Training With No Compulsion?

[ZEPING]

Hi i just wanted people perspectives

i dont believe you can reliably train a dog under high distraction without compulsion as if there desire to chase the cat across the road is higher than the want to eat that food or treat in your hand its gunna run and attack the car ??

however the house mates im living with seem to think other wise

in my opinion compulsion is instruction to a dog and is need when training a dog dont get me wrong in thinking i mean yanking the sh*t out of a choke collar or prong and kicking the dog to an inch of its life

mearly raising your voice or ?? using the e-collar on low ?? (giving instructions)

they (the house mates) seem to believe you can get 100% relibility with treat and praise ??

i would love to hear both side of the argument and please explain your theroys

[huski]

I think it's about how you use the reward (treat, praise, toy) to utilise your dogs drive to your advantage.

Pop into the thread on K9 Force's training in drive course and you will see a number of people in there who have extremely reliable dogs and got them reliable without using much compulsion in their training (generally speaking).

Edited January 5, 2010 by huski

[Aidan]

i dont believe you can reliably train a dog under high distraction without compulsion as if there desire to chase the cat across the road is higher than the want to eat that food or treat in your hand its gunna run and attack the car ??

Ahh, but CONDITIONING is what is important, not the reinforcer. It's not a competition between reinforcers, it's a competition between conditioned responses.

You can use some very weak reinforcers to build very reliable behaviours. That applies to both positive and negative reinforcers, hence the reason you can use a very low stim on a remote training collar to build reliable behaviours using negative reinforcement. I never use anything particularly exciting for food treats, just dog food. My dogs are rarely hungry either.

"Stimulus control" does not require compulsion. Countless experiments have proven this, it is beyond dispute. The more practical matter for a dog owner (if we're talking about achieving very reliable behaviours like 'come' or 'drop') is how to achieve stimulus control in the real world in a reasonable period of time.

So while stimulus control does not REQUIRE compulsion, compulsion might be a practical matter (and I would include in this the dog's tolerance for correction, some dogs learn very poorly via compulsion so it would be an impediment to stimulus control).

Then it just becomes a case of balancing practical matters with ethics and what the owner's personal preferences are, taking into consideration more than just the behaviour you wish to bring under stimulus control.

[MonElite]

Compulsion is a somewaht unwelcomed word. Sounds harsh and strong.

Why not choose correction as a word?

In my opinion its not possible to reliably train a dog without using some kind of corrections as some stage.

Its possible to teach the dog behaviours with no corrections providing that there is no stronger motivator to the dog outside the behaviour.

And if the dog has a bad habit of some sort (lets say killing chickens) then IMHO its not possible to fix it without corecting the dog for the wrong doing. Unless of course one can find a better reward then chickens

Edited January 5, 2010 by MonElite

[Kelpie-i]

From the great Gottfried Dildeid (i think that's how you spell his name)....'If you can't control the dog whilst on the lead, how can you control the dog when you don't have a lead?'....(not verbatim).

I agree with Aiden, impulse and stimulus control, as well as highly conditioned responses are the key to good management under every day distractions. Although in the case of stock chasing/killing animals, I strongly believe aversives need to come into play.

I dont believe you can reliably train a dog under high distraction without compulsion as if there desire to chase the cat across the road is higher than the want to eat that food or treat in your hand its gunna run and attack the car ??

When you say "compulsion', do you mean it as a positive punisher?

[Misha]

With positive reinforcement you can teach dogs what is good or what they can do. You can use what ever word you want i ll call it negative reinforcement. I prefer verbal ( assuming the dog is conditioned already). With negative reinforcement you can teach the dog what is not allowed or bad.

Regarding "If you can't control the dog whilst on the lead, how can you control the dog when you don't have a lead?"

I worked with dogs that had more focus on sign/voice/body language than using a leash.

The leash is just reinforcing the negative verbal reinforcement. If the dog is already conditioned to verbal negative reinforcement the leas is useless or at least destructive.

[poodlefan]

I believe it is possible to train without "compulsion" but that few dogs learn well if their behaviour has no consequences.

The only way to compel a dog to come to you is to keep it on a long line. All other recall training relies on conditioning and consequences - both positive and negative.

[corvus]

Hi i just wanted people perspectives

i dont believe you can reliably train a dog under high distraction without compulsion as if there desire to chase the cat across the road is higher than the want to eat that food or treat in your hand its gunna run and attack the car ??

they (the house mates) seem to believe you can get 100% relibility with treat and praise ??

Of course you can. And I base that on pure fact. Exotic animal trainers do it all the time. "You can't spank a Killer Whale" they say. As Aidan has pointed out, it's not the reward that counts, but the conditioning.

Case in point, Mum's Vallhund Pyry, with seven years of ignoring recalls and gleefully killing every Blue Tongue that dares to show its face under his belt, recently DROPPED a live Blue Tongue so he could run to my Mum when she recalled him. Pyry! The dog that ripped the garage wall to pieces to get to a trapped possum! That amazes me. And it was trained purely with treats. Compulsion doesn't work on Pyry. He hides under tables and barks at you. Now if you held out a treat and a live Blue Tongue and let him choose, you'd lose the hand with the Blue Tongue in it. It does not get any more distracting than hunting giant skinks with that dog.

Kivi's recall was trained with the same method. Despite starting from when he was a puppy, his is not as reliable as Pyry's, now. That's because Kivi is off in the clouds sometimes and just plumb doesn't hear. However, once you have his attention it's hard to lose it again. For regular training, it's very easy to get his attention. We do a lot of our training at the dog park. Other dogs are about as distracting as it gets for Kivi, but he will happily ignore them whenever you ask for his attention. I have not used any compulsion in his training at all.

There are times when punishments of some sort are a sensible course of action, particularly if you have an obsessive behaviour on your hands and no way to physically prevent the dog from practising it. For me, prevention is better than cure. It's not wildly difficult to train pre-emptively. I thought it was before I tried it, but I was wrong.

[Aidan]

And if the dog has a bad habit of some sort (lets say killing chickens) then IMHO its not possible to fix it without corecting the dog for the wrong doing. Unless of course one can find a better reward then chickens

Roast chickens?

But seriously, it's really not about finding a "better reward" than whatever other reinforcers are out there. Unless we're talking about bribery...

[Aidan]

Although in the case of stock chasing/killing animals, I strongly believe aversives need to come into play.

That's something I've only thought about, never had a stock killer come to me. There isn't much research on this either. In theory, a Differential Reinforcement procedure should produce a very reliable response to stock. In theory. Whether we might be able to achieve this as a practical matter is unknown to me, I don't know of anyone doing it or willing to fund a study.

The closest corollary I can find is wild caught dolphins being trained, in 3 months, to go on long missions in the open ocean without going off to hunt. Of course they haven't learned not to hunt EVER, just not to hunt while they are working. If you lived in an underground sea-mansion (I can dream) next to a fish farm and kept a pet dolphin (the dream gets better) you'd want to be sure it couldn't get out of your yard except when it was working...

[MonElite]

And if the dog has a bad habit of some sort (lets say killing chickens) then IMHO its not possible to fix it without corecting the dog for the wrong doing. Unless of course one can find a better reward then chickens

Roast chickens?

But seriously, it's really not about finding a "better reward" than whatever other reinforcers are out there. Unless we're talking about bribery...

Roast chickens

OK, lets say the dog finds chasing and killing chickens ultimate reward, it has killed several of them, what do you do? (other then of course prevent the chasing and killing from happening)

And lets stick of dogs not some other animals

Edited January 5, 2010 by MonElite

[Kavik]

I agree that conditioning, stimulus control and management are key (and I use them a lot) however it is very difficult to control factors in the real world.

[Cosmolo]

I think you can make a great argument either way And as always i think it depends on the dog!

[corvus]

OK, lets say the dog finds chasing and killing chickens ultimate reward, it has killed several of them, what do you do? (other then of course prevent the chasing and killing from happening)

And lets stick of dogs not some other animals

Never mind.

If people spent as much time dreaming up scenarios in which they would reward dogs rather than scenarios in which they would punish dogs....

Edited January 5, 2010 by corvus

[Kelpie-i]

In theory, a Differential Reinforcement procedure should produce a very reliable response to stock.

I believe that 'In theory' it might sound as though it could work, but once a dog achieves self reinforcement and satisfaction from chasing and more importantly, killing stock, the only good place for food treats, balls and other rewards is on the ground as you suddenly drop them to chase after the dog in an attempt to get him back. Sorry Aiden, but unless I actually see it being achieved with a dog who has killed stock, then I just cannot believe it, no matter how fancy the terminology sounds on paper.

I have worked with stock chasers and have also once consulted with a client who had a 'serial' chicken killing GSD. This dog jumped through barbed wire (on 2 occasions) causing very deep lacerations all over his body...his desire to get to the chickens was so strong, nothing was going to hold him back. I suggested he seek the services of a trainer who was experienced in the use of e-collars but he could not afford it. I won't disclose how he decided to stop his dog from chasing and killing his chooks, but at least that dog is still alive today and so are the rest of this person's chickens.....AND they all co-exist in the same area minus the barbed wire.

I think you can make a great argument either way And as always i think it depends on the dog

Not just the dog Cosmolo, but also the capabilities of the handler/owner and whether the situation is life threatening or not. There are many factors that need to be considered.

Edited January 5, 2010 by Kelpie-i

[MonElite]

Im with Kelpie-I on the subject of the stock chasers that self satisfy their drive through killing stock.

[poodlefan]

Im with Kelpie-I on the subject of the stock chasers that self satisfy their drive through killing stock.

Ian Dunbar is no fan of the aversive use of e-collars but is on record as saying for a habitual stock chaser, they have their uses.

Edited January 5, 2010 by poodlefan

[Cosmolo]

Yes absolutely Kelpie i- handlers and situations vary too- the hardest situations is when those variables work against each other- difficult dog, with life threatening issue with handler lacking ability

I just meant that there are some dogs who (with a capable handler) can achieve reliability without compulsion, and some who (with a capable handler) cannot. I should have said 'all other things being equal'.

[ZEPING]

" Of course you can. And I base that on pure fact. Exotic animal trainers do it all the time. "You can't spank a Killer Whale" they say. As Aidan has pointed out, it's not the reward that counts, but the conditioning. "

well i do see your point however the purpose of this thread is for DOGS only "killer whales" may have different "drives" or methods to achive an outcome e.g. we know dogs work in pack that for example some dog have some sort of prey drive or food drive etc i have no clue about killer whales and cant speak on that particular animals behalf unless you know for a fact that there similar to dogs phycologically

from what im reading it seem there are many different roads to achive a outcome or final destination

that road may take a longer time it mayb be more ruggarded depending on what your dogs temprement is , how consistant you are and what method you select

e.g a fear biter would not work with a heavy handed approach they will shut down , a better approch is to reward with a release word or postive praise but ive spoken to some trainers that believe that building a solid bond with dog allows you to use compulsion with any negating effects?? any thoughs?? i love the ideas thought and theroys

thanks everyone for your input its building my knowledge

[ZEPING]

I believe it is possible to train without "compulsion" but that few dogs learn well if their behaviour has no consequences.

The only way to compel a dog to come to you is to keep it on a long line. All other recall training relies on conditioning and consequences - both positive and negative.

AGREEEDED!