I had no idea there was anything lacking in my relationship with Penny until I saw what an animal that hasn't been punished by the humans they live with looks like. I have become very, very cautious about punishments since then. I don't trust that just because it's not obvious there was no lasting damage. I just don't trust it anymore. If I can do without I will. And I find that I can and it's actually a lot easier than I thought it was.

As for frustration I think more people need to work through it. If a dog shows frustration and unwillingness to continue learning or putting in effort, cut them off from the food source. Why do it on the dogs terms?

Because it's meant to be fun for both of you, maybe? What's the point in "working through" frustration by cutting off completely when with a little bit of subtlety you can adjust your methods to encourage the dog to choose to keep working instead? The more fun they have the better they work. So your solution to them not having fun is to expect them to work regardless until it is fun?

I've learnt to keep stuffing treats in his mouth every couple of seconds until he gets to that point. tongue.gif

less food less often, I wouldnt bother feeding him out of a bowl if this is the method you want to use to train him. He has to appreciate you more not throw a tanty because it doesnt come in the quantities he desires. You'll probably find his enthusiasm for food and training will go up as well, hungry dogs learn a heck of a lot faster.

Well, I am afraid you are just plain wrong on that score. Less food less often only made him less inclined to train, and is the reason why I am now such an advocate of high reward rates. He just wasn't that motivated. More food = more motivation for him. It's a bit like a dance. You keep it coming every second or two to begin with, then as his confidence increases you drop the reward rate a little and concentrate on shaping and refining. If his confidence wavers, raise the reward rate again until his movements become sure. He's as enthusiastic for training as I can stand at the moment. Erik is more so and it's a problem when I want to train Kivi alone. And whenever I want to reward a low energy or calm behaviour.

KT's pretty lean. Got no issues with his weight at all. I only train for, like, ten minutes a day. Use teensy treats and it doesn't make much impact.

As for training zoo and wild animals - these are not domestic dogs. Zoo keepers cannot and do not want to suppress the natural instincts of the animal like we do (so it's OK for lion to munch on human)

Yeah, I've heard that one before. And my answer is you would be surprised. I read an interesting account of an aggressive dolphin being retrained to accept all manner of unpleasant husbandry practices, and another one of a walrus whose impulse to stab people with his tusks when they annoyed him (usually by raising criteria too fast and thus creating frustration, as it happens) was reliably overcome by his rock solid "trance" command that would have him lying on the ground absolutely still where a moment before he was about to pin someone to a wall. Considering accepting and even aiding in unpleasant husbandry practices are one of the most commonly trained behaviours in exotic animals, I would say that argument does not hold water. Try getting an antelope to willingly walk into an enclosed space for a blood sample extraction without first overcoming its natural instincts.

"Weak nerve" and a low frustration threshold are not necessarily related. I would not call Kivi a weak nerved dog. He plays as rough as anyone will take it, recalls through any obstacle, including getting hammered by one of his doggy friends on the way, and behaves confidently around strangers, odd noises and sudden movements. He just doesn't handle frustration well, and I see no reason why he should if it's not in his nature.

[Nekhbet]

"Weak nerve" and a low frustration threshold are not necessarily related.

I didnt say it was. My comments were in relation to dogs being punished and supposedly being severely affected for immense periods of time from one correction.

Well, I am afraid you are just plain wrong on that score. Less food less often only made him less inclined to train, and is the reason why I am now such an advocate of high reward rates.

so if he never got fed unless he had to do a behavior for it he would starve himself to death because you're not fun enough? Maybe you misunderstood my post. If your dog does not value something highly enough then you remove all other sources of it and make him work for what little he gets. Quality over quantity.

More food = more motivation for him.

Because you dish it out so easily. He gets excited because he probably knows the tide of favourite treats will come forth with with only him having to show a little more interest in you.

One thing I have learnt from trying to teach a hare to do something is that in some ways hares are easier. There's no mistaking getting something wrong with him. He races off, crashing blindly into things. Dogs are not nearly so obvious. I had no idea there was anything lacking in my relationship with Penny until I saw what an animal that hasn't been punished by the humans they live with looks like. I have become very, very cautious about punishments since then. I don't trust that just because it's not obvious there was no lasting damage. I just don't trust it anymore. If I can do without I will. And I find that I can and it's actually a lot easier than I thought it was.

a dog is not a hare. A hare is a solitary creature, wild animal with a strong instinct to bolt for self preservation which you are trying to override with some food - it doesnt work that effectively. A domestic dog on the other hand is an animal bred for multiple generations with desired characteristics and then raised around humans. I will tell you punishments work with wild animals as well, rabbits that have hit ferreters nets often enough will learn to stop at the hole, flip up the net and bolt off safe. Wild animals have a self preservation instict first and foremost.

My other comments for wild animals still stand - they are still not suppressing the instincts they are conditioning tricks in the animals on the animals terms. If the walrus never wanted to comply, they would never have forced him. If the antelope never wanted to go into the crush for a blood test they would never have taught it. It comes to finding the right animal with a biddable personality. Not every antelope will be taught that trick, there are many zoo animals that are simply left to their own devices because they cannot or will not be taught with simply P+ training.

as for people with the 'different' breeds I do own a Malinois and have trained several of the 'different' breeds. You want sensitive, try a Mal. What a stranger does to your dog, that is not what I'm talking about. If you have a good relationship with your dog they bounce back, they wont 'hold it against' you. Sure, I made mistakes with my Malinois, heck even completely turned her training on its head and taught her different behaviors for similar commands to retrain her for a different discipline. Does she treat me like a leper? Nope. She has always stuck to me like glue, all my dogs do no matter what the breed. It's your attitude that makes or breaks, and wether your dog will treat you like a numpty after an incident irrespective of the breed. Imagine the days before all these modern techniques and when discipline was with a big stick or a boot to the bum... I'm sure any sooking or scuttling dog would have been sent off or left to starve out on its own as a stray.

[Diablo]

"Weak nerve" and a low frustration threshold are not necessarily related.

I didnt say it was. My comments were in relation to dogs being punished and supposedly being severely affected for immense periods of time from one correction.

Well, I am afraid you are just plain wrong on that score. Less food less often only made him less inclined to train, and is the reason why I am now such an advocate of high reward rates.

so if he never got fed unless he had to do a behavior for it he would starve himself to death because you're not fun enough? Maybe you misunderstood my post. If your dog does not value something highly enough then you remove all other sources of it and make him work for what little he gets. Quality over quantity.

More food = more motivation for him.

Because you dish it out so easily. He gets excited because he probably knows the tide of favourite treats will come forth with with only him having to show a little more interest in you.

One thing I have learnt from trying to teach a hare to do something is that in some ways hares are easier. There's no mistaking getting something wrong with him. He races off, crashing blindly into things. Dogs are not nearly so obvious. I had no idea there was anything lacking in my relationship with Penny until I saw what an animal that hasn't been punished by the humans they live with looks like. I have become very, very cautious about punishments since then. I don't trust that just because it's not obvious there was no lasting damage. I just don't trust it anymore. If I can do without I will. And I find that I can and it's actually a lot easier than I thought it was.

a dog is not a hare. A hare is a solitary creature, wild animal with a strong instinct to bolt for self preservation which you are trying to override with some food - it doesnt work that effectively. A domestic dog on the other hand is an animal bred for multiple generations with desired characteristics and then raised around humans. I will tell you punishments work with wild animals as well, rabbits that have hit ferreters nets often enough will learn to stop at the hole, flip up the net and bolt off safe. Wild animals have a self preservation instict first and foremost.

My other comments for wild animals still stand - they are still not suppressing the instincts they are conditioning tricks in the animals on the animals terms. If the walrus never wanted to comply, they would never have forced him. If the antelope never wanted to go into the crush for a blood test they would never have taught it. It comes to finding the right animal with a biddable personality. Not every antelope will be taught that trick, there are many zoo animals that are simply left to their own devices because they cannot or will not be taught with simply P+ training.

as for people with the 'different' breeds I do own a Malinois and have trained several of the 'different' breeds. You want sensitive, try a Mal. What a stranger does to your dog, that is not what I'm talking about. If you have a good relationship with your dog they bounce back, they wont 'hold it against' you. Sure, I made mistakes with my Malinois, heck even completely turned her training on its head and taught her different behaviors for similar commands to retrain her for a different discipline. Does she treat me like a leper? Nope. She has always stuck to me like glue, all my dogs do no matter what the breed. It's your attitude that makes or breaks, and wether your dog will treat you like a numpty after an incident irrespective of the breed. Imagine the days before all these modern techniques and when discipline was with a big stick or a boot to the bum... I'm sure any sooking or scuttling dog would have been sent off or left to starve out on its own as a stray.

I was just thinking of William Koehler who was one of the greatest dog trainers of all times from the 1960's. He was as many would know, the "master" of the yank and crank. Everything was taught on a leash with a correction chain on every breed and when the dog learned what was required, William threw the leash away....didn't use a leash after initial training.

With purely negative reinforcement, William could train anything and win everything he entered in obedience competitions with no leash in his day. Not to say that some of Koehler's methods were not on the barbaric side as time evolves and we have learned better, but millions upon millions of dogs have been trained to milimetre perfection with Koehler leash methods and unless the modern day dogs have changed dramatically in personality, nerve and temperament, since Koehler trained them, all the negative perception towards a good leash correction when appropriate is bulldust.

Koehler was the new generation of "humane" trainers after the stick and boot up the bum methods became outdated Nek

Edited January 5, 2010 by Diablo

[MonElite]

unless the modern day dogs have changed dramatically in personality, nerve and temperament, since Koehler trained them,

Do I dare say that many did? or will this start antoher war discussion about different lines?

[Diva]

as for people with the 'different' breeds I do own a Malinois and have trained several of the 'different' breeds. You want sensitive, try a Mal. What a stranger does to your dog, that is not what I'm talking about. If you have a good relationship with your dog they bounce back, they wont 'hold it against' you. Sure, I made mistakes with my Malinois, heck even completely turned her training on its head and taught her different behaviors for similar commands to retrain her for a different discipline. Does she treat me like a leper? Nope. She has always stuck to me like glue, all my dogs do no matter what the breed. It's your attitude that makes or breaks, and wether your dog will treat you like a numpty after an incident irrespective of the breed. Imagine the days before all these modern techniques and when discipline was with a big stick or a boot to the bum... I'm sure any sooking or scuttling dog would have been sent off or left to starve out on its own as a stray.

I've owned Belgians - not Mals, Tervs and Groens. And yes they are sensitive. They also have a completely different attitude to training and working with people than my Borzois.

I didn't say my dogs 'hold it against me ' either, that's anthropomorphising. I said a big P+ they didn't perceive as 'justified' would severely impact on their relationship with me and to training with me.

I've owned the breed for over twenty years.

On this, I know.

But if you aren't willing to accept that people with specific experience have anything of truth to add, your loss.

Edited January 5, 2010 by Diva

[corvus]

I didnt say it was. My comments were in relation to dogs being punished and supposedly being severely affected for immense periods of time from one correction.

Sorry, misunderstood. But how do you know they aren't affected for immense periods of time? I don't know. I take it for granted that Kivi recovered from all the times I accidentally punished the hell out of him because I have a lot of positive reinforcement in the piggy bank, but I don't know when it comes down to it. It's that uncertainty that drives my actions. And the happy discovery that I needn't worry about it if I don't even have to do it.

Well, I am afraid you are just plain wrong on that score. Less food less often only made him less inclined to train, and is the reason why I am now such an advocate of high reward rates.

so if he never got fed unless he had to do a behavior for it he would starve himself to death because you're not fun enough? Maybe you misunderstood my post. If your dog does not value something highly enough then you remove all other sources of it and make him work for what little he gets. Quality over quantity.

But it wasn't a matter of not valuing the reward highly enough. It was a matter of not being rewarded often enough, and that led to unsurety, which led to less fun for him, which led to less effort and a lower frustration threshold.

More food = more motivation for him.

Because you dish it out so easily. He gets excited because he probably knows the tide of favourite treats will come forth with with only him having to show a little more interest in you.

Ain't it great? It's a no-brainer for him to participate and do as he's asked. Don't need to correct him and his waistline is fine. There's no need to be miserly. I have plenty of treats, he wants them, he'll work for them, I deliver. Everyone is happy. I get loads of enthusiasm and rock solid reliability with very little effort, he likes to offer behaviours I have rewarded just in case I choose to reward them again, and most importantly, everyone trusts each other and has fun. I keep telling OH to quit asking him to roll over when he's trying to do exciting doggy things at the park, but OH can't resist and Kivi just keeps encouraging him with all that willing compliance! Gah!

a dog is not a hare. A hare is a solitary creature, wild animal with a strong instinct to bolt for self preservation which you are trying to override with some food - it doesnt work that effectively. A domestic dog on the other hand is an animal bred for multiple generations with desired characteristics and then raised around humans.

Yah, that was the exact point I was making. I wasn't comparing; I was contrasting.

I will tell you punishments work with wild animals as well

Yes, that's because Operant Conditioning works on any animal with a brain. I feel like a broken record sometimes.

My other comments for wild animals still stand - they are still not suppressing the instincts they are conditioning tricks in the animals on the animals terms.

What's the difference? My dogs do everything because they choose to as well. Including the things that they wouldn't choose to do if left to their own devices. Including the things they instinctively don't want to do. The only difference to me is that my dogs will tolerate a punishment if I decide to use one. I don't think it is whether the animal will do it with rewards or not, but whether it's worth trying to train it. There are certainly limitations to work within, but sometimes even if you can do something, it would take so long and be so stressful to the animal that it's not worth pursuing it. It doesn't happen much with domestic animals, but I know some people who have decided management is better for their dog than putting them through the stress of retraining.