Ndtf V Delta Instructors Course

[Prydenjoy]

I've skim read the last few pages, so forgive me if this point has been covered, but if anyone had a problem with a trainer affiliated to a professional body, be it Delta or NDTF, surely it would be better to report them to their overseeing body so that they can be held accountable for their actions, rather than tarring either organisation with the "all trainers from this organisation are rubbish" brush on a public forum????

I did suggest this in another thread to those who have rubbished particular Delta trainers, but they seem more content to rubbish them on a public forum than to actually do something about it (ignorance is bliss yeah?).

Seeing as staff n toller is the only one here actually DOING the course I think she is the only one who can comment on what Delta do and don't teach. So all this rubbish about them denying that there is any other way of training is clearly just made up and therefore not even relevent to the conversation.

So NDTF teaches all 4 quadrants, Delta teaches about all 4 quadrants and educates people of alternate ways to teach dogs. There, we have the answer. So which course you take up depends on which style you want to teach, as the OP was saying they are from a positive club, if this is the direction they wish to follow then perhaps Delta (or CASI, if "nationally accredited" is not the be all and end of for them) may be the way to go

[Nekhbet]

Delta says they exist then say no more. NDTF give you examples and training in all of them so you can see what it actually is and the effect on the dog. Clear now? Or we still going to tra la la for another 10 pages

[Kavik]

Seeing as staff n toller is the only one here actually DOING the course I think she is the only one who can comment on what Delta do and don't teach. So all this rubbish about them denying that there is any other way of training is clearly just made up and therefore not even relevent to the conversation.

I have absolute trust in the person I spoke to about Delta. She is a positive trainer and head instructor of one of my agility clubs. I asked her about it out of curiosity as I wanted to know how different it was to NDTF. She would not make it up.

Edited April 19, 2010 by Kavik

[Guest Willow]

Seeing as staff n toller is the only one here actually DOING the course I think she is the only one who can comment on what Delta do and don't teach. So all this rubbish about them denying that there is any other way of training is clearly just made up and therefore not even relevent to the conversation.

I've done the Delta course too

[poodlefan]

I did suggest this in another thread to those who have rubbished particular Delta trainers, but they seem more content to rubbish them on a public forum than to actually do something about it (ignorance is bliss yeah?).

Seeing as staff n toller is the only one here actually DOING the course I think she is the only one who can comment on what Delta do and don't teach. So all this rubbish about them denying that there is any other way of training is clearly just made up and therefore not even relevent to the conversation.

So those of us who know and train alongside Delta qualified trainers know nothing. OK.

[Nekhbet]

So those of us who know and train alongside Delta qualified trainers know nothing. OK.

but remember it's totally OK to call P+ abuse and all of us who use it are inferior beings out to harm dogs.

[SkySoaringMagpie]

As someone else mentioned, everyone can pull stories out to suit their own particular agenda. Anecdata are not fact.

In the long run each trainer has to take a cold hard look at themselves and be happy with what they are doing. Things one might consider are one's methods, the consequences of one's advice and one's own biases and shortcomings.

People who are religious either about not using punishment or insisting that people approve their use of punishment without question might want to take another look.

[haven]

Seeing as staff n toller is the only one here actually DOING the course I think she is the only one who can comment on what Delta do and don't teach. So all this rubbish about them denying that there is any other way of training is clearly just made up and therefore not even relevent to the conversation.

Actually, as it is a nationally recognised qualification anyone can request and view detailed information about the course content.

Delta themselves have claimed, and this is a direct quote which I took from their website during a previous conversation and the merits of the NDTF course vs the Delta course, "If prospective students use or promote check chains this course will not be suitable for them".

Just for the record, the course offered by Delta, RUV40304 Certificate IV in Companion Animal Services, is also available through a number of other RTO's, you don't have to complete it through Delta.

[Prydenjoy]

Hmm... 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.

So it's to no ones benefit that there are people out there that strive to get the best out of dogs using the most positive and motivational methods out there, and giving it their absolute best shot to find methods that work without the use of punishers? So we should all be punishing our dogs, regardless of what dog we own - Because without those people specialising in positive methods there would be no way we would be able to find anything positive that works, because we'd just have punishment to fall back on all of the time.

Right, I get it. Lets all be clones and do as everyone else is doing, forget about science, forget about diversity, lets just train the way dogs have always been trained because it's so wrong to think outside the square.

Without exceptional motivational trainers that devote their lives to specialising in one area we wouldn't have some of the wonderfully trained dogs we have today, such as the one that did oh so well at the Royal this year. Clearly PP worked, but without those people devoting their lives to learning the ins and outs of the method and revolutionising dog training our dogs would all just be trained the same way as they always have been and otherwise always would be.

[Nekhbet]

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.

No PP trainer gets it. Corrections are not a whole way of life. Training should be overwhelmingly a positive experience. But in some instances you need corrections to make the P+ more effective. How difficult is this concept to grasp?

Right, I get it. Lets all be clones and do as everyone else is doing, forget about science, forget about diversity, lets just train the way dogs have always been trained because it's so wrong to think outside the square.

Come one the same could be said about PP people. Let's not learn about anything else lest we taint ourselves with the evil that is corrections and aversives. Let's warp what is actually considered an aversive to suit an ideal.

Clearly PP worked, but without those people devoting their lives to learning the ins and outs of the method and revolutionising dog training our dogs would all just be trained the same way as they always have been and otherwise always would be.

Great. It taught a dog a few tricks, did the dogs all have massive behavioral problems before? Did they go from trying to tear another dog to shreds to playing happily and calmly of lead? This is what this is about, not trick training.

As for the trianers of today, lets look at the people who revolutionised guide dogs, military dogs, police dogs, S&R, detection etc. I see them as a higher inspiration and lesson then someone who teaches generalised obedience or doggy dancing.

[Herr Rottweiler]

So it's to no ones benefit that there are people out there that strive to get the best out of dogs using the most positive and motivational methods out there, and giving it their absolute best shot to find methods that work without the use of punishers? So we should all be punishing our dogs, regardless of what dog we own - Because without those people specialising in positive methods there would be no way we would be able to find anything positive that works, because we'd just have punishment to fall back on all of the time.

That's just kneejerk silly talk!

Right, I get it. Lets all be clones and do as everyone else is doing, forget about science, forget about diversity, lets just train the way dogs have always been trained because it's so wrong to think outside the square.

Why are you accusing people of being clones? The NDTF are the ones saying use a balanced system. If the individual dog doesnt require what another may, then use what you need to get the best results with the aim of finishing with a happy confident dog.

The NDTF are not the ones telling people that unless they do what their told and toe the line, they will be drummed out of the organisation and stripped of rank and privillege

R+ most definately works..everyone knows it and agrees and any dog trainer/ handler worth their salt will use it to bring about the best of their dog. PP will work on a narrow band of dogs, however as I have stated before, it will bring about the genocide of many recognised breeds if it was the only way people could train.

This thread is repetative and getting silly now. It was educational and amusing to begin with but its clear that most of us and going to have to respectfully agree to disagree.

[poodlefan]

Jeanne:

Right, I get it. Lets all be clones and do as everyone else is doing, forget about science, forget about diversity, lets just train the way dogs have always been trained because it's so wrong to think outside the square.

Based on that statement Jeanne, I think its very clear that you don't get it at all.

The major difference between the Delta square and the NTDF square is that the Delta square is smaller but with much higher walls.

Edited April 19, 2010 by poodlefan

[Aidan3]

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.

Most of the empirical data, which mostly looks at salivary cortisol levels (a fairly reliable indicator of stress) seems to suggest that stress and frustration are highest when the animal does not feel that it can CONTROL the consequences. It would probably be a leap to generalise from this observation, but it makes good sense to avoid letting the dog feel that they do not have any way to control the consequences whether that be through an extinction procedure or a punishment procedure.

For the record (to correct an assertion commonly made on DOL and made earlier in this thread) WITHOLDING a treat is not a punisher. It would be an extinction procedure. There was a thread I started some time back entitled "-P vs extinction" which explains the differences. So essentially Cosmolo and Erny asked the same (excellent) question. I can't say what Delta would teach, but I would hope it was best practice for positive reinforcement training which is to minimise extinction bursts by setting the animal up for success to do something other than the response under extinction. This should almost always be the case when working with particular types of aggression, where an extinction burst can become a dangerous situation, although I'm of the understanding that Delta trainers refer on aggression cases unless they have extra training or experience that enables them to deal with it (as would NDTF trainers I would hope).

Something that I think about, perhaps a bit too philosophical, but just because fear, pain and stress are a normal and even necessary part of a dog's existence does not mean that we SHOULD use fear, pain or stress in teaching them. It is no justification for it (on it's own, there are better arguments out there and some have been represented in this thread) But as others have said, in the main dogs are fairly resilient.

I'm not sure that I'd pay any attention to dogs or wolves who use physical force to control other dogs though (full contact as opposed to merely ritualised aggression), if I were to use them as a model (and to some extent I do) I would be looking at the ones who really don't need to. Those are the ones who really get things humming along nicely in a group.

[Cosmolo]

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 completely agree with your first paragraph too.

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.

[Erny]

Jeanne:

Right, I get it. Lets all be clones and do as everyone else is doing, forget about science, forget about diversity, lets just train the way dogs have always been trained because it's so wrong to think outside the square.

Based on that statement Jeanne, I think its very clear that you don't get it at all.

The major difference between the Delta square and the NDTF square is that the Delta square is smaller but with much higher walls.

That's it in a nutshell, PF.

Well said, as usual.

[Black Bronson]

I've known 2 dogs recommended to be PTS from "balanced" trainers, one of them never even showed any form of aggression, just behaved as though he were "dominant", the other, sadly, was actually PTS

Unfortunately Jeanne, there are trainers and then there are trainers, regardless of which 'camp' they are in.

The point being though, that those who vow to never learn and/or use any one particular quadrant of training method no matter what, have limited their expertise and knowledge and in turn this can and has affected the possibility of rehabilitation for some dogs.

I have had a person with a GSD who informed me that she trained with a "positive only" (so to speak) trainer but her dog's issue could not be resolved. (Well, maybe if she'd spent another couple of years on it, during which time her dog would have matured and perhaps settled a bit more ..... or maybe not.) The trainer advised her that she may need to PTS.

The dog's problem? Pulling (a lot) on the lead. It was causing the owner a lot of grief - the dog was young, strong and very energetic. Inside that lesson we had the dog giving a loose lead for the first time in its life when outside of its yard. How? Yep - a correction was delivered. But there was a heck of a lot of positive reinforcement and reward given to the dog in the windows of opportunity that had suddenly opened widely as a result of that correction. I watched as tears of joy and relief tracked down the owner's cheeks as before that lesson she'd come to fully expect there was no hope in controlling her dog and that she was going to have to face taking her dog for a one way visit to the Vet.

That's an excellent example Erny has provided which IMHO is "balanced" training. Erny would have already determined the dog's temperament and what she was dealing with and a good GSD will respond to a correction far quicker than a purely positive approach in that situation. They don't shut down and they don't sulk and a correction grabs the dogs attention to a wrong doing to open the window of opportunity by settling the dog into a pattern of desired behaviour that povides the proper foundation to work with for that particular dog. Who's the better trainer, the one's who recommended the dog be PTS to save it suffering a correction, or Erny's approach delivering a correction to rehabilitate the dog???

Edited April 19, 2010 by Black Bronson

[herding_guy]

Delta teach the theory of ALL four quadrants of operant conditioning............

They don't give practical demonstrations of R- or P+ and they advise that if you are not comfortable or experienced and a dog definitely needs aversives in some capacity that you refer to someone who is.

This is IMO a pretty good philosophy.

[Prydenjoy]

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!!

Trainers who use punishment are the first to get up on their high horses when a positive trainer suggests that there is something inherently wrong with using punishers, but EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOU is doing EXACTLY the same in regards to people who just use positives, seems a bit hypocritical, no?

I've suggested we just let bygons be bygons, let positive trainers become the best they can, and refer on if needs be, and to let the balanced trainers do what they are doing so that there IS someone to refer on to in the case that we don't want to inflict punishment onto the dogs on a regular basis (I think nearly every positive trainer will use punishment at some time in some form but it is not the basis of our training).

But that isn't good enough, it seems we all have to have the same values and method of training or someone here will make out that you are ignorant based on the fact that you don't use "all 4 quantrants" - Well I will tell you one thing, to use positive methods effectively you need a hell of a lot more knowledge about what motivates dogs and how to tackle an issue than to just give the dog a quick punishment and problem gone! So just think of that next time someone is devoting their time to learning positive methods, there is so much to learn perhaps we don't want to waste our time learning to use punishment when there are so many others out there quite happy to use it if you ever want to refer on (not to mention so much to read on the reasons why not to use punishment, I'd rather be reading up on that than reading up on the punishments you can use and how to use them).

So if everyone can stop being so hypocritical, no one here has called you cruel or said anything nasty about you just because of the methods you use, we've acknowledged your place in society so I think perhaps it is time for you to jump down off that horse and admit that people devoting all of their time to learning positives and doing great things with dogs as a result also have a place in society.

But I know what will happen, everyone will just pull the bits out of this post where I have commented on why I don't use punishers etc and tear it to shreds, instead of seeing the deeper meaning of this post... It's happened a few times already when I've tried to "call a truce"

[Kavik]

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 is certainly stress involved in free shaping. Certainly frustration. Also helps to teach the dog to cope with failure.

[Kavik]

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!!

Trainers who use punishment are the first to get up on their high horses when a positive trainer suggests that there is something inherently wrong with using punishers, but EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOU is doing EXACTLY the same in regards to people who just use positives, seems a bit hypocritical, no?

I've suggested we just let bygons be bygons, let positive trainers become the best they can, and refer on if needs be, and to let the balanced trainers do what they are doing so that there IS someone to refer on to in the case that we don't want to inflict punishment onto the dogs on a regular basis (I think nearly every positive trainer will use punishment at some time in some form but it is not the basis of our training).

But that isn't good enough, it seems we all have to have the same values and method of training or someone here will make out that you are ignorant based on the fact that you don't use "all 4 quantrants" - Well I will tell you one thing, to use positive methods effectively you need a hell of a lot more knowledge about what motivates dogs and how to tackle an issue than to just give the dog a quick punishment and problem gone! So just think of that next time someone is devoting their time to learning positive methods, there is so much to learn perhaps we don't want to waste our time learning to use punishment when there are so many others out there quite happy to use it if you ever want to refer on (not to mention so much to read on the reasons why not to use punishment, I'd rather be reading up on that than reading up on the punishments you can use and how to use them).

So if everyone can stop being so hypocritical, no one here has called you cruel or said anything nasty about you just because of the methods you use, we've acknowledged your place in society so I think perhaps it is time for you to jump down off that horse and admit that people devoting all of their time to learning positives and doing great things with dogs as a result also have a place in society.

But I know what will happen, everyone will just pull the bits out of this post where I have commented on why I don't use punishers etc and tear it to shreds, instead of seeing the deeper meaning of this post... It's happened a few times already when I've tried to "call a truce"

Nobody is slamming positive trainers. Many of us ARE positive trainers.

I think knowledge is important. The more you know about training, different methods and tools, the more you can decide what is the best for you and WHY, and see what works in what circumstances for different dogs and people and what you feel comfortable with. But it is hard to make an informed decision when you don't get to know all the facts and information first. When you are not ALLOWED to ask questions.