Ndtf V Delta Instructors Course

[corvus]

Corvus, training should be a positive experience. Who really wants to go through all the punishment process anyway? However, the balanced system is being ignored and leaving behind a limitation on whether or not a dogs life is worth saving.

I suppose I think that is quite laughable that a "balanced" system is being ignored. It clearly isn't to me if I have trouble finding a trainer that doesn't use positive punishment even if they don't admit to it. It clearly isn't when my OH's parents paid good money to be told to treat their chronically nervous Min Pin with a firm hand and corrections. 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. It certaintly isn't when you hear some of the horror stories about how people are told to handle their dogs when they misbehave. Ineffectiveness is the least of it. I'm not arguing that there are not rubbish positive trainers out there. Not in the least. I'm arguing that it's not the philosophy; it's the trainers.

There are many ways of training that should be explored. I will always agree on this principle however, ignorance through choice is outrageous.

Ignorance through choice truly is an outrage. And that goes for anything. Except maybe illicit drugs... But I think you missed the point of my post. Just because it's hard for some folks doesn't mean it can't be done. There's nothing inherently wrong with deciding not to use P+. There is something wrong with deciding not to use P+ and also not being particularly good at any of the other options and then taking it upon yourself to recommend a dog be killed because you can't help it. I would take a deliberately ignorant trainer over a balanced trainer any day as long as the ignorant one was good at what they did. And the reason for that is you so rarely need to be "balanced" if you're good at identifying the cause of the behaviour and addressing that.

[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 would take a deliberately ignorant trainer over a balanced trainer any day as long as the ignorant one was good at what they did. And the reason for that is you so rarely need to be "balanced" if you're good at identifying the cause of the behaviour and addressing that.

"Balanced" does not mean 50/50 or that a correction must be used.

And the reason for that is you so rarely need to be "balanced" if you're good at identifying the cause of the behaviour and addressing that.

How much experience outside of your own and your Mum's dogs have you had, in so far as rehabilitating serious problematic behaviour, Corvus? Not all need corrections, granted. But I get the feeling that your insight to the problems that are out there might be a little hazed.

Edited April 18, 2010 by Erny

[Staranais]

I would take a deliberately ignorant trainer over a balanced trainer any day as long as the ignorant one was good at what they did. And the reason for that is you so rarely need to be "balanced" if you're good at identifying the cause of the behaviour and addressing that.

But what happens then to the (perhaps rare) dog that can't be helped, or can't be helped in a timely fashion, using positive only training? An ignorant positive trainer will have no idea about other methodologies to try, not know when other tools could be helpful, and may refuse to refer the dog to a trainer that uses other methodologies since in their ignorance most have bought the line that using punishment is abuse.

I have a lot of admiration for trainers who are competent at using all four quadrants and at using all sorts of tools, and then choose to improve their skills at using reward only training so they can use this most or all of the time. To me, that's different to a trainer who is so closed minded that they deliberately keep themselves ignorant and don't research other methods or tools.

[Nekhbet]

It's all very well saying using no positive punishment will fix an aggressive dog. I'm yet to see it. And I'm yet to see a Delta trainer turn a growling, lunging snarling mess into a calm dog purely through positive reinforcement means. I hear it but when the living example is put in front of me it's not actually 'fixed'. Or I get a phone call to come help fix it myself. I did that this week actually because the owners were on their last shred of nerves living with two dogs who could fly at each other at any moment after three aggression consultations from a so called professional. One dog was so wired it chewed the fence until its mouth bled. But hey, better then a check chain!

I seem to see 'fixed' as having many interpretations to many people though. Maybe my standards are too high but I dont consider success or leaving the client until the dog is relaxed, happy and the road to change is started. Make the whole experience as fun and positive as possible. But if a correction is needed to stop an outburst ... darn well give it before a vet gives it a permanent one.

It clearly isn't when my OH's parents paid good money to be told to treat their chronically nervous Min Pin with a firm hand and corrections. 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. It certaintly isn't when you hear some of the horror stories about how people are told to handle their dogs when they misbehave. Ineffectiveness is the least of it. I'm not arguing that there are not rubbish positive trainers out there. Not in the least. I'm arguing that it's not the philosophy; it's the trainers.

I dont know from this is sounds like you have a problem with the philosophy and you don't totally understand it. You know those of us who use positive punishment are not all Koehler clones ready to beat a dog into submission.

And the reason for that is you so rarely need to be "balanced" if you're good at identifying the cause of the behaviour and addressing that.

If you don't have a full tool box you cannot build a house. Of course you need to be balanced. ANd you need to consider what a dog needs on an individual basis. Someone who constrains themselves therefore cannot honestly and morally say they can help train or behaviorally modify every dog. I also see it rather sad that people say that a 'purely positive method' or 'reward based training' cannot harm a dog long term. Well honestly I beg to differ with that.

Edited April 18, 2010 by Nekhbet

[Prydenjoy]

Yet, there is a hell of a lot you can achieve without positive punishment if you know what you're about. I used to watch it weekly on Barking Mad when I was living in the States. Aggressive turtle? No problem, positive methods all the way. Aggressive sheep? Lets teach it agility and how to walk on a leash with rewards - look at that, no more aggression towards people. Pony that chases and bites its owners? A little R-, a lot of R+ and the problem is solved. They dealt with everything from a bored octopus to a GSD that needed to be muzzled when visitors came and I don't ever remember them resorting to P+. They might have done aversion training with noise, but I'm not sure. I was starting to think there was nothing that team of behaviourists couldn't handle with rewards and environmental enrichment alone. Seeing it done in so many varying situations with such wildly different animals was a pretty good lesson in just how far you could get without P+ if you could identify what the problem at the root of the animal's behaviour was.

The problem is not the philosophy, but the inability to apply it particularly well.

:D

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

To me "balance" is giving some sort of consequence, it doesn't actually need to be P+. I consider my dogs training to be balanced, but I don't actually use P+.

[Erny]

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.

Edited April 18, 2010 by Erny

[Herr Rottweiler]

everyone can pull examples out of their hat to fuel their story! The whole balanced perspective is, as Erny stated, not having to use P+ but having it available if need be! P+ is demonised so much to the point that the sheer mention of it has people feeling like their beating their animals with wooden blocks! Seriously people!

Ignorance truely is bliss.

Jeanne, I wouldnt imagine your little dogs would need P+ either. The brilliance of the balanced system is that after an evalution of the dog has taken place, the trainer can gain an understanding of what's required to get the best from the dog.

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

[corvus]

I dont know from this is sounds like you have a problem with the philosophy and you don't totally understand it. You know those of us who use positive punishment are not all Koehler clones ready to beat a dog into submission.

And you know that all "positive" trainers aren't ineffectual, permissive and prone to recommending euthanasia for easily fixable problems. It is amusing that I so often hear "you don't understand the philosophy/method" from trainers that use corrections freely who apparently haven't realised that the vast majority of positive trainers have crossed over from correctional methods. They have all been there and done that. I don't think there even is a "balanced" philosophy. There are folks that will use aversives more readily than others. There are folks whose idea of Least Invasive, Minamally Aversive is different to that of other folks. There are folks that have experienced different things that have led to different levels of caution. I haven't had these philosophy 'discussions' countless times across cyberspace for 6 years and not heard it all a dozen times or more. The arguments never change and likely never will, and the failure of any one person to agree with any other one person will always result in comments about not understanding the method or not having enough experience. It is so boring and pointless. Especially when I'm not even interested in the great debate anymore. I just want people to be fair to each other, fair to methods that work, and fair to their dogs.

My problem is not with some supposed "balanced" or otherwise philosophy. My problem is with an entire training basis being slammed because some trainers that subscribe to it are not very good at what they do for a living. And that goes for any training philosophy regardless of my own approach.

If you don't have a full tool box you cannot build a house.

Why the focus on tools? I can have a rich and fulfilling relationship with any creature I share my life with if I am kind to them, sensitive to their emotional state and the things that drive them, empathetic, and compassionate towards them. I build relationships, not houses.

Someone who constrains themselves therefore cannot honestly and morally say they can help train or behaviorally modify every dog. I also see it rather sad that people say that a 'purely positive method' or 'reward based training' cannot harm a dog long term. Well honestly I beg to differ with that.

What discussion are you following, 'cause that ain't what I've been suggesting. Let's be serious adults, here, and leave the extremist arguments in the loony bin where they belong. I will repeat, there is nothing wrong with choosing not to use P+ provided you are good at what you do use. You can get an awful long way without those punishments. What is wrong is recommending euthanasia because you aren't skilled enough to handle a problem. As Cosmolo said, just refer it!

Incidentally, my latest brush with a Delta trainer didn't leave me thinking them particularly "purely positive". Like most trainers I've ever met, they were a "reward what you want, ignore what you don't want, correct what you really don't want" trainer.

[corvus]

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

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

And there's the rub. I'm sure that everybody here who uses punishments believes they have exhausted or accurately ruled out the use of positive methods before they go to punishments. So where does that leave us? With a whole bunch of people that vehemently disagree over the application of the very first guideline for the use of punishment. I've seen and have dealt with myself self-rewarding behaviours without punishments. I have dealt with self-rewarding behaviours with punishments. What I decide to do depends on the strength of the behaviour, how long it has been going on, how dangerous it is, how easily it is managed, what I understand to be at the root of it, and how often punishments have been used already. This is so subjective it is ridiculous to expect everyone to agree with the method used. So why even try? All you can do is keep pushing the envelope and challenging yourself. It's not that hard. You make mistakes, you need aversives, you learn. What are we arguing about? Just that grey area between what you believe to be the limit of rewards and what someone else believes is the limit of rewards. That grey area is defined by individual experiences. Seeing as my aim is to use the least amount of aversives and invasive methods as I can, if someone says they've done it or seen it done without punishments I hold that up as the thing to aim for.

If a Delta trainer wanted to learn about using aversives, all the info is right there in Lindsay's books in plain English. He's done all the work for us and even gone so far as to iterate how it relates to dog training. We need only learn from it if we want. So what does it matter what accreditation you have or who taught you? You are the one in charge of what you are exposed to and how you use it. Being a good trainer has crap all to do with whose logo is on your certificate and everything to do with your willingness to keep on learning, your own personal moral standards, and your ability to apply what you have learnt.

[Erny]

What are we arguing about?

I'm not exactly sure what you're arguing about. The thread is about NDTF -vs- Delta Courses. NDTF teaches all four quadrants (P+ P- R+ R-). Delta not only doesn't do that but it vehemently prescribes against P+. We're saying that causes limitations, and often to the detriment of some dogs. You agree that P+ has its place. So ....... I'm not sure what you are arguing about.

[Herr Rottweiler]

What are we arguing about?

I'm not exactly sure what you're arguing about. The thread is about NDTF -vs- Delta Courses. NDTF teaches all four quadrants (P+ P- R+ R-). Delta not only doesn't do that but it vehemently prescribes against P+. We're saying that causes limitations, and often to the detriment of some dogs. You agree that P+ has its place. So ....... I'm not sure what you are arguing about.

ditto

[Prydenjoy]

If a Delta trainer wanted to learn about using aversives, all the info is right there in Lindsay's books in plain English. He's done all the work for us and even gone so far as to iterate how it relates to dog training. We need only learn from it if we want. So what does it matter what accreditation you have or who taught you? You are the one in charge of what you are exposed to and how you use it. Being a good trainer has crap all to do with whose logo is on your certificate and everything to do with your willingness to keep on learning, your own personal moral standards, and your ability to apply what you have learnt.

Agreed! Personally I'd prefer read up read up read up on positive methods, and become really skilled at that (ie doing a course based on positive methods) and find a few outside sources on alternates for the very extreme cases to fall back on as a very last resort, than to become equally knowledgeable on "all four quantrants" and be tempted to fall back on what's "easy" as a first or second resort, without exhausting all other possibilities first. There is a LOT to be learnt about positive training, I'll dedicate my life to knowing as much as I can about it, with the knowledge the other methods exist and can and do work, and how to apply them if absolutely necessary (yes even back in my check chain days my instructor - ex military dog trainer - would always tell me what a good trainer I was, even "purely positive" books like Jean Donaldsons makes reference to using an e collar for a recall if absolutely necessary for the sake of the dogs life). I'd rather do the Delta course and surround my life in positives and use them in every case possible, than learn everything equally and use them all equally. I've chosen the CASI course because it does look more in depth, but who knows, I may even do the NDTF or Delta course one day if I want to become "Nationally Accredited", but I will make every effort to become as knowledgeable and skilled in positive methods and avoid the aversives as much as possible to obtain results.

[poodlefan]

Corvus:

Why the focus on tools? I can have a rich and fulfilling relationship with any creature I share my life with if I am kind to them, sensitive to their emotional state and the things that drive them, empathetic, and compassionate towards them. I build relationships, not houses.

I thought we were talking about training handlers, not dogs.

All these courses train you to train handlers. How many handlers have you trained Corvus? How many folk have the luxury of weeks to build a relationship with a dog that they find impossible to manage on a daily basis?

The greatest myth about becoming a dog trainer is that you'll spend your life training dogs. You won't. You'll spend your life training people of varying degrees of apptitude to train their dogs. This IMO is where you need to be particularly careful about the use of aversives.

The worst kinds of trainers IMO are the ones that every time there's glitch in a training relationship say "here, give ME the dog". You may be able to get the dog to turn cartwheels but if the handler can't do a thing with it, you've failed them both.

Edited April 18, 2010 by poodlefan

[Erny]

Agreed! Personally I'd prefer read up read up read up on positive methods, and become really skilled at that (ie doing a course based on positive methods) and find a few outside sources on alternates for the very extreme cases to fall back on as a very last resort, than to become equally knowledgeable on "all four quadtrants" and be tempted to fall back on what's "easy" as a first or second resort, without exhausting all other possibilities first.

Something that is "easy" doesn't mean that it is the worst, for the dog, I mean.

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

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

ETA: But I see that's what you would personally prefer for yourself, and that's fair enough.

Edited April 18, 2010 by Erny

[corvus]

What are we arguing about?

I'm not exactly sure what you're arguing about. The thread is about NDTF -vs- Delta Courses. NDTF teaches all four quadrants (P+ P- R+ R-). Delta not only doesn't do that but it vehemently prescribes against P+. We're saying that causes limitations, and often to the detriment of some dogs. You agree that P+ has its place. So ....... I'm not sure what you are arguing about.

Well, I thought I made it pretty clear seeing as I repeated it a few times and all, but here we go again.

I am arguing that ignoring P+ needn't be a limitation. I'm arguing that the accreditation doesn't matter nearly as much as your basic skill as a trainer. I'm arguing that the Delta trainers I have met are not "purely positive" in my experience anyway. I'm arguing that every organisation and every philosophy has their share of rubbish trainers, so it's meaningless to single one out.

Whenever I read these threads I see a whole lot of back-patting going on while the discussion centres around supposed extremists that aren't actually here to defend themselves. Let's be serious and leave the extremists out of it. There are no extremists on this board. Just people that care about dogs. Let's stop using extreme examples as evidence of why we are right. It's like watching Dawkins rant about religion, pulling out every extremist he can find to prove his point. It's not very convincing.

[Erny]

Well, I thought I made it pretty clear seeing as I repeated it a few times and all, but here we go again.

Why do you have to respond in this way? Makes you sound as though you think you're really smart - smarter than everyone else. Quite off-putting.

I am arguing that ignoring P+ needn't be a limitation.

Well, that's interesting. Because earlier you said that sometimes P+ has its place (not quoting verbatem).

I'm arguing that the accreditation doesn't matter nearly as much as your basic skill as a trainer.

Yeah - although not sure of relevance for thread.

I'm arguing that the Delta trainers I have met are not "purely positive" in my experience anyway.

How many have you met?

But aside from that, the thread is about what the courses teach (or don't teach). It isn't about individual trainers.

I'm arguing that every organisation and every philosophy has their share of rubbish trainers, so it's meaningless to single one out.

Ditto to what I just said.

Whenever I read these threads I see a whole lot of back-patting going on while the discussion centres around supposed extremists that aren't actually here to defend themselves. Let's be serious and leave the extremists out of it. There are no extremists on this board. Just people that care about dogs. Let's stop using extreme examples as evidence of why we are right. It's like watching Dawkins rant about religion, pulling out every extremist he can find to prove his point. It's not very convincing.

Back patting? :D

We're talking courses and the agendas on those courses.

Perhaps your solution is to not read the threads?

[Prydenjoy]

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

I do think a poorly time reinforcer is less stressful than a poorly timed punisher. Either way the dog is confused, a poorly timed reinforcer is less likely to result in a depressed and miserable dog though. In my experience timing is one of the things most people find most difficult to master, so I'm not going to advocate its use.

Back to the original topic, I agree completely with everything that Corvus is saying. Pick a course that trains to your own belief system and what you are most comfortable using, but remain open minded to other options also - Either by doing further studies, or referring on. If you want to be a master at positive training, do a positive course and further your knowledge through further studies in that AS WELL as other options, so that you do not become too closed minded, if you WANT to be a trainer that uses "all four quadrants" frequently, do a course that goes into depth in each of them. Decide what your own belief system is and what kind of trainer you want to become and choose a course based on that, leave the extreemists from both camps out of it because becoming an extreemist is a personal choice, it doesn't necessarilly go hand in hand with doing a particular course.

[Nekhbet]

I am arguing that ignoring P+ needn't be a limitation

but in real life it is.

Why the focus on tools? I can have a rich and fulfilling relationship with any creature I share my life with if I am kind to them, sensitive to their emotional state and the things that drive them, empathetic, and compassionate towards them. I build relationships, not houses.

We are not talking about what you do with your own dogs. That is a biased look on the world. Your own little world will always be a perfect Utopia. Train a few hundred other peoples dogs and tell me your ideas and training methods achieve the same results - you are now dealing with individuals who do not have the same expectations, needs or ideals about their dogs as you do. You cannot always say to them 'thats the way he is, it will take time'. Some will hand you an ultimatum - fix it today or we can't take it. Show me results today or I'm going to go mad. Some simply will not have the skills to keep up with the methods you use anyway and find some positive punishment useful for them.

Personally I'd prefer read up read up read up on positive methods, and become really skilled at that (ie doing a course based on positive methods) and find a few outside sources on alternates for the very extreme cases to fall back on as a very last resort, than to become equally knowledgeable on "all four quantrants" and be tempted to fall back on what's "easy" as a first or second resort, without exhausting all other possibilities first.

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

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

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

An operant response is a behavior that is modifiable by its consequences. When behavior is modified by its consequences, the probability of that behavior occurring again may either increase (in the case of reinforcement) or decrease (in the case of punishment).

Punishment is defined as a consequence that follows an operant response that decreases (or attempts to decrease) the likelihood of that response occurring in the future.

Reinforcement is defined as a consequence that follows an operant response that increase (or attempts to increase) the likelihood of that response occurring in the future.

Punishment by definition is not what the layman thinks of as something like physical corrections only. Do you withhold treat/toy if your dog does not do the required behavior? You are technically punishing your dog. Do you every tell your dogs off at all (ie apply an aversive stimulus to prevent the unwanted behavior reoccuring) then you are positively punishing your dog. Life is not all happy happy joy joy all the time. Real life and real dogs show you that.

[poodlefan]

Back to the original topic, I agree completely with everything that Corvus is saying. Pick a course that trains to your own belief system and what you are most comfortable using, but remain open minded to other options also - Either by doing further studies, or referring on. If you want to be a master at positive training, do a positive course and further your knowledge through further studies in that AS WELL as other options, so that you do not become too closed minded, if you WANT to be a trainer that uses "all four quadrants" frequently, do a course that goes into depth in each of them. Decide what your own belief system is and what kind of trainer you want to become and choose a course based on that, leave the extreemists from both camps out of it because becoming an extreemist is a personal choice, it doesn't necessarilly go hand in hand with doing a particular course.

For me its not the frequency with which you use a quadrant that should dictate your knowledge of it. Indeed, knowing WHEN to use alone dictates thorough knowledge.

Most "balanced" trainers I know prefer to train using positive reinforcement and its certainly the easiest to teach handlers (timing can take some work)

Our club uses positives because they have the least potential, in the hands of a newb handler to cause harm to the dog.

[Cosmolo]

Poodlefan :D

I don't think anyone disagrees that positive training can be and is a wonderful thing for many dogs, teaches many behaviours far more successfully than compulsive methods etc. But we need to remember that training without aversives is not always in the best interest of the dog and/ or handler. Extinction training can be an awful lot more stressful than an aversive in some cases for the dog AND the owner- so why do we do things that don't serve the dog/ handler combinations best interest?

The answer lies in closed-mindedness and lack of flexibility- as the dog is getting stressed out of its brain going through an extinction burst, some smile and say 'well at least we haven't used any aversives'. What would the dog have preferred?

I agree with you too Jeanne- people should choose the course that suits them.

But then be honest about what dogs you can and can't train and don't label others who are different or use different methods as abusive/ cruel/ dogs shut down etc. In a recent thread (or maybe this one?) i gave an example of my fearful dog coming on in leaps and bounds through aversive and positive methods and the first question asked was- " are you sure she isn't shut down". Its these assumptions that get on people's nerves JUST as the assumption that all positive trainers are cult extremists. I've met a number of the latter- i can think of 6 off the top of my head, but i have also met 3 that aren't and i respect them for it even though they choose different training methods to me in some cases.