Training With No Compulsion?

[Quickasyoucan]

I'm with Monelite here.

Often these people want the problem fixed yesterday! They don't have the skills, patience and sometimes the inclination to put all the learning theory and weeks/months of conditioning work into action to stop their dog from chasing and killing stock. We need to be realistic when it comes to the average Joe with their hobby farm full of chooks and ducks. They are not dog trainers and often cannot be bothered having to hear/do all the steps involved with purely positive training. It's just simply takes too much effort for them so sometimes a quick fix solution is the answer.

I'm all for using positive methods for nearly all of my training and I always do, but for specific situations where it is difficult to control a dog's instinctive urge, I won't trust any method that does not deliver a consequence, and I don't just mean withdrawal of a treat.

First up, the problem is not that killing chooks is so inherently reinforcing that we will never compete with it

I believe there are variables to this ie, depending on how often the action has been reinforced (self reinforced), depending on whether the dog has successfully achieved full predatory drive sequence and/or whether it's just the thrill of the chase with no killing involved. It would be extremely difficult (albeit not impossible) to compete with a dog which has fulfilled the entire predatory drive sequence.

I agree with the bolded bitand believe personally this is relevant to any ingrained self-satisfying behaviour. As I have posted before my dog is an inveterate skateboard obssessive. We have it under control through the use of aversives and finding more positive outlets for his prey drive, (ie a combination of postive and negative) but I believe the neural pathways are already hardwired to this behaviour so, without the aversives, there is no way it would be under control.

Of course there is the element that I am no expert, but given that this could be a potentially dangerous behaviour, which do you choose, the solution that will work quickly and safely and which is within my (limited) training capabilities or what would undoubtedly be a long term project with no certainty of success using no compulsion at all.

I think there are many situations akin to stock chasing which, given the laws we live under re dangerous dogs etc, mean that we need to find the most efficacious method of dealing with problem prey related behaviours.

I can in theory see how you could train a dog without aversives, if the dog was a blank slate and you were extremely experienced and there were no genetic or personality factors in you or the dog preventing success, but that's an awful lot of ifs and for those of us with problems we have to live with certainties.

[Aidan]

As I have posted before my dog is an inveterate skateboard obssessive. We have it under control through the use of aversives and finding more positive outlets for his prey drive, (ie a combination of postive and negative) but I believe the neural pathways are already hardwired to this behaviour so, without the aversives, there is no way it would be under control.

Of course there is the element that I am no expert, but given that this could be a potentially dangerous behaviour, which do you choose, the solution that will work quickly and safely and which is within my (limited) training capabilities or what would undoubtedly be a long term project with no certainty of success using no compulsion at all.

I agree with that principle but I should add that I once ran a class for dogs who were bike chasers, some of whom were very aggressive in their pursuit. You might be surprised at how quickly this can be done. We ran the classes for, from memory, 8 weeks at which point every dog passed an off-leash test with a bike at high speed coming very closely coming from both in front and behind them. This was a total of not much more than an 1h:20m actual training for each dog (about 10min per week).

We used no compulsion at all. Handlers used food, nothing else. Handlers were nearly all novices. It should be noted that for some dogs the bikes themselves were aversive, so there was no way to avoid using -R, so for those dogs it was used to our advantage. Another reason it is silly to worry about which quadrant you are using all the time. But there were no collar corrections, verbal reprimands etc

I'm still in touch with all these dog's owners and they regularly walk along bike tracks or tracks used by mountain bike riders, off-leash.

If I'd had any thought in my head that I would have to "compete" with the reinforcement the dogs got from chasing the bikes I wouldn't have even begun the project. Instead I focussed on the real issues and got very reliable results, very quickly. +R is often the faster, more reliable option.

The funny thing is we were never able to address the skateboard issue. Skateboards are a different kind of evil Actually the problem there was finding someone to ride one for us. Even if you pay these kids they still don't turn up, they are skaters!

[Quickasyoucan]

As I have posted before my dog is an inveterate skateboard obssessive. We have it under control through the use of aversives and finding more positive outlets for his prey drive, (ie a combination of postive and negative) but I believe the neural pathways are already hardwired to this behaviour so, without the aversives, there is no way it would be under control.

Of course there is the element that I am no expert, but given that this could be a potentially dangerous behaviour, which do you choose, the solution that will work quickly and safely and which is within my (limited) training capabilities or what would undoubtedly be a long term project with no certainty of success using no compulsion at all.

I agree with that principle but I should add that I once ran a class for dogs who were bike chasers, some of whom were very aggressive in their pursuit. You might be surprised at how quickly this can be done. We ran the classes for, from memory, 8 weeks at which point every dog passed an off-leash test with a bike at high speed coming very closely coming from both in front and behind them. This was a total of not much more than an 1h:20m actual training for each dog (about 10min per week).

We used no compulsion at all. Handlers used food, nothing else. Handlers were nearly all novices. It should be noted that for some dogs the bikes themselves were aversive, so there was no way to avoid using -R, so for those dogs it was used to our advantage. Another reason it is silly to worry about which quadrant you are using all the time. But there were no collar corrections, verbal reprimands etc

I'm still in touch with all these dog's owners and they regularly walk along bike tracks or tracks used by mountain bike riders, off-leash.

If I'd had any thought in my head that I would have to "compete" with the reinforcement the dogs got from chasing the bikes I wouldn't have even begun the project. Instead I focussed on the real issues and got very reliable results, very quickly. +R is often the faster, more reliable option.

The funny thing is we were never able to address the skateboard issue. Skateboards are a different kind of evil Actually the problem there was finding someone to ride one for us. Even if you pay these kids they still don't turn up, they are skaters!

You know I meet so many people where skateboards are the issue for their dog. I think they must have a particular frequency to the sound of their wheels. The new 2 wheel skateboards don't hold nearly as much attraction for my dog, nor do those razor scooters the kids ride. Mine likes the old school skateboards, mind you he will trigger at the sound of something that sounds like a skateboard being dropped on the floor and at the sight of a skateboarder out the car window in the distance - when in the car he gives this kind of grumbly whimper as if to say "not fair".

Food comes a second to any kind of prey for mine too, I have had kids eating sausage and waiving it in front of his face whilst I have his ball, he goes for the ball every time.

[Aidan]

You know I meet so many people where skateboards are the issue for their dog.

The simple solution is to let dogs attack skateboards. Then either kids will stop riding them on the streets or evolution will take care of business

I sound so old...

[Quickasyoucan]

You know I meet so many people where skateboards are the issue for their dog.

The simple solution is to let dogs attack skateboards. Then either kids will stop riding them on the streets or evolution will take care of business

I sound so old...

Look I was thiking of campaigning at the next election on the BS ticket (Ban Skateboards ), but there is too much BS in politics already

[MonElite]

Im all up for organising BATTUD - Ban All Things That Upset Dog Party.

[Erny]

Im all up for organising BATTUD - Ban All Things That Upset Dog Party.

You soon might not need to bother. Because RSPCA (Victoria)'s "Priority Wishlist" includes banning the use of "aversion therapy" and "positive punishment" in dog training. Now, just have a think about what "aversion therapy" would and could include. The list would be endless.

[Quickasyoucan]

Im all up for organising BATTUD - Ban All Things That Upset Dog Party.

You soon might not need to bother. Because RSPCA (Victoria)'s "Priority Wishlist" includes banning the use of "aversion therapy" and "positive punishment" in dog training. Now, just have a think about what "aversion therapy" would and could include. The list would be endless.

Sounds like it might be time for you to move from the nanny state, Erny.

Edited January 7, 2010 by Quickasyoucan

[Kelpie-i]

Im all up for organising BATTUD - Ban All Things That Upset Dog Party

;) Another Hi-Five (in Borat accent)

Let's start with motorbikes!

[bedazzledx2]

This thread seems to have drifted into justifying the use of positive punishment to eliminate established unwanted behaviours that are not acceptable in our human society. The original question was it it possible to train a dog under high distraction without compulsion....not re=train. In my opinion Yes it is possible to train a normal, sane dog without compulsion.

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

[MonElite]

This thread seems to have drifted into justifying the use of positive punishment

To me the word justify means that someone needs to explain themselves why they did something that was "wrong".

If I follow my own definition then Im certainly not justyfing anything in this thread.

Edited January 7, 2010 by MonElite

[ZEPING]

This thread seems to have drifted into justifying the use of positive punishment to eliminate established unwanted behaviours that are not acceptable in our human society. The original question was it it possible to train a dog under high distraction without compulsion....not re=train. In my opinion Yes it is possible to train a normal, sane dog without compulsion.

Can you please explain why or how you came to that conclusion also any explination on how you would go about training the dog and what methods you would use and examples if possible?

thanks !

[corvus]

This thread seems to have drifted into justifying the use of positive punishment

To me the word justify means that someone needs to explain themselves why they did something that was "wrong".

If I follow my own definition then Im certainly not justyfing anything in this thread.

To be asked to justify yourself is NOT an assertion or even a suggestion that you have done something "wrong". It is providing proof of validity, and scientists are expected to justify pretty much everything they say.

I'm happy to justify my avoidance of punishment and have done repeatedly. I'm happy to justify my reliance on rewards. I justify everything I do with my dogs, to myself and anyone that wants to hear my reasons for why I do what I do. I feel my reasoning is sound and have nothing to hide. Justifying something to yourself through the use of special circumstances that may or may not be hypothetical isn't real convincing, though, and without putting words in bedazzled's mouth, perhaps that's what they were driving at, there.

[bedazzledx2]

I am a clicker trainer and click does not go well with compulsion (click and clunk...ugly!!!) I use luring, shaping, playing, Premack and management as my main training tools. All my training from Novice to O Ch Obedience level and Masters Agility/Jumping level has been done off lead and with no compulsion. All training has been proofed at all stages under very high distraction. I have fit active dogs with a healthy chase instinct! I have successfully called them off roos, monitor lizards, bandicoots, cats, birds whatever. I never put them in that position before I had trained or proofed it though. I like to set my dogs up for success so they can earn a reward and distractions then come to mean more rewards coming...better watch Mum :D

This thread seems to have drifted into justifying the use of positive punishment to eliminate established unwanted behaviours that are not acceptable in our human society. The original question was it it possible to train a dog under high distraction without compulsion....not re=train. In my opinion Yes it is possible to train a normal, sane dog without compulsion.

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

[ZEPING]

I am a clicker trainer and click does not go well with compulsion (click and clunk...ugly!!!) I use luring, shaping, playing, Premack and management as my main training tools. All my training from Novice to O Ch Obedience level and Masters Agility/Jumping level has been done off lead and with no compulsion. All training has been proofed at all stages under very high distraction. I have fit active dogs with a healthy chase instinct! I have successfully called them off roos, monitor lizards, bandicoots, cats, birds whatever. I never put them in that position before I had trained or proofed it though. I like to set my dogs up for success so they can earn a reward and distractions then come to mean more rewards coming...better watch Mum

okiee so from what i got from this post was that thru repetive rewards under different condition and distractions where the dog is set up for sucess you can get reliable commands ??

no compulshion what so ever ??did you do this from a young age ??

also say for example it was in a situation that it hasnt been proofed on e.g. got attacked by another dog (god forbid) odo you think the recall will work as in it he isnt envorment specfic and will listen command anywhere any time?

also in regards to off lead say the dog doesnt do what you want it to do what do you do ? do you take a step back in training ? or ???

thanks

[MonElite]

I am a clicker trainer and click does not go well with compulsion (click and clunk...ugly!!!) I use luring, shaping, playing, Premack and management as my main training tools. All my training from Novice to O Ch Obedience level and Masters Agility/Jumping level has been done off lead and with no compulsion. All training has been proofed at all stages under very high distraction. I have fit active dogs with a healthy chase instinct! I have successfully called them off roos, monitor lizards, bandicoots, cats, birds whatever. I never put them in that position before I had trained or proofed it though. I like to set my dogs up for success so they can earn a reward and distractions then come to mean more rewards coming...better watch Mum

thats great to hear and my question is - you have never used a correction?

I also trained some of my dogs with a clicker and I cant see how the clicker wont go hand in had with a argh argh or a leash correction from time to time. Especially in the proofing stage.

Edited January 10, 2010 by MonElite

[Aidan]

Reliability is a result of conditioning. Reliability is not dependent upon which "quadrant" is used, but practical matters may influence which quadrant is used to achieve reliability.

[bedazzledx2]

I guess it depends on what you call correction and we have already been down this nebulous path! Positive is not permissive to quote Susan Garrett. My view is that if my dog doesn't do what I ask then I've failed in my training and need to take a step back and have a think about it. Having really good fundamental positive training means that is all I have to do. Normal dogs trained well are not defiant or disobedient, they they are opportunists and will always do what is rewarded. I didn't get my boy until he was 10 months old but fortunately he had been well socialized and had no vices so was essentially a blank slate for training.

I practice positive proofing where the dog is set up to succeed and is an oportunity for him to earn more rewards not for me to correct.

I am a clicker trainer and click does not go well with compulsion (click and clunk...ugly!!!) I use luring, shaping, playing, Premack and management as my main training tools. All my training from Novice to O Ch Obedience level and Masters Agility/Jumping level has been done off lead and with no compulsion. All training has been proofed at all stages under very high distraction. I have fit active dogs with a healthy chase instinct! I have successfully called them off roos, monitor lizards, bandicoots, cats, birds whatever. I never put them in that position before I had trained or proofed it though. I like to set my dogs up for success so they can earn a reward and distractions then come to mean more rewards coming...better watch Mum

thats great to hear and my question is - you have never used a correction?

I also trained some of my dogs with a clicker and I cant see how the clicker wont go hand in had with a argh argh or a leash correction from time to time. Especially in the proofing stage.

[MonElite]

Im always of an opinion that its easier, and quicker to traine a dog when you show them what is right and what is wrong.

Show them right a lot more of course but if they are not corrected for doing wrong then they dont know its wrong.

[Aidan]

Show them right a lot more of course but if they are not corrected for doing wrong then they dont know its wrong.

That sounds good in theory but of course it's not the whole story, I've taught dogs "not" to do plenty of things without ever correcting them for doing it. Dogs just do what works for them at the end of the day.