Ndtf V Delta Instructors Course

[centitout]

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.

I had a big strong bloodhound male years ago that pulled extremely hard,spent a year trying the purely positive only.Then i had my SAR trainer show me how to correct him properly-it was hard and fast and left the dog in no doubt as to what the boundaries where-he was walking on a loose lead in 10 mins and when he did go to pull,a simple uh,uh was all that was required for him to not pull.

All of my pups are taught to walk with the stop if you pull way,but it doesnt always work with big adults that have had 4 years + of doing it there way.I would rather the dog learn quickly,and be able to go for a walk,than sit in the backyard forever/pts etc because someone doesnt want to stress it fo r 10 mins by corrections delivered properly.

All methods have there place,a good trainer will know when to apply them.

[poodlefan]

All I'm saying is that there is room in this world for all types of trainers, so why slam positive trainers and give them a bad rap simply because they don't use punishment? Seems incredibly ignorant and closed minded to me!!

I don't see room in this world for trainers who abuse dogs or treat every dog/handler team with the same methods regardless of their efficacy. They're out there too.

Jeanne when you use words like "punishment" to describe all use of aversives then you shouldn't be surprised if folk take issue with it. Its the emotion and value labelled use of words like "punishers" that give a lot of balanced trainers the shits with the PP crowd. The general suggestion is that aversives are used because the trainer is less capable than a PP trainer. Stick around.. you'll hear it.

"Punishment" to me is the use of a harsh aversive with no aim of correcting the behaviour and frequently not at the time it occurs. Hitting a dog for chewing up something when you get home hours later is "punishment". To me the description of all aversives as "punishers" is emotive and fails to discrminate between the humane use of an aversive (which may not involve anything physical) in correct timing and simply taking out your frustration or bad temper on a dog who's done something you didn't like. I frown on punishers.. but I don't label anything that's not positive reinforcement as that.

If I yell "OI" when my dog sticks his nose on the kitchen bench to snag some food, am I "punishing" him? Corvus would probably argue I"m using an interrupter but I'm not.. I'm telling him what hes doing is unacceptable.

Picture a group class Jeanne. A handler with a large young male dog is among them. As you talk to the handler the dog exhuberantly clasps your waist with its front paws and starts to hump you while the handler stands there helpless with embarassment. Is a loud "GET OFF" and a shove "punishment"? How the hell else do you deal with it in a timely manner? Or do you do as one PP handler I know does and allow her adult dog to do this to regularly to her because "he must be stressed". Everyone else thinks hes a dominant shite with few manners but there you go.

I only have a problem with PP trainers when they fail to find methods to sort out the myriad of self rewarding undesireable behaviours that present in your average run of the mill group of adult dogs. How their own dogs behave is entirely up to them. But when some try to dress up the methods they use to correct them as anything but what they are.. humane use of aversives, then I'll call them for it because like it or not, they're doing what balanced trainers do openly. Changing the language doesn't change the outcome.

I use positives. I don't know a trainer that doesn't thank God. I don't use physical corrections on my dogs apart from the odd rattle of the leash when one is pulling a bit. One dog is not suited for any at aversives at all. But I own small (or mostly small) people focussed dogs with softish temperaments. Id say the casual observer watching me train might think I was PP. I certainly prefer strongly to train that way but horses for courses I say. My friend who works with out of control young ACDs on a regular basis needs more tools in her training toolbox than I usually use.

If you want to only use positives then good luck to you. I'm not sure how you'll teach a dog that there are some unacceptable behaviours but I admire your tenacity in sticking to what you believe in. I just don't think it works all that well in the real world, particularly for hard headed dogs with ingrained self rewarding behaviours that need to be eliminated. The competition obedience ring is not the real world by the way. I've watched many a trialling dog drag its handler outside the ring and heel beautfully in it. Its called situational behaviour and its quite common.

Edited April 19, 2010 by poodlefan

[Monah]

PF, I don't know anything about training, this post was incredibly informative, one of the best I've read!

[Erny]

All I'm saying is that there is room in this world for all types of trainers, so why slam positive trainers and give them a bad rap simply because they don't use punishment? Seems incredibly ignorant and closed minded to me!!

Jeanne - we're NOT slamming positive trainers. If anything is being critiqued here it is the course which very obviously prescribes against the use of P+ no matter what. Such a course creates a bias in people who do it (unless they have an inkling otherwise). Those same people are often the ones who sprout words such as "abuse", "cruelty", "rip the dog's head off" and so forth, casting not only a dim light on trainers who are balanced and who use corrections judiciously but appropriately and well, but also making the owners of dogs feel so guilty about even thinking to do so. And in the end, it's the dog that will pay. Be that because the owner, who is unable to fix the problematic behaviour of their dog through the long haul of counter-conditioning; food; and all those other things we ALL do and try, thinks there is no other way, or because the dog is so problematic within the community that someone 'else' comes along and seizes the dog for its ill behaviour.

This doesn't happen for all dogs of course. Some owners will battle on regardless because they love their dogs so much, just as we love our own. But for those who are trying the "positive" ways and think that's all they should do even though it isn't working, harmony in the relationship between dog and owner does not reign. And then there are those dogs who respond well to the Delta type prescription methodology. And I say it that way because Delta is a course that DOES prescribe.

To the contrary, NDTF teaches all and aims to not bias people's thoughts, but to let them hear, see and experience, and to make up their own minds.

I instruct on the NDTF course. In fact, the topic that I now instruct on is Head-collars. And I work hard during those seminars to not reveal my own preferences or dislikes one way or the other. If I can come away from a workshop with the students not knowing what I think of the training tool, then I'm pleased. I show the good, the bad and the ugly. And I'll do that of any of the training tools and/or methodology that I'm teaching on.

In my mind, there is no one right way nor is there any one wrong way (and this goes to training tools as well). For the simple reason that regardless of my own dogs and what works best for them; regardless of what experiences I've had in the past with working with other dogs and people, there is ALWAYS going to be another dog that is different from the one before and the one before that and before that.

It is the narrowness of the Delta course by comparison to the more broad NDTF teachings that is being compared here. NOT individual trainers. A few comments made their way through during the meanderings of this thread, certainly. But that's been pretty levelled up and I think everyone is in agreeance that (as I have said before) "there are trainers and there are trainers, no matter which camp they originate from". This is about the courses, and what and how much they teach and whether that is putting trainers on the ground who have broad knowledge and at least some experience in all quadrants of training to be able to deal with dogs no matter the issue and the circumstance. It is also (IMO) about not teaching a bias before they've even put those trainers on the ground.

[angelsun]

Positive training is not about lack of punishment as many think. There must always be a positive and a negative to teach the dog which is desired. Regardless of how many want to twist the words, grammar or syntax, that is in fact reality. So those claiming that NO negative is used, are in fact not correct. The lack of positive, is in fact not neutral, but negative to a dog. Stress is positive or negative. There is no neutral stress in play.

The difference in many methods using a positive reward/negative reaction is that there is positive and then there is permissive. Clicker training and shaping as much as many believe are purely positive, have negative stress involved as well. If this were not the case, we would not see the clicker trained dog perform its repatoir in hopes of hearing the click and gettting the food reward. Watching the body language of that dog shows a stressful posture as it tries to figure out (read our minds) what it is supposed to do. Because clicker believes, as does many alleged positive methods, that the dog performs and then we add a command to that action, the dog is forced (stressed) to read OUR body actions and interpret them to provide the required (correct) response or action.

The statement of the square being smaller and the walls higher, in regards to Delta's methods is a good one. I will not state that, and have never stated that all their methods or ideology is incorrect, however in too many cases we see that small square appear which eliminates a majority of dogs and owners from getting help or guidance. The square is so small in fact, that one club has attempted to put into their membership application that in order to join, the applicant must only use and believe in the Delta methods for training. This by the way is an accredited club. How much smaller can that square go when this sort of thing happens?

We see more and more attendance in clubs offering a broader range of training techniques. We see more and more Delta drop outs head over to those clubs in desperation for help. These clubs have great trainers who offer alternative methods based on the needs of the dogs attending. We aren't seeing that open mindedness with the Delta organization as has been pointed out in various threads currently running. Sending a dog off to a behaviouralist for such simple issues as pulling on lead. Suggesting a dog of 12 weeks be PTS by an instructor because they beleive it to be aggressive to the point there is no hope. Removing students from participating from classes they have paid for because the teacher is at a loss to know what to do with them. Verbally disrespecting breeds and owners because the dogs are taking more work than they are prepared to provide or in areas they are not qualified to attempt to fix. A system when during the course, encourages students to go to dog shows to truly witness dogs under stress. A system which leads the general public to beleive that their accreditation and documentation of education for levels of training is in fact the only one out there.

The days of choke the dogs til they comply is over (for the most part) And yet, when you sit with the retrievers and spaniels who are working and training, E collars and ear pinches are still the norm and yet we seldom hear anyone squawking about that or them.

[poodlefan]

The days of choke the dogs til they comply is over (for the most part) And yet, when you sit with the retrievers and spaniels who are working and training, E collars and ear pinches are still the norm and yet we seldom hear anyone squawking about that or them.

I suspect most Delta qualifed folk have never seen field work, let alone participated in it. That goes for most dog folk in Oz. I've never been to any trials. I know some gundog folk train without either.

I mull over this stuff quite a bit. I wonder if PP trainers are happy to work that way because there really aren't any serious consequences for them or their dog if the dog fails to perform. For dogs where particular behaviours of a particular standard, and more importantly undesireable behaviours that must be eliminated, perhaps PP fails to deliver?

My doctor attended a puppy course taught by a Delta qualified instructor. Participants were told that saying "no" to your dog more than once was "abuse".

Edited April 19, 2010 by poodlefan

[SkySoaringMagpie]

Picture a group class Jeanne. A handler with a large young male dog is among them. As you talk to the handler the dog exhuberantly clasps your waist with its front paws and starts to hump you while the handler stands there helpless with embarassment. Is a loud "GET OFF" and a shove "punishment"? How the hell else do you deal with it in a timely manner?

by

Twist around rapidly 180 to shake its hold and swiftly step out of range? It's a manoevre I learned in martial arts class to deal with a human hold, and its usually pretty effective. Perhaps not suitable for those with lower back problems. Have to say tho', it's been a long time since a dog tried to hump me.

[poodlefan]

Picture a group class Jeanne. A handler with a large young male dog is among them. As you talk to the handler the dog exhuberantly clasps your waist with its front paws and starts to hump you while the handler stands there helpless with embarassment. Is a loud "GET OFF" and a shove "punishment"? How the hell else do you deal with it in a timely manner?

by

Twist around rapidly 180 to shake its hold and swiftly step out of range? It's a manoevre I learned in martial arts class to deal with a human hold, and its usually pretty effective. Perhaps not suitable for those with lower back problems. Have to say tho', it's been a long time since a dog tried to hump me.

You could also try to pull it off by the leash. But gee some of those big humpy dogs are strong. Not so bad if you see it coming. When they grab you from behind and the handler just stands there, you need to discourage them fast.

Still, arguably its preferable to coping a leg full of pee due to handler inattention. What I cant' fathom is the handlers who see it and let the dog finish!!

Edited April 19, 2010 by poodlefan

[Cosmolo]

Jeanne, as i said earlier i have no issue with trainers choosing their preferred techniques. My issue comes into play when, if that technique does not work for a given dog, they do not try something else, refer elsewhere etc- give people other options. Some clients are told that aversives are cruel, will damage your relationship, will be abusive etc, making people feel guilty if they feel they need to use one. Thats what i have issue with.

And while i know alot of people went from using aversives to positive only training- trainers that have done the reverse are also not uncommon- i know because i am one.

[JulesP]

I think there is a big assumption that the people that go on the Delta course or the NDTF course know nothing to start with. Surely most people would have been around the block a bit and are not total newbies to training? Maybe the Delta people are picking that course because they have already decided that PP is the way for them.

[SkySoaringMagpie]

You could also try to pull it off by the leash. But gee some of those big humpy dogs are strong. Not so bad if you see it coming. When they grab you from behind and the handler just stands there, you need to discourage them fast.

Was mostly just driving by with another idea people might want to try. With the strong ones that's where I find twisting can shift their centre of gravity and put them off balance enough to break the hold. On reflection you would need to understand using ground force to make it work effectively to shift their weight or you could go a over t. I agree that some of the big humpy dogs are like wombats in terms of being solid compact little pile drivers.

[Erny]

You could also try to pull it off by the leash. But gee some of those big humpy dogs are strong. Not so bad if you see it coming. When they grab you from behind and the handler just stands there, you need to discourage them fast.

Was mostly just driving by with another idea people might want to try. With the strong ones that's where I find twisting can shift their centre of gravity and put them off balance enough to break the hold. On reflection you would need to understand using ground force to make it work effectively to shift their weight or you could go a over t. I agree that some of the big humpy dogs are like wombats in terms of being solid compact little pile drivers.

This is going off topic but seeing as you were driving by and stopped in ..... we all know there's different methods that can be applied. One I have is to walk into the dog's space. It's really hard for them to hump when they have to walk backwards on their back legs and they tend to lose balance enough to have to get down. And it also means you are reclaiming the space they took, rather than delivering up that space to them and you can do this without giving them any attention whatsoever.

Mind you, I can remember one (smallish but strong) dog who, when I did this, just decided to clutch on with his back legs as well. It was hard not to laugh. Obviously a different tactic was needed for him .

Edited April 20, 2010 by Erny

[Staranais]

So it's ok for a med student to specialise in brain surgery, or a psychologist to specialise in mental health, but it's not ok for a dog trainer to specialise in positive methods? Go figure.

The point is they learn everything first THEN specialise. You dont just go into a specialisation and decide to miss the rest because you dont want to deal with it.

Exactly.

The implications that anyone who uses corrections doesn't use science, doesn't think outside the square, doesn't take the time to train their dog, doesn't have the willpower to use positive only, that have come up in this thread, are not only patronising but also really make the point that many positive trainers just don't understand aversives.

So it's all very well to say "well, a positive trainer will refer hard cases on!", but how on earth will they know when to refer a dog to a balanced trainer, if they have no understanding of what a balanced trainer may do differently, or when it may help, or what types of correction are appropriate for them to be using?

I too first learned positive-only methods with my first dog, then crossed over to using overt corrections as well as rewards. I suspect there will be many more "reverse crossover" trainers emerging as clicker becomes more mainstream, and people get sick of turning up to positive training schools and getting no results.

[SkySoaringMagpie]

This is going off topic but seeing as you were driving by and stopped in ..... we all know there's different methods that can be applied. One I have is to walk into the dog's space. It's really hard for them to hump when they have to walk backwards on their back legs and they tend to lose balance enough to have to get down. And it also means you are reclaiming the space they took, rather than delivering up that space to them and you can do this without giving them any attention whatsoever.

Yep, I use this technique with one of our bitches at home because she has a strong sense of "space" and will attempt to use it to her advantage and guard it. For her it is not good for us to cede space so either we come in to the space or she goes out of the space. With one of our attention bunnies tho', withdrawing has more of an impact than coming in.

I think most of us make a snap judgement based on the size of the dog, what we know of the temperament of the dog, our own physical fitness and abilities and what we think the handler might do. PF and I can have a robust discussion about it on the weekend, but the other thing I factor in is my relationship with the handler and whether I'm instructing at the ime. I will avoid physically correcting a dog that isn't mine if I can help it.

[Aidan]

There must always be a positive and a negative to teach the dog which is desired. Regardless of how many want to twist the words, grammar or syntax, that is in fact reality. So those claiming that NO negative is used, are in fact not correct. The lack of positive, is in fact not neutral, but negative to a dog.

I would dispute that assertion. It is not considered a fact in behaviourism, nor any other field of psychology or biology. On the flip-side, I might add as an item of interest, nor is it considered that punishment necessarily brings an enduring stress even in similar situations (although it can).

And yet, when you sit with the retrievers and spaniels who are working and training, E collars and ear pinches are still the norm and yet we seldom hear anyone squawking about that or them.

They are common, I don't know about the "norm". There are legal issues in the states (of Australia) where field-trialling is most popular.

Edited April 20, 2010 by Aidan

[poodlefan]

I think most of us make a snap judgement based on the size of the dog, what we know of the temperament of the dog, our own physical fitness and abilities and what we think the handler might do. PF and I can have a robust discussion about it on the weekend, but the other thing I factor in is my relationship with the handler and whether I'm instructing at the ime. I will avoid physically correcting a dog that isn't mine if I can help it.

Good point.

However if the handler won't control the dog, you sometimes don't have options. There's only so much skin damage I'm prepared to tolerate. I'd had some ripper scratches from handlers dogs over the years. No bites yet but one hell of a muzzle thump from a dog I insisted be muzzled in class. I consider that a cheap lesson.

A friend of mine recently had her T-shirt torn and some nasty scratches from a dog that the handler would not keep off her even with repeated requests.

You can spin out of the humpies if you see "that look" and the first paw wraps around you in an exploratory fashion.

Edited April 20, 2010 by poodlefan

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

what has bothered me with this discussion and others i have been part of is that the pourely positive trainers use emotive language as PF so eloquently explained it and that they see aversives as "punishment" therefore "bad" and that the use of "punishment" is the easy way out for lazy trainers.

it is the last one that gets me annoyed. any trainer worth their salt thinks long and hard before they decide which approach to use with a dog. they examine the dog, the handler, the identified problem, then they plan what course of action they will take and if the plan isnt working the reassess and try something else.

i am sure that a soft dog would not get a harse aversive because this would be counter productive, and remember, they have been brought in to help fix a problem and they are getting paid for it. their success and reputation is based on problems getting fixed.

it is not the purely positrive training theory that i have a problem with, it is the people who think that is the one and only way to train and that any other way is abusing a dog. this is the height of arrogance and will most certainly not win over my heart or mind

[Aidan]

Aidan what would you class as ritualised aggression? And physical force in the context of dogs with dogs? The best dog leaders i know don't engage in fights but they do use exceptional body language and some physical contact.

I think it was Lorenz who coined the term "ritualised aggression" and I don't have his definition, but my understanding is that it is aggressive displays of behaviour intended to avoid actual, harmful conflict. There might be physical contact but no immediate intention of damage. The submissive dog will usually end up offering his submission and I think a lot of people mistake those interactions and see it as one dog pushing another dog over (for e.g), which has not happened physically.

With regards to not using stress in teaching- do you think there is stress involved in all learning though? Some of the best training without physical aversives involves using frustration and extinction bursts to get improvements in motivation, speed etc.

There isn't a measured increase in salivary cortisol levels involved in all learning

The stress that I am concerned with is the sort of stress that leads to impeded learning (very common), unwanted behaviours (common and largely unnoticed) and in extreme cases physical disease or psychological trauma.

So if we considered the range of all possible stress on a scale beginning with "relaxed or contented" and ending somewhere around "heart attack" I'd start putting the threshold somewhere around "causing impeded learning" or "causing unwanted behaviours" and certainly not all learning with positive reinforcement would step over that threshold, but a lot of learning involving aversives would.

Edited April 20, 2010 by Aidan

[Quickasyoucan]

You can spin out of the humpies if you see "that look" and the first paw wraps around you in an exploratory fashion.

at exploratory fashion. It's the talon like grip of even the smallest dog I can't quite get over plus that look of total and utter concentration. Sorry off topic.

[Aidan]

what has bothered me with this discussion and others i have been part of is that the pourely positive trainers use emotive language

It's just the purely positive trainers, is it?