Ndtf V Delta Instructors Course

[corvus]

I use a lot of positive in training. But I'd like to know from people what they think "positive" does and whether they believe the stress on the dogs is less than the stress that the delivery of a P+ might create?

I'm talking all things equal - ie assume the training practices (ether it be by R+ only, so to speak, or P+ eg physical correction in combo with R+ ) are being performed by experienced and qualified trainers.

All things equal, I think that P+ always has fallout. I don't think that it is always serious, and sometimes I never do figure out what it is, but I'm not willing to assume that because I can't tell what it is it isn't there. I think that R+ also has side-effects, but I think they are easier to control and more likely to disappear on their own because of the very nature of rewards vs aversives.

Talking about stress levels is not particularly useful in such a general discussion. It is such subtle stuff and so variable. If you were going to say well delivered rewards versus well delivered punishments in total isolation, I would say rewards are less stressful purely because the response to aversives has its evolutionary basis in avoiding harm, whereas the evolutionary basis of reward-seeking behaviour is gaining a bonus. However, nothing exists in isolation in dog training, and nothing is really all that simple.

I think that R+ focus promotes pre-emptive training, which in turn avoids the need for aversives. I also think it promotes subtlety, deep understanding of rewards and motivations, appreciation for the way different dogs approach life, attention to minute detail, and encouraging a dog to feel safe and secure enough to take risks in trying new things, which ultimately makes training easier.

[angelsun]

I agree completely with everything that Corvus is saying. Pick a course that trains to your own belief system and what you are most comfortable using, but remain open minded to other options also - Either by doing further studies, or referring on.

this is exactly the thing. Everyone (meaning humans) has a different set of ethics, beliefs and behaviours and is comfortable with a variation of methods or actions regarding dogs and training. It is not up to anyone to dictate to another person how they should choose to act when it comes down to methods etc as listed above.

When asked specifically which methods I am in favour of, naturally I will state my opinion in hopes of educating or at the least, informing about issues that haven't been disclosed. I will not go up to a person and tell them that their methods are 'stupid' or 'waste of time' but I will express my opinion on methods when asked directly.

[Nekhbet]

I think that P+ always has fallout. I don't think that it is always serious, and sometimes I never do figure out what it is, but I'm not willing to assume that because I can't tell what it is it isn't there.

you cant see it, you can't prove it but you just know. Corvus I thought you more educated the that.

also think it promotes subtlety, deep understanding of rewards and motivations, appreciation for the way different dogs approach life, attention to minute detail, and encouraging a dog to feel safe and secure enough to take risks in trying new things, which ultimately makes training easier.

again using aversives is not the only way. They are part of the overall system. They indeed help some dogs accept and learn and make the R+ more effective and the owner feel happier and more in control.

[poodlefan]

One thing that troubles me about "referring on" is that sometimes you're the only chance a dog will get. At our club, you will see a dog for 8 weeks on average. That's 8 weeks to set a dog and handler up with what they need to know for life. Clearly you need to cut to the chase, focus on essentials and get the relationship started. Time is a luxury you may not have.

Most dog owners bring their dogs to a trainer expecting results. They pay their money and they want them. If you limit yourself to methods that cannot help the dog in the time you've got, then it may be curtains. Clearly for serious behavioural issues, a referral is both necessary and justified.

But for simple behaviours like dogs jumping on people when that dog is NOT going to respond quickly to "turn you back" or "teach a sit" and the family's kids themselves can't implement it - what do you do? You haven't got weeks to fix the issue - you may only have hours.

Ditto for simple things like pups mouthing. Some pups wont' be at all deterred by yelps of pain (quite the contrary) or deflected by a toy.

What do you do when a large hard headed young dog is brought to you by an older couple who simply lack the strength to walk it - tell them to take it to the pound?

How does it help dogs and family if because of your ethical approach to training you will not advise on methods to deter the common unwanted behaviours? That's the reality of a lot of situations that every day trainers face.

The "best interests of the dog" test can raise a lot of ethical dilemmas. I hope all courses talk about such issues.

Sometimes diversion and or replacement behaviours are not going to get you over the line. What then?

If studies show that the combination of aversives and rewards encourage animals to learn faster, why wouldn't you use them if time is limited with the dogs you see?

The best training method for a particular dog/handler combination is the one that (within humane guidelines) WORKS. Any course that limits the methods you can use on philosphical rather than "real" dog welfare grounds, is not focussing on what matters IMO - and that's setting trainers up to teach in the real world.

Edited April 19, 2010 by poodlefan

[Staranais]

As i stated earlier, Steven Lindsay agrees and sanctifies that a balanced system which teaches the dog where its advanatges lies is the only way. I was hoping to see people come to challenge him on the subject.

In the first volume of Lindsay's book he says "Unfortunately, aversive training methods are often inadequately understood or applied in cases where positive methods would suffice." Lindsay's books provide a thorough, honest, and very detailed summary of what we know about aversive learning, what effect aversives have on dogs in various situations, possible pitfalls and misuses, side-effects to consider, and a list of guidelines on the use of punishments, with the very first one being "Punishment should be used only after other positive training options have been carefully considered or exhausted."

And there's the rub. I'm sure that everybody here who uses punishments believes they have exhausted or accurately ruled out the use of positive methods before they go to punishments. So where does that leave us?

This strikes me as a strange thing to say. Of course I don't exhaustively rule out all positive methods before I go to punishment. Why on earth would I do something as time consuming and tedious as always exploring all possible positive methods before using punishment?

I use punishment every single day with my dog to shape her behaviour. There's no "fall out", well, only if you call a well adjusted, cheerful, spirited, and reasonably well behaved malinois "fallout".

I believe she likes me to communicate with her clearly. There's absolutely no reason for me to muddy the waters by trying convoluted methods when a stern glance, or an "uh uh", is all she needs to understand that the boundaries are still in place round here, and she better try another avenue for getting attention or reward.

I don't understand the concept of pussy footing around avoiding any sort of punishment in case I hurt her feelings by telling her "uh uh". I know her too well for that, I know how to communicate with her without breaking her. I know that she finds our relationship rewarding enough that she's quite happy for me to show her which behaviours aren't acceptable, so that she can then try something else and get attention or reward. Just like I'm quite happy for her to show me what she does and doesn't like without it being a big deal.

When did dog training stop being about communicating with an animal as best we can, and start being a technical exercise in using as little punishment as possible?

Edited April 19, 2010 by Staranais

[poodlefan]

Staranais:

When did dog training stop being about communicating with an animal as best we can, and start being a technical exercise in using as little punishment as possible?

Probably about the time being free shaping your dog to interact with a box became more important to some folk than teaching it an effective recall.

Your average dog owner will never free shape anything. When you walk into a training class of new handlers, it pays to bear that in mind.

I'm no fan of training for training's sake. I'm happy for my dogs to be dogs within accepted boundaries as set by me.

Edited April 19, 2010 by poodlefan

[Jeff Jones]

As i stated earlier, Steven Lindsay agrees and sanctifies that a balanced system which teaches the dog where its advanatges lies is the only way. I was hoping to see people come to challenge him on the subject.

In the first volume of Lindsay's book he says "Unfortunately, aversive training methods are often inadequately understood or applied in cases where positive methods would suffice." Lindsay's books provide a thorough, honest, and very detailed summary of what we know about aversive learning, what effect aversives have on dogs in various situations, possible pitfalls and misuses, side-effects to consider, and a list of guidelines on the use of punishments, with the very first one being "Punishment should be used only after other positive training options have been carefully considered or exhausted."

And there's the rub. I'm sure that everybody here who uses punishments believes they have exhausted or accurately ruled out the use of positive methods before they go to punishments. So where does that leave us?

This strikes me as a strange thing to say. Of course I don't exhaustively rule out all positive methods before I go to punishment. Why on earth would I do something as time consuming and tedious as always exploring all possible positive methods before using punishment?

I use punishment every single day with my dog to shape her behaviour. There's no "fall out", well, only if you call a well adjusted, cheerful, spirited, and reasonably well behaved malinois "fallout".

I believe she likes me to communicate with her clearly. There's absolutely no reason for me to muddy the waters by trying convoluted methods when a stern glance, or an "uh uh", is all she needs to understand that the boundaries are still in place round here, and she better try another avenue for getting attention or reward.

I don't understand the concept of pussy footing around avoiding any sort of punishment in case I hurt her feelings by telling her "uh uh". I know her too well for that, I know how to communicate with her without breaking her. I know that she finds our relationship rewarding enough that she's quite happy for me to show her which behaviours aren't acceptable, so that she can then try something else and get attention or reward. Just like I'm quite happy for her to show me what she does and doesn't like without it being a big deal.

When did dog training stop being about communicating with an animal as best we can, and start being a technical exercise in using as little punishment as possible

:D

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

Staranais:

When did dog training stop being about communicating with an animal as best we can, and start being a technical exercise in using as little punishment as possible?

Probably about the time being free shaping your dog to interact with a box became more important to some folk than teaching it an effective recall.

Your average dog owner will never free shape anything. When you walk into a training class of new handlers, it pays to bear that in mind.

I'm no fan of training for training's sake. I'm happy for my dogs to be dogs within accepted boundaries as set by me.

and this is what most people want. imagine someone going to a trainer for help with an unruly dog and the trainers says, "i have a really good way to help your dog. now we wont punish your dog ever, what we will do is work out what is the best way to get your dog to behave. now this will take time, probably say 20 sessions with me who can teach you how to really understand your dogs non-verbal cues and then you of course will need to put significant time in training and watching your dog between our sessions"

by this stage you have lost people and they think you are going to rip them off cause this is going to be very expensive.

most people want a reasonably well trained dog that can live in harmony with their families...that is it, no more no less.

[poodlefan]

Surveys of new handlers at our club show that basically what they want is a dog that won't pull on the lead, won't knock the kids over and comes when its' called.

I think its really important to remember as a dog trainer that giving people what they want is more important than giving them what you think they should know. Two hours of class room stuff on operant conditioning doesn't fit the bill.

For a while our club was flooding new handlers with stuff like targetting when their needs were more simple.

Same goes for clickers. Yes, they're bloody great for marking behaviour. But most handlers won't use one again once they finish training so teaching a marker word is probably more useful.

Besides, a lot of new handlers having trouble juggling clicker, leash and food.

Edited April 19, 2010 by poodlefan

[Prydenjoy]

do you actually understand the point of the four quadrants? They are not 4 different methods of training. They are in reference to Operant Conditioning as investigated and most famously defined by Skinner. Then there is Classical Conditioning, most commonly known after Pavlovs dogs.

http://www.psychology.uiowa.edu/Faculty/Wa...ndex%20set.html

have a good read of this please it will explain the four quadrants to you in a simple manner. This has long been a Delta ideal that the four quadrants seem to be 4 distinct methods. I know in their book they try and brush the other 3 under the table.

Yes, I do understand operant and classical conditioning, I've completed a university course in Psychology and have spent the past 9 years studying it :D

this is exactly the thing. Everyone (meaning humans) has a different set of ethics, beliefs and behaviours and is comfortable with a variation of methods or actions regarding dogs and training. It is not up to anyone to dictate to another person how they should choose to act when it comes down to methods etc as listed above.

And thank God for that!!! What a boring world it would be if we were all exactly the same!! How wonderful it is that we do each have our own set of ethics, and what a fantastic thing for dog owners that their instructors each have a different set of ethics, otherwise they may never have an opportunity to find an instructor who they agree with on anything!! I know that not everyone is going to agree with everything I have to say, but that's ok, if they don't agree they can go elsewhere, there are plenty of "balanced" trainers they can seek help from if the positive stuff doesn't suit their beliefs. But what about people who just don't have it in their nature to be "tough" on their dogs. Even a check chain will only work if you put enough force behind it, but not everyone is able to do this (either mentally or physically). And for those people, isn't it just fantastic that there IS another way? And that there ARE trainers and behaviorists out there that are able to work another way around these issues? I was talking to a friend the other day who was just ecstatic about the opportunity to work in a library in a museum, personally I couldn't think of anything more boring!! But I thought to myself, it is such a wonderful thing that there is so much human diversity, frankly the world wouldn't function without it. There is no "right" or "wrong" answer, I am happy to agree to disagree, because otherwise, if everyone were clones and had exactly the same set of ethics and did everything exactly the same as one another, really, where would we be? And where would the future of our dogs lie??

Edited April 19, 2010 by Jeanne

[poodlefan]

Jeanne:

But what about people who just don't have it in their nature to be "tough" on their dogs.

Not even a verbal correction? Personally, I'd rather see an effective, well placed correction given in a timely manner than see a dog reap the consquences of built up handler frustration.

One of our club's supposed 'softy' handlers isn't above reacting aggressively when really frustrated by her dog. She just thinks no one sees it. :D

You can be fair, and set boundaries without being harsh. Indeed, setting them up early with a lot of dogs will prevent the need to ever GET harsh.

So Jeanne, how would you handle a dog that pulls very strongly on the lead towards others and has no motivation greater than getting to them?

[Prydenjoy]

So Jeanne, how would you handle a dog that pulls very strongly on the lead towards others and has no motivation greater than getting to them?

Premack principal, the dog can get to the other dog to play (provided they are socialised), but only if it is on a loose leash. I'd be teaching "you cannot move forwards on a tight lead" without the presence of other dogs, so that the dog got the idea without too much distraction, with additional rewards (food or toy rewards) until the dog got the idea, and then let it see other dogs (perhaps at an offleash park) from a distance, once it has kept a loose leash for a few moments (gradually increasing moments) the behavior would be marked and the dog would be allowed off leash to play. I may or may not suggest a head halter or easy walk harness, depending on the size/strength/determination of the dog etc.

ETA: A friend did this with her Great Dane. She'd been told by a few people that such a big, strong dog would need to go on a check chain. All she did was stop moving when he was pulling and within a week he'd stopped pulling altogether and now walks beautifully.

Edited April 19, 2010 by Jeanne

[poodlefan]

So Jeanne, how would you handle a dog that pulls very strongly on the lead towards others and has no motivation greater than getting to them?

Premack principal, the dog can get to the other dog to play (provided they are socialised), but only if it is on a loose leash. I'd be teaching "you cannot move forwards on a tight lead" without the presence of other dogs, so that the dog got the idea without too much distraction, with additional rewards (food or toy rewards) until the dog got the idea, and then let it see other dogs (perhaps at an offleash park) from a distance, once it has kept a loose leash for a few moments (gradually increasing moments) the behavior would be marked and the dog would be allowed off leash to play. I may or may not suggest a head halter or easy walk harness, depending on the size/strength/determination of the dog etc.

So you think head halters have no aversive effect. Interesting.

The dog is a Boxer (so no halti fits well) and the handler has a very bad back. The critical distance for the dog to react is about 100 metres. The dog is not great with other dogs. However it needs to be walked.

And before you think this is a total wind up, I've seen this dog/hander combination. K9 Pro can tell you about a 70+ kg dog that dragged its handler over 300m on a halti (as recommended by the PP trainer) to get to another dog.

Fact is the overwhelming majority of dogs would be fine to train using your preferred method Jeanne. The question then becomes, what do you do with the others - toss them in the "too hard" basket? :D

[Quickasyoucan]

So Jeanne, how would you handle a dog that pulls very strongly on the lead towards others and has no motivation greater than getting to them?

Premack principal, the dog can get to the other dog to play (provided they are socialised), but only if it is on a loose leash. I'd be teaching "you cannot move forwards on a tight lead" without the presence of other dogs, so that the dog got the idea without too much distraction, with additional rewards (food or toy rewards) until the dog got the idea, and then let it see other dogs (perhaps at an offleash park) from a distance, once it has kept a loose leash for a few moments (gradually increasing moments) the behavior would be marked and the dog would be allowed off leash to play. I may or may not suggest a head halter or easy walk harness, depending on the size/strength/determination of the dog etc.

ETA: A friend did this with her Great Dane. She'd been told by a few people that such a big, strong dog would need to go on a check chain. All she did was stop moving when he was pulling and within a week he'd stopped pulling altogether and now walks beautifully.

How is a head halter not an aversive. My dog went into a total face scraping frenzy the one and only time I put one on him. IMO head halters are not working with nature at all in any way. Might be okay for a horse, but how can it be okay in the mind of someone who has a positive bent?

Also when you observe a bitches behaviour towards its pups there very definitely is punishment in there as well as encouragement and reward. How can it not naturally form part of balanced training. I just don't get it.

[Kavik]

Surveys of new handlers at our club show that basically what they want is a dog that won't pull on the lead, won't knock the kids over and comes when its' called.

I think its really important to remember as a dog trainer that giving people what they want is more important than giving them what you think they should know. Two hours of class room stuff on operant conditioning doesn't fit the bill.

For a while our club was flooding new handlers with stuff like targetting when their needs were more simple.

Same goes for clickers. Yes, they're bloody great for marking behaviour. But most handlers won't use one again once they finish training so teaching a marker word is probably more useful.

Besides, a lot of new handlers having trouble juggling clicker, leash and food.

We had an interesting beginner agility dog case about a month ago. A young, strong Amstaff x Lab I think. Male owner who had problems controlling him and had no idea how to get his focus. Turns up with dog on head collar, flat collar AND harness! Owner worried about not being able to control the dog unless it had all this gear on. Of course in agility the aim is to be quickly off lead!

So the first exercise I did was a focus exercise with clicker, then recall with long lead (provided by club). I tried to help him get the dog's attention and also to get him to be more enthusiastic when he called the dog. It was more difficult when it came time to teach the beginner equipment as what this pair really needed was some pet manners or obedience work first, they were not ready for agility. He needed some help on how to communicate with his dog first, and get some trust in the relationship.

[poodlefan]

We had an interesting beginner agility dog case about a month ago. A young, strong Amstaff x Lab I think. Male owner who had problems controlling him and had no idea how to get his focus. Turns up with dog on head collar, flat collar AND harness! Owner worried about not being able to control the dog unless it had all this gear on. Of course in agility the aim is to be quickly off lead!

So the first exercise I did was a focus exercise with clicker, then recall with long lead (provided by club). I tried to help him get the dog's attention and also to get him to be more enthusiastic when he called the dog. It was more difficult when it came time to teach the beginner equipment as what this pair really needed was some pet manners or obedience work first, they were not ready for agility. He needed some help on how to communicate with his dog first, and get some trust in the relationship.

This is one of the reasons our club has a 'control test' that dog and handler must pass before starting agility. It's not competion obedience stuff but focusses on analysing whether the dog has offlead control under distraction (including other dogs).

[Kelpie-i]

So Jeanne, how would you handle a dog that pulls very strongly on the lead towards others and has no motivation greater than getting to them?

Premack principal, the dog can get to the other dog to play (provided they are socialised), but only if it is on a loose leash. I'd be teaching "you cannot move forwards on a tight lead" without the presence of other dogs, so that the dog got the idea without too much distraction, with additional rewards (food or toy rewards) until the dog got the idea, and then let it see other dogs (perhaps at an offleash park) from a distance, once it has kept a loose leash for a few moments (gradually increasing moments) the behavior would be marked and the dog would be allowed off leash to play. I may or may not suggest a head halter or easy walk harness, depending on the size/strength/determination of the dog etc.

ETA: A friend did this with her Great Dane. She'd been told by a few people that such a big, strong dog would need to go on a check chain. All she did was stop moving when he was pulling and within a week he'd stopped pulling altogether and now walks beautifully.

1. How will you do this with a 50kg dog that is hell bent on getting to play with the other dogs

2. What will you do if the dog sees playing with the other dogs as a much higher reward than food treat and/or toys...or the owner itself

No pull harnesses are very good but they don't stop the pulling entirely, so you've still got 1 and 2 to tackle

Head halters can be extremely aversive to some dogs, so you've still got 1, 2 and now a third issue.

The above is what we see each week at school and I get called out to "fix" and I would love to learn how it would be done without any corrective approaches in a timely manner.

Excellent that your friend was able to find success with her GD :D Nothing worse than a dog that is the size of a small horse pulling you all over the place. However this is but one story where that technique has worked. The stop when pulling method (without a correction) can take an age to achieve. What do you say to the family who are time poor and under-skilled who just want the problem fixed tomorrow?

Edited April 19, 2010 by Kelpie-i

[poodlefan]

No pull harnesses are very good but they don't stop the pulling entirely, so you've still got 1 and 2 to tackle

I've seen a large dog wearing a sporn harness pull its handler down the path at our club on its two back legs only. No pull harnesses also work on the aversive principle... and not very successfully for some dogs functioning in high levels of drive.

Edited April 19, 2010 by poodlefan

[Prydenjoy]

If a head halter is properly counter conditioned it should not bother the dog to wear it. I had a Boxer on a head halter once, it did fit. There is the option of an easy walk or sporn harness, which does not go over the head but prevents pulling. The "aversive" is in direct proportion to the dogs attempts at pulling, not a (possibly poorly timed) "attack" from its handler. I did say I may or may not recommend one, I wouldn't if there were a more gentle way around it. In my experience people with big out of control dogs don't benefit from a check chain anyway, if the dog is big enough and strong enough to drag its owner, the owner is probably not big enough and strong enough to give an effective check. The head halter is NOT a training tool, the idea is to work with the dog to reinforce the correct behavior, the only reason the head halter is there is so that, if the dog is too big and strong for the handler and it slips up, the handler can more easily manage the situation. I personally do prefer the no pull harnesses, however, I do see more and more people every day walking down the street with their dogs on head halters, the dogs look happy, the owners look happy, everyone is happy.

[poodlefan]

If a head halter is properly counter conditioned it should not bother the dog to wear it. I had a Boxer on a head halter once, it did fit. There is the option of an easy walk or sporn harness, which does not go over the head but prevents pulling. The "aversive" is in direct proportion to the dogs attempts at pulling, not a (possibly poorly timed) "attack" from its handler. I did say I may or may not recommend one, I wouldn't if there were a more gentle way around it. In my experience people with big out of control dogs don't benefit from a check chain anyway, if the dog is big enough and strong enough to drag its owner, the owner is probably not big enough and strong enough to give an effective check. The head halter is NOT a training tool, the idea is to work with the dog to reinforce the correct behavior, the only reason the head halter is there is so that, if the dog is too big and strong for the handler and it slips up, the handler can more easily manage the situation. I personally do prefer the no pull harnesses, however, I do see more and more people every day walking down the street with their dogs on head halters, the dogs look happy, the owners look happy, everyone is happy.

Why would a person who espouses positive only methods be suddenly talking about conditioning a dog to wearing an aversive control tool? Isn't your philosophy that you can achieve the results you want without the use of any aversive methods?

An aversive harness or a head halter that is applied constantly to lower a dogs drive (as it does for some dogs with a halti) is OK provided the dog doesn't appear to be unhappy?

I've seen dogs walked "happily" on a halti with a flexilead. Doesn't mean its not doing the dog harm. In my experience the vast majority of dogs fitted with a halti for control issues will wear it for the rest of their lives. They'll be head checked in it, yanked around by kids, tied up with and yes, walked on a flexilead wearing one. Something to think about when you fit one to a dog, that's for sure.

Few people ever bother to use two leads (or a double ended one) with a halti. Nor do they do the work to prevent the same problems reoccuring in a more aversive form of restraint.

Edited April 19, 2010 by poodlefan