Ndtf V Delta Instructors Course

[Kavik]

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).

This particular club is VERY small. A control test is a good idea. Maybe the head instructor was thinking this would be better than nothing at all, if they were told they were not ready and wouldn't be bothered to do anything with the dog? Not sure. I did end up having to spend more time with them than with some of the others. Though I think it evened out in the end, there was also one pair that had a lot of potential so I gave them some extra advice and tried to get them doing more complicated stuff.

[Erny]

All things equal, I think that P+ always has fallout.

Always? On what statistics do you figure "always" ? I know you do a lot of scientific reading and much of what you base your opinions on seems to come from that, so I'm presuming you have docs that back up what you've said?

What you've said here :

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.

seems to be contradictory to what you've said almost directly after that here :

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.

But I wasn't and I didn't. I asked this :

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?

Intended or not, you side stepped that question fairly well. But it wasn't directed at you specifically - it was directed at anyone who wants to answer it directly.

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.

I could agree. Although what you've said doesn't go to the 'exclusion of P+' discussion in this thread.

Edited April 19, 2010 by Erny

[Prydenjoy]

What do you say to the family who are time poor and under-skilled who just want the problem fixed tomorrow?

Get a prong collar and go see someone who will help them use it :D

Seriously, no one has said that other methods don't work. If someone does not have the time or will to put effort into training their dog then there are other ways. Not the ways I would prefer to teach myself but the other ways do exist still the same. If people didn't allow these problems to pop up from the day they got their puppy there would probably be no reason to use any aversives at all. But in the case where they just want a quick fix and don't care to put time and effort into their much deserving dog then that's too bad, but I don't want anything to do with that. If they did put in the time and effort and had loads and loads of patience but everything STILL wasn't working, I'd either refer on or help them work with some different equipment. And again, I will say, it doesn't matter what course you do or what "camp" you are in, there are exceptions to every rule and its up to the individual to keep informed and educated. I'm not a "quick fix" kind of person, I'm a life learning kind of person, people who want a quick fix can go elsewhere, and as I've already said, it's a good thing they have somewhere else to go, right? I'm not going to advocate the use of punishers just because someone couldn't be bothered to put the effort into their dog.

For the record, I tell people how to use check chains every week. Nearly everyone who comes to our club these days has one on their dog. I'd rather tell them how to use it properly than to stand back and let them jerk their dog around aimlessly. Doesn't mean I don't cringe every time I see someone using them and wish deep down that they'd try working with their dog, without a check chain, and see the results that can come from that.

[Nekhbet]

not everyone has time for counterconditioning, especially in something like a 2 hour private session - and no one wants to fork out a couple of hundred dollars plus to be handed some food and a clicker then told to sit there and condition the dog until it likes it. To me if you have to countercondition then the tool is constantly applying some aversive to the dog. Put a check chain, DD or prong on a dog and none will think twice about it. They will think twice about messing about when the correction comes. It's fast and clear, an all or nothing for the dog. Yes not every dog needs one but I prefer collars to head halters or harnesses especially for pullers or lungers. I think collars are becoming a bit of a lost art, they are there to help train the dog and direct it. People now seem to think they're just a tether point between you and the dog.

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.

If the check works to the dogs threshold then it doesnt matter the size. I see small dogs take a correction that would be more then enough for a dog 3 times their size. This is where you have to have the knowledge of equipment and dog behavior to know what equipment is right for the dog.

All she did was stop moving when he was pulling and within a week he'd stopped pulling altogether and now walks beautifully.

you can take a week of constant training or you can do it within a couple of hours. I know what I prefer.

Edited April 19, 2010 by Nekhbet

[Erny]

I do think a poorly time reinforcer is less stressful than a poorly timed punisher.

I wasn't talking about "poorly timed reinforcers". Remember, the hypothesis is that the handler is good at what they do (timing etc).

The other side to the coin of Reward based training is that if the dog doesn't do what it was asked so the reward is withheld.

What do people think on the stress levels of that occurrence by comparison to the stress levels a physical correction might have on a dog? Remember, I'm talking about "all things being equal" which, if we are going to compare apples with apples, we have to.

Back to the original topic, I agree completely with everything that Corvus is saying. Pick a course that trains to your own belief system ...

If the person hasn't had prior training or knowledge, how do they know the advantages or disadvantages of "their belief system" (and should dog training be about a human's "belief system" or should it be about what works best for dogs in the best interest of dogs?) if they haven't been taught to understand all quadrants? NDTF isn't about "belief systems" .... it isn't a religion or cult mentality that tells people what to think. It teaches so that people can become knowledgeable enough to begin to make up their own minds based on direct learning and experience.

... if you WANT to be a trainer that uses "all four quadrants" frequently, do a course that goes into depth in each of them.

To choose to learn about anything doesn't mean you should want to do it frequently. How do you know what's best for the dog if you don't know about the 'other'? I often go to seminars/workshops etc at any opportunity I can grab. From the majority of them I usually come away with something 'extra'. Whether that's a lot of 'extra' or not doesn't really matter (although it is nice). On the odd occasion I've gone to places and what I might have learnt might even be so small as to just confirm that I'm on the right track with my thinking. But that can be very valuable in itself.

[JulesP]

Strolling in to see why a thread about instructors courses is now 10 pages long....

:D

[poodlefan]

Jeanne:

I'm a life learning kind of person, people who want a quick fix can go elsewhere, and as I've already said, it's a good thing they have somewhere else to go, right? I'm not going to advocate the use of punishers just because someone couldn't be bothered to put the effort into their dog.

Then my honest advice to you is to keep dog training as a hobby and don't do it for living. I think it would break your heart.

Many people use dog trainers as the option of last, not first, resort. You'd stand between dogs and the pound or the needle a lot. Many of their owners are only interested in quick fixes.

Most you will only see for 6 weeks tops. In that time the dogs will learn all they'll ever know.

Edited April 19, 2010 by poodlefan

[Erny]

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.

One of the things that is 'wrong' with this 'picture' that you've painted is that you've talked about the possibility of a "possibly poorly timed "attack" from the dog's handler when (I assume) you are talking about, say, a correction chain (for example).

Yet you've not mentioned about poorly timed "attacks" from the handler when they have their dog on a head collar?

Are you comparing apples with oranges here?

You said the "aversive" is in direct proportion to the dog's attempts at pulling". So, it's ok to apply an aversive that is enough to make it work? Is that what you mean?

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.

But the same applies for check chains, PPCollars, E-Collars.

I personally do prefer the no pull harnesses ....

Ever had anyone pinch under your armpit? Ouch!

, 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.

I see a number of dogs the same (in head collar). But I see plenty enough that are not.

I see a number of dogs happy in their martingales; flat collars; check chains; PPCollars (from yesteryear); E-Collars that also look happy, owners look happy, everyone is happy. I've not ever seen a dog go to the length and breadth of trying to scrape these items off when they've been put on to any where near the extremes that I've seen them do with head collars though.

But this is beside the point.

Courses? Why would anyone not want to learn the lot if they want to make an educated decision rather than follow a "belief system" that made them feel better.

Edited April 19, 2010 by Erny

[Nekhbet]

Why would anyone not want to learn the lot if they want to make an educated decision rather than follow a "belief system" that made them feel better.

I think that answers itself. I dont like it I wont bother learning about it properly.

[Cosmolo]

What poodlefan says is so true. Many people and dogs that i see have been struggling for months or years. I also have probably 50% of people attend puppy classes who think i am just trying to 'upsell' when i talk about utilising further training in the formative years of a dogs life- i hear from them much later on- 2,3 years later in some cases where the dog now has significant issues and they want them fixed or the dog gone. ;) And they are just the ones i hear from- who knows what happens to some of the others.

Taking the easy way out is not a negative when its done with the best interest of dog and owner in mind. Time is a luxury many dogs don't have and don't think that 'attacks' on dogs only happen when someone uses aversives- the frustration that builds when a method takes longer or just plain doesn't work is NOT pretty. No one considered my question about the stress of an extinction burst vs use of an aversive instead..

Many no pull harnesses just take some of the strength/ weight out of the dog but on their own they don't prevent pulling to start with or once the dog desensitises to the harness they pull through it anyway. I quite like the sensible harnesses that connect at the front though- great use of negative reinforcement. :D

[megan_]

Jeanne:

I'm a life learning kind of person, people who want a quick fix can go elsewhere, and as I've already said, it's a good thing they have somewhere else to go, right? I'm not going to advocate the use of punishers just because someone couldn't be bothered to put the effort into their dog.

Then my honest advice to you is to keep dog training as a hobby and don't do it for living. I think it would break your heart.

Many people use dog trainers as the option of last, not first, resort. You'd stand between dogs and the pound or the needle a lot. Many of their owners are only interested in quick fixes.

Most you will only see for 6 weeks tops. In that time the dogs will learn all they'll ever know.

Agree. To add to this, we often equate people who want a quick fix as "lazy" and not willing to do the hard yards with their dog. This isn't always the case. A mum with young kids and a dog that jumps NEEDS a quick fix for her sanity and the safety of her kids.

People also need to see some quick results to get some hope that other problems can be fixed too. Show a person how to loose lead walk quickly and they'll have faith in your methods and start to put in the hard yards. The dog will also get more mental and physical exercise and will most probably be a better behaved dog all-round.

People who land up with problem dogs aren't just people who didn't put enough effort into their puppy. They may have been doing their best with very misguided information, or adopted an older dog with problems. To add to this, some dogs just don't respond to the "normal" training methods - they need something different.

I think we hit the biggest problems when philosophies take precedence over actually helping the human and their dog. It happens in all aspects of life, not just dog training.

[Erny]

No one considered my question about the stress of an extinction burst vs use of an aversive instead..

Similar to my question about the stress of reinforcement being withheld -vs- use of an aversive instead. No one has answered that one either.

It might not have been meant that way, but I am VERY familiar with the terminology of "the easy way out" as though it is distasteful and lazy. It is wording that is commonly used by those who do not condone using aversives inside of training of any dog and usually follows the end of a lengthy discussion when there is nothing else that can be said by them to debate the points of the subject matter. It is often used as propeganda language, not that I am suggesting its use within this thread was intended that way. If the dog is unharmed and learns more easily and quickly, so what if it is "easier" for the handler? IMO that's the way it should be and would have to benefit both dog and person.

Edited April 19, 2010 by Erny

[Erny]

It isn't if what I heard about a recent survey indicating that 20% of Australian trainers have or would use a prong collar or e-collar is true.

Which survey was that one, Corvus. Do you have a link or would you otherwise direct me to it please? Especially interested in the "have or would use a prong collar ... " .

I'm still interested to know which survey you are talking about here, Corvus and where I might be able to source it please?

[corvus]

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 think Lindsay and you are talking about two different things, here. A lot of things that people think are P+ are interruptors or NRMs.

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.

See above. I sure as hell will pussy foot and think real hard before I decide to create an inhibition. That's not something to mess around with IMO.

[Nekhbet]

I think sometimes we underestimate the resilience of dogs.

[poodlefan]

I think sometimes we underestimate the resilience of dogs.

Dogs don't practice PP amongst themselves. They clearly both use and understand the use of aversives. Watching an adult dog train a pup as to the limits of acceptable behaviour is fascinating.

I think that for some PP folk "aversive" has to equal "cruel" or "harsh". Yet, as an adult dog aptly demonstrates, subtle use of aversives and discouragement does not have to be so.

You always don't have to yank a dog's head off to discourage it. But (try not to faint here) IMO if 5 minutes of strong (but correct) use of a check chain coupled with praise and reward for the right behaviour, or the fitting of a prong collar sees a habitual puller that has been confined to the backyard get to go on walks again, is that so terrible?

Would the dog be better off going beserk with frustration while not getting further than the front driveway or (and quite probably) not getting out at all for weeks while the behaviour is modified?

Which is the worse result for the dog?

ETA: None of my dogs has ever needed a check chain but they've had the benefit of training from the beginning. If I was a volunteer pound dog walker, I WOULD be looking for a quick fix!

Edited April 19, 2010 by poodlefan

[Cosmolo]

I need to get some video of my dog Cosmo using positive punishment and positive reinforcement with dogs- she corrects puppies when needed and then, as they adjust their behaviour, she rewards them with interaction and play. She can tell what pups need what kind of interaction or correction (as can a good trainer) and i see no reason not to look at what she does as the greatest example of how dogs learn.

[corvus]

Always? On what statistics do you figure "always" ? I know you do a lot of scientific reading and much of what you base your opinions on seems to come from that, so I'm presuming you have docs that back up what you've said?

I said "I think". That means I don't know for sure. It is based on my experiences and I can't quantify it. I would never be able to. Too many variables.

Unfortunately, science is only just becoming interested in stressing an animal in any way but quite cruelly and intensely to see what will happen, and rarely do they see what happens over a long period. The best I know so far is that if you do quite mean things to rats when they are young (like social deprivation) it has a long-term impact on their ability to cope with stress and changes their sensitivity both to rewards and aversives. There is some very subtle stuff going on and we are only just scraping the surface. I don't think anyone's game to make a welfare call on it yet, but ask me again in 3 years. :D And the more folks that participate in my study when it gets off the ground the better we'll be able to answer questions like this.

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.

seems to be contradictory to what you've said almost directly after that here :

Talking about stress levels is not particularly useful in such a general discussion. It is such subtle stuff and so variable.

Really? How so? My point in both cases is that the effects of stress can be very subtle and transient.

Intended or not, you side stepped that question fairly well. But it wasn't directed at you specifically - it was directed at anyone who wants to answer it directly.

I answered it as well as I could. It just ain't as simple as "is one more stressful than the other".

Re the survey on corrections, I heard it from an academic and I was just rushing out the door at the time so it was like "Really? That's huge!" and then I had to leave, so I'll try to track it down but I don't have it handy and I don't have any details on who did it.

Extinction bursts can be the height of cruelty. You can shape backwards, though. Ted Turner talks about shaping unwanted behaviours out instead of wanted behaviours in. He rewards less and less intense negative responses.

[poodlefan]

Corvus:

Unfortunately, science is only just becoming interested in stressing an animal in any way but quite cruelly and intensely to see what will happen, and rarely do they see what happens over a long period.

Personally, I think any study that focusses on the impact of socialisation experiences in pups would need to have covered some of this ground. All new experiences are potentially stressful. I'd have thought its when initial stress is not matched with further negative reinforcement or is positively reinforced that the stressor is no longer regarded negatively.

Such studies have been around for a while haven't they?

Any animal that's been trained in any method is subjected to stress. Learning can be taxing.

[Nekhbet]

poodlefan you better be passing the smelling salts if you're going to post such shocking opinions

According to Delta book wolves do not use positive punishment, everything is done through body language and posturing. They never fight or do body contact apparently. I was looking for the part where it said they had an in built treat pouch but I couldnt find that part.

if you do quite mean things to rats when they are young (like social deprivation) it has a long-term impact on their ability to cope with stress and changes their sensitivity both to rewards and aversives.

that doesnt take a genius to figuire out. But you would also know a life of coddling and no consequences has long term effects as well. All creatures need to go under a little stress in order to learn coping mechanisms and how to deal with stresses later on. You cannot wrap your dog in cotton wool for fear it might get a little stressed, or anxious, or upset. And if a low level aversive is enough to send your dog into lifelong trauma then there is something seriously wrong with it or you as the owner are mediating fearful behaviors.

I need to get some video of my dog Cosmo using positive punishment and positive reinforcement with dogs- she corrects puppies when needed and then, as they adjust their behaviour, she rewards them with interaction and play. She can tell what pups need what kind of interaction or correction (as can a good trainer) and i see no reason not to look at what she does as the greatest example of how dogs learn.

this is why I take my dogs to many consults. They learn so quickly off each other and the other dog gets a prime example of how to behave. Especially good for young, boundryless dogs or social wrecks who have trouble coping. Spend long enough with a dog that doesnt give a damn and you see the little light bulb click of 'wow maybe that pays off better then how I act now'.