Ndtf V Delta Instructors Course

[SkySoaringMagpie]

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.

I think I'm going to go buy chocolate frogs for my class next week in gratitude. Haven't had anything like that to deal with.

[Herr Rottweiler]

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.

Nicely said

[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

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

aidan, you are right, everyone uses emotive language.

i think i am just concerned that the use of say check chains is called abuse and punishment by PP trainers which is highly emotive and quite difficult to move forward from.

[poodlefan]

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?

Nope. But two wrongs don't make a right. Language is powerful stuff and can be used to escalate and de-escalate the emotional values in a behaviour.

The classic case of the latter was the coining of the term "collateral damage".

Even the term "purely positive" is an interesting one. I've come to the conclusion that many trainers who consider themselves "positive" trainers actually aren't. There are quite a few folk who think because they don't use check chains to reef their dogs around they are "positive" trainers. The reality is somewhat different.

[poodlefan]

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.

Nicely said

HR there are some breeds of dogs I'd probably not own because I consider myself to "soft" to handle one. Your breed of choice (despite my admiration for it) is one. Yep, there are some tough Poodles and Whippets around and some marshmallow Rotties. But statistically, my chances of getting a Rott that wants to push the envelope should be greater.

However in the real world lots of folk end up with the wrong dogs for their personalities. Finding how to get those dog/handler combinations to work I expect is what keeps many a trainer tossing and turning at night, regardless of their avowed training style.

One I find particular frustrating is the sparky dog that thrives on verbal praise and has a handler that's about as exciting as an undertaker at a stamp auction (apologies to stamp collectors and undertakers).

Edited April 20, 2010 by poodlefan

[Guest Willow]

Even the term "purely positive" is an interesting one. I've come to the conclusion that many trainers who consider themselves "positive" trainers actually aren't. There are quite a few folk who think because they don't use check chains to reef their dogs around they are "positive" trainers. The reality is somewhat different.

because a purely positive trainer by defenition would use positive punishment and not negative reinforcement. (if we're talking about using methods with the prefix "+ve" .......I dislike what i consider to be harsh aversives, but the misuse of the term "purely positive" annoys me too.....it makes it look like the trainers who use the term don't understand what they're talking about.

I think the term "trainaing without harsh aversives" would be a better term.

Edited April 20, 2010 by Willow

[Aidan]

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.

I don't make any claims to be purely positive, but it's exactly this sort of dog I'm more likely to approach "purely positive" with. Not for any philosophical reason though, it's just pragmatic.

[Herr Rottweiler]

HR there are some breeds of dogs I'd probably not own because I consider myself to "soft" to handle one. Your breed of choice (despite my admiration for it) is one. Yep, there are some tough Poodles and Whippets around and some marshmallow Rotties. But statistically, my chances of getting a Rott that wants to push the envelope should be greater.

However in the real world lots of folk end up with the wrong dogs for their personalities. Finding how to get those dog/handler combinations to work I expect is what keeps many a trainer tossing and turning at night, regardless of their avowed training style.

The one I find particular frustrating is the sparky dog that thrives on verbal praise and has a handler that's about as exciting as an undertaker at a stamp auction (apologies to stamp collectors and undertakers).

Nicely said PF

Without making a long point of it as I feel it has been adequately mentioned, to ignore aversives in 'generalised' dog training would be foolish and detrimental.

A lot of people on this forum have around 5 minutes of experience in dog training and mainly with their own dog, (give or take a few) however there are some of us that have had extensive experience and have trained and worked with more dogs than a human body can cope with.

In my experience, if i was to ignore aversives in 'some' of the dogs and attempt a PP stratergy, it would put me the owner/handler and the dog in danger. More emphasis on the dogs danger as their general outcome would be the green dream.

Fortunately, experince and balance have helped in some salvation for these owners in their dogs rather than just tell them that nothing more can be done for them as all options have been exhausted.

I know the PP camp will counter this and come back with an argument to validate their point of view. I have often been told that I'm one eyed by PP trainers however, the way I see it, In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king

[poodlefan]

Even the term "purely positive" is an interesting one. I've come to the conclusion that many trainers who consider themselves "positive" trainers actually aren't. There are quite a few folk who think because they don't use check chains to reef their dogs around they are "positive" trainers. The reality is somewhat different.

because a purely positive trainer by defenition would use positive punishment and not negative reinforcement. (if we're talking about using methods with the prefix "+ve" .......I dislike what i consider to be harsh aversives, but the misuse of the term "purely positive" annoys me too.....it makes it look like the trainers who use the term don't understand what they're talking about.

I think the term "trainaing without harsh aversives" would be a better term.

I think there's a fair bit of confusion about what sorts of training method fit into which quadrant of operational conditioning and what PP really means. It sure confuses the hell out of me at times. I summarise it thus:

Positive reinforcement (+R) - something a trainer does that increases the frequency of the behaviour

Negative reinforcement (-R) - something a trainer doesn't do that increases the frequency of the behaviour (and a common reason for increases in unwanted self rewarding behaviours IMO)

Positive punishment (+P)- something a trainer does that decreases the frequency of the behaviour

Negative punishment (-P) - something a trainer doesn't do that decreases the frequency of the behaviour

To me a PP trainer only uses +R and -P. Some folk say they only use +R but I find they generally do "no reward" and that's -P. And that readers, is using "punishers".

Of course, start using any of this language around most trainee handlers, and you'll lose them. I tend to talk about the WIFM (what's in it for me) principle.. reward what you want from a dog and he'll generally want to do that more. That's the basic method our club uses. That's my Whippet's philosophy, that's for sure.

By the way, I see the use of Haltis as +P. You put it on, the dog stops pulling.. voila - positive punishment. This is one of my objections to Delta advertising themselves as PP - they ain't. They just can't see it.

Edited April 20, 2010 by poodlefan

[SkySoaringMagpie]

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?

I don't think we have a purely positive trainer in this thread but primarily positive trainers will get dogpiled if they express anti-correction views in this forum. If you want to see the reverse in action, have a look at the LiveJournal community dogsintraining when some poor sap unwittingly goes in with pro-correction views.

The difficulty is that these discussions boil down to some emotive base concepts. Underneath it all one side usually feels that they are being called dog abusers, and the other side usually feels the methods are abusive. There's no easy way to get through that kind of discussion even if those elephants in the room are studiously ignored.

Having had the opportunity to participate in two forums that I consider are populated by intelligent people but which as groups espouse quite different views I have seen that with enough weight of numbers, almost always the writer in the minority cracks first. That tells you nothing about whether they had something useful to say, it tells you a lot more about the group dynamic.

It's why I posted earlier on that ultimately you have to make peace with yourself about your methods and bugger everyone else, because everyone else is not going to agree, especially in a thread titled NDTF vs Delta. If I worried about the fact that other people thought I was abusive/incompetent/soft I'd never sleep at night because there will always be a critic somewhere.

Disclaimer: I use correction sparingly, and I think Delta as an organsiation verges on cult-like behaviour.

[Herr Rottweiler]

I think the term "training without harsh aversives" would be a better term.

Its a step in the right direction.

[JulesP]

I don't think we have a purely positive trainer in this thread but primarily positive trainers will get dogpiled if they express anti-correction views in this forum.

Totally agree with this bit. And heaven help anyone that says anything against prongs, e collars etc.

[poodlefan]

I don't think we have a purely positive trainer in this thread but primarily positive trainers will get dogpiled if they express anti-correction views in this forum.

Totally agree with this bit. And heaven help anyone that says anything against prongs, e collars etc.

Why? Haven't used either. Don't intend to use either. Have WORN both .. and agree that they can be abused, but not that all use is not abusive.

Wanna know something.. I feel the same way about Haltis. (except I havent' worn one )

None of these tools are what I see as the first and best option for community dog trainers to advocate. If anyone wants to flame me for that so be it.

I don't confuse the majority view with the "correct" view on a lot of issues. A voice in the wildnerness may be the voice of reason. Can't debate anything without opposing views and its via debates on this forum that I have learned a heap of stuff about dogs.

I'm not into "group think". But one person or a bunch of folk who think one thing shouldn't mean others can't express a contrary view.

Frankly I think most of the hyenas on this forum are in the imagination of the DOLer who gets views they don't like expressed on their posts.

Edited April 20, 2010 by poodlefan

[Guest Willow]

Even the term "purely positive" is an interesting one. I've come to the conclusion that many trainers who consider themselves "positive" trainers actually aren't. There are quite a few folk who think because they don't use check chains to reef their dogs around they are "positive" trainers. The reality is somewhat different.

because a purely positive trainer by defenition would use positive punishment and not negative reinforcement. (if we're talking about using methods with the prefix "+ve" .......I dislike what i consider to be harsh aversives, but the misuse of the term "purely positive" annoys me too.....it makes it look like the trainers who use the term don't understand what they're talking about.

I think the term "trainaing without harsh aversives" would be a better term.

I think there's a fair bit of confusion about what sorts of training method fit into which quadrant of operational conditioning and what PP really means. It sure confuses the hell out of me at times. I summarise it thus:

Positive reinforcement (+R) - something a trainer does that increases the frequency of the behaviour

Negative reinforcement (-R) - something a trainer doesn't do that increases the frequency of the behaviour (and a common reason for increases in unwanted self rewarding behaviours IMO)

Positive punishment (+P)- something a trainer does that decreases the frequency of the behaviour

Negative punishment (-P) - something a trainer doesn't do that decreases the frequency of the behaviour

To me a PP trainer only uses +R and -P. Some folk say they only use +R but I find they generally do "no reward" and that's -P. And that readers, is using "punishers".

Of course, start using any of this language around most trainee handlers, and you'll lose them. I tend to talk about the WIFM (what's in it for me) principle.. reward what you want from a dog and he'll generally want to do that more. That's the basic method our club uses. That's my Whippet's philosophy, that's for sure.

By the way, I see the use of Haltis as +P. You put it on, the dog stops pulling.. voila - positive punishment. This is one of my objections to Delta advertising themselves as PP - they ain't. They just can't see it.

I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek PF....you know, if yu say you're a purely positive trainer then if you're using the quadrants literally you can only use training methods that are "positive" ...which technically would be positive reinforcement and positive punishment, just to highlight that I don't agree with the term....it';s used incorrectly.

[poodlefan]

I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek PF....you know, if yu say you're a purely positive trainer then if you're using the quadrants literally you can only use training methods that are "positive" ...which technically would be positive reinforcement and positive punishment, just to highlight that I don't agree with the term....it';s used incorrectly.

.......whoosh..... that's the tongue in cheek bit flying over my head.

There's a really good horse training website that stresses that the use of the terms "positive" "negative", "reinforcement" and "punishment" in the OP quadrants aren't about being "nice" or "nasty".. I honestly wonder how many folk truly grasp that sometimes.

[SkySoaringMagpie]

I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek PF....you know, if yu say you're a purely positive trainer then if you're using the quadrants literally you can only use training methods that are "positive" ...which technically would be positive reinforcement and positive punishment, just to highlight that I don't agree with the term....it';s used incorrectly.

.......whoosh..... that's the tongue in cheek bit flying over my head.

There's a really good horse training website that stresses that the use of the terms "positive" "negative", "reinforcement" and "punishment" in the OP quadrants aren't about being "nice" or "nasty".. I honestly wonder how many folk truly grasp that sometimes.

That's why, like you, I don't use it in classes at all. While useful for people who understand it, the language is very counter-intuitive for the uninitiated.

Being even less sophisticated I talk about "good stuff for dogs" and "bad stuff for dogs" because the other thing people don't grasp all that well is that what a dog experiences as rewarding or aversive may not be what a human thinks is rewarding or aversive.

[poodlefan]

I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek PF....you know, if yu say you're a purely positive trainer then if you're using the quadrants literally you can only use training methods that are "positive" ...which technically would be positive reinforcement and positive punishment, just to highlight that I don't agree with the term....it';s used incorrectly.

.......whoosh..... that's the tongue in cheek bit flying over my head.

There's a really good horse training website that stresses that the use of the terms "positive" "negative", "reinforcement" and "punishment" in the OP quadrants aren't about being "nice" or "nasty".. I honestly wonder how many folk truly grasp that sometimes.

That's why, like you, I don't use it in classes at all. While useful for people who understand it, the language is very counter-intuitive for the uninitiated.

Being even less sophisticated I talk about "good stuff for dogs" and "bad stuff for dogs" because the other thing people don't grasp all that well is that what a dog experiences as rewarding or aversive may not be what a human thinks is rewarding or aversive.

Damn, I thought that said. "that's why I like you"..

Yep, if the folk you are training can't grasp the concepts, you need to simplify.

[JulesP]

PF if you are horsey then you should remember this - "this will profit you, this will profit you not"

Most of the pet people in my class look at me like I am 'crazy dog lady' as it is, I hate to think the looks I would get if I launched into the quadrant stuff.

[Cosmolo]

I don't think there is any question that there is high risk equipment and lower risk equipment in certain situations. Large group class situations where instructor attention is limited and divided between particpants is not the time to introduce high risk equipment. If someone has had training with the piece of equipment prior, i have no issue but to give a headcollar or correction chain to someone who has never used one, in a group of 15- is a risky strategy.

The reality is also that sometimes, group classes aren't the best option for dogs- convincing owners of that fact can be a challenge particularly when they are 'group training or nothing' in their approach.

Perhaps we would be better off considering certain equipment and associated techniques high and low risk rather than 'good' and 'bad'.

[poodlefan]

PF if you are horsey then you should remember this - "this will profit you, this will profit you not"

Most of the pet people in my class look at me like I am 'crazy dog lady' as it is, I hate to think the looks I would get if I launched into the quadrant stuff.

Formerly horsey JulesP.. .and frankly I think any dog trainer who likes bullying as a method needs to meet a horse like my old boy who'd put a few farriers into walls when they hit him. Kick a horse in the guts for mucking up while you're riding it and you may end up being tossed over its head. That's positive punishment equine style.

1500kg animals don't get forced to do much they really don't want to do by methods other than use of force. So you learn to show them how doing what you want profits them, as you say. A very very good starting point for dog training.

Personally I think there are significant differences between training predatory and prey animals. But starting with the big guys teaches you to use your head because in a match of push and shove, you're the one who's going down.

Edited April 20, 2010 by poodlefan