Pinch Collars

[malsrock]

Kind of blows the purely positive theory about using aversives on a fearful dog

What theory is that?

The theory that a fearful dog subject to an avervise training method will shut down, increase or agititate it's aggression level, cause anxiety and handler mistrust etc etc. In extreme cases with aversives administered incorrectly for the particular dog, it is a possibility that a dog could suffer negative side effects, but for the most part, I think the above theories are blown out of all proportion and the purely positive trainers who refuse to use an aversive when circumstances require it should re-assess their training options to a wider range of methods.

Fiona

[Tapferhund]

Prong Collars....best training collar in the world IMO. Its just a pity Australian authorities think they know better than the rest of the world in regard to these collars.

[malsrock]

Prong Collars....best training collar in the world IMO. Its just a pity Australian authorities think they know better than the rest of the world in regard to these collars.

Many dog's have been saved from a premature trip to the bridge thanks to the prong collar

[Erny]

Prong Collars....best training collar in the world IMO. Its just a pity Australian Victorian authorities think they know better than the rest of the world in regard to these collars.

And for no good reason. In fact, for no reason at all. Other than "it might".

Idiocy.

[Erny]

Prong Collars....best training collar in the world IMO. Its just a pity Australian Victorian authorities think they know better than the rest of the world in regard to these collars.

My amendment/highlight.

And for no good reason. In fact, for no reason at all. Other than "it might".

Idiocy.

ETA: Although I guess you're right with the word "Australian" as whilst the collar is not banned anywhere else (in Australia or the World), there are orgs who decry it. Only goes to show they don't understand it. Easy to fear what you don't know.

Edited September 13, 2010 by Erny

[Aidan3]

Kind of blows the purely positive theory about using aversives on a fearful dog

What theory is that?

The theory that a fearful dog subject to an avervise training method will shut down, increase or agititate it's aggression level, cause anxiety and handler mistrust etc etc. In extreme cases with aversives administered incorrectly for the particular dog, it is a possibility that a dog could suffer negative side effects, but for the most part, I think the above theories are blown out of all proportion and the purely positive trainers who refuse to use an aversive when circumstances require it should re-assess their training options to a wider range of methods.

Fiona

I'm not sure that I've ever heard a competent purely positive trainer state that any of these things will inevitably happen. I think that's the difference, whether someone is competent or not. Method then becomes a moot point. If you're competent, you're competent; if you're not, you refer and get your ego out of it.

If I'm "purely positive" (not that I make this claim, although in many eyes I would be) and get consistently good results with the dogs that I work with, what basis would I have to choose a "wider range of methods"? Similarly, what basis would someone have to tell Steve Courtenay that he shouldn't have used a prong with the dog in this thread?

As for the theory, the actual theory - which is not something that "purely positive" trainers came up with - is sound. Aversives do have fall-out, they do come with risk. The severity of the correction is just one factor. One of the most insidious problems caused by aversive conditioning, learned helplessness, can be caused by the use of very mild aversives and can be hard to identify or even to link with the events that caused it. But mostly we're just dealing with classical conditioning, which is certainly not limited to extreme cases. Competent trainers have evolved different methods of avoiding the fall-out of aversives in dog training and behaviour modification, whether one method is any better than another is not a debate I care to enter into here. Suffice to say there is more than one method that works and avoids serious problems.

[PAX]

I have tried both forms of correction collars on my own neck, give me a prong collar any day over a check chain:))

[malsrock]

Kind of blows the purely positive theory about using aversives on a fearful dog

What theory is that?

The theory that a fearful dog subject to an avervise training method will shut down, increase or agititate it's aggression level, cause anxiety and handler mistrust etc etc. In extreme cases with aversives administered incorrectly for the particular dog, it is a possibility that a dog could suffer negative side effects, but for the most part, I think the above theories are blown out of all proportion and the purely positive trainers who refuse to use an aversive when circumstances require it should re-assess their training options to a wider range of methods.

Fiona

I'm not sure that I've ever heard a competent purely positive trainer state that any of these things will inevitably happen. I think that's the difference, whether someone is competent or not. Method then becomes a moot point. If you're competent, you're competent; if you're not, you refer and get your ego out of it.

If I'm "purely positive" (not that I make this claim, although in many eyes I would be) and get consistently good results with the dogs that I work with, what basis would I have to choose a "wider range of methods"? Similarly, what basis would someone have to tell Steve Courtenay that he shouldn't have used a prong with the dog in this thread?

As for the theory, the actual theory - which is not something that "purely positive" trainers came up with - is sound. Aversives do have fall-out, they do come with risk. The severity of the correction is just one factor. One of the most insidious problems caused by aversive conditioning, learned helplessness, can be caused by the use of very mild aversives and can be hard to identify or even to link with the events that caused it. But mostly we're just dealing with classical conditioning, which is certainly not limited to extreme cases. Competent trainers have evolved different methods of avoiding the fall-out of aversives in dog training and behaviour modification, whether one method is any better than another is not a debate I care to enter into here. Suffice to say there is more than one method that works and avoids serious problems.

Personally Aidan, I don't regard "purely positive" trainers who refuse to train in aversive methods as competent at all from my own experience, too many I have seen walk away from behaviours they were unable to correct, and on several occassions deemed the dog untrainable, too far gone and advised that the dog should be PTS These particular trainers I speak of were staunch in their "purely positive" techniques promoting the theories that I described.

IMHO, positive is good, aversives are good and training competence boils down to the trainers who are good enough to determine a method of training that can actually correct the dog's behaviour and are prepared to use a variety of methods with the ultimate goal to produce a result. Fallout from aversive methods from my experience results from trainers who are inexperienced at administering a properly timed aversive correctly and blame the method it's self for the resultant fallout they caused themselves. I couldn't see too much fallout from the OP's experience using a prong collar in fact, it was quite the opposite from what I could see

Fiona :p

[huski]

Personally Aidan, I don't regard "purely positive" trainers who refuse to train in aversive methods as competent at all from my own experience, too many I have seen walk away from behaviours they were unable to correct, and on several occassions deemed the dog untrainable, too far gone and advised that the dog should be PTS These particular trainers I speak of were staunch in their "purely positive" techniques promoting the theories that I described.

But I think Aidan's point, is that if he was what you would class as a purely positive trainer, and his methods always worked, he never had issues with how he trained, never had a dog he couldn't fix etc then why would he be any better a trainer if he decided to use certain aversives? Why would he change what he is doing, if it works for him? Aidan is not talking about the bad PP trainers but the ones who are getting results.

I am by no means a PP trainer myself BTW but I do get where Aidan is coming from. Who are we to say he would be a better trainer if he used certain aversives? How do you know his methods aren't working well and would work better if he did use aversives? If he's never found the need for them why would he use them?

Edited September 13, 2010 by huski

[malsrock]

Personally Aidan, I don't regard "purely positive" trainers who refuse to train in aversive methods as competent at all from my own experience, too many I have seen walk away from behaviours they were unable to correct, and on several occassions deemed the dog untrainable, too far gone and advised that the dog should be PTS These particular trainers I speak of were staunch in their "purely positive" techniques promoting the theories that I described.

But I think Aidan's point, is that if he was what you would class as a purely positive trainer, and his methods always worked, he never had issues with how he trained, never had a dog he couldn't fix etc then why would he be any better a trainer if he decided to use certain aversives? Why would he change what he is doing, if it works for him? Aidan is not talking about the bad PP trainers but the ones who are getting results.

I am by no means a PP trainer myself BTW but I do get where Aidan is coming from. Who are we to say he would be a better trainer if he used certain aversives?

I would think If Aidan believed that, he hasn't successfully trained enough challenging dogs................hypothetically this is Aidan, no offence here mate

Fiona

[Aidan]

too many I have seen walk away from behaviours they were unable to correct, and on several occassions deemed the dog untrainable, too far gone and advised that the dog should be PTS

Some dogs should be PTS, but assuming these dogs were not in that category (and I'm not sure that you are in a position to judge this) then those trainers were incompetent and should refer. They are not representative of every "purely positive" trainer in the world.

training competence boils down to the trainers who are good enough to determine a method of training that can actually correct the dog's behaviour and are prepared to use a variety of methods with the ultimate goal to produce a result.

Putting all the divisive "us and them" political nonsense aside, a competent trainer is one who can solve that client's problem. That's it. Competent defines itself to a large extent and doesn't need sub-cultures to add their bit.

I think I could train dogs for another 100 years and still not train "enough" dogs, or at least someone would be able to level that criticism at me and what defence could I put up? There is always a new and different dog around the corner, and perhaps more relevant - new and different clients with new and different needs. This point is driven home when you actually train someone else's dog and not just a string of your own dogs, for which the point of difference is mostly in the dog because you stay more or less the same.

It is, in fact, impossible not to use aversives with fearful or aggressive dogs. They wouldn't be that way if there wasn't some aversive stimulus in the environment. But putting that aside, I have not used a prong collar, check chain, e-collar or otherwise on an aggressive dog in one of my classes simply because they do not fit with what I do in classes and what I do consistently works and has done with a statistically significant sample. There are very few exceptions, and these are dogs for whom either classes aren't the best environment or the owner is grossly non-compliant. No doubt there are purely positive trainers who could work even with these clients, but I am not that patient nor do I see the benefit in being purely positive for the sake of it.

[corvus]

Goddamn, who are these PP people?? I am on a bunch of clicker training lists and positive dog training lists and I still haven't met one! I even went looking for one locally. Twice. Both ended up being not particularly positive.

The thing is, if it's operant conditioning, it doesn't just "not work", regardless of which quadrant of OC we're talking about. If I can't get it to work, there are other things happening that I either haven't identified or am not controlling. Maybe I haven't selected the right reward, the right method of reward delivery, or my timing is off, for example. If I were using P+, I would face similar hiccups. If I get all the little components and interactions right, it will work. Some methods might be faster than others or "stick" better depending on the arousal of the dog and the history of reinforcement and the resources at hand to treat it. If I can distract my dog I'm 80% of the way there. I think you do what you have to in order to distract them and then pick a method that suits the priorities, expertise and commitment of the trainer.

ETA, I warped the truth slightly. That was a very Behaviorist view and doesn't take into account motivation or the emotional state that might be driving a behaviour. But I figured I'd stick to OC seeing as that was the topic.

Edited September 13, 2010 by corvus

[4Kelpies]

I've never met anyone who refers to themselves as being "purely positive" and I doubt that such a person exists. I have heard of plenty of people referring to themselves as "crossover " trainers as they used to use punishments but have now crossed over to a way of training that works better for them. I don't know anyone who wouldn't use aversive methods at some time or other. For example I can't imagine anyone watching their dog approach a snake and ignore the behaviour, waiting for the dog to stop or look away so they could click and throw a treat. They would do what ever it took to get the dog away and keep it safe. I see positive training as philosophy behind what people do in training rather than rigid rules of never doing anything the dog doesn't like.

I agree that it is ludicrous that prong collars are banned and yet every supermarket and pet supply store sells choker chains to anyone with no instructions on how to use them. I've tried both around my own shin and would prefer a prong collar any day.

[Staranais]

If I'm "purely positive" (not that I make this claim, although in many eyes I would be) and get consistently good results with the dogs that I work with, what basis would I have to choose a "wider range of methods"? Similarly, what basis would someone have to tell Steve Courtenay that he shouldn't have used a prong with the dog in this thread?

I agree. I have consulted incompetant positive-only trainers, but I have also consulted incompetant trainers who used prongs & check chains too. Neither got good results from my dog, and both blamed me (or the dog) for the problem. Incompetant is incompetant, no matter what methods you use.

I would personally prefer to consult a trainer with a wide variety of methods & techniques in their toolbox. But the only real quibble I have is with trainers who do not refer to another trainer when their own methods are clearly not working for the dog, or who run down alternative methods without giving them a fair go. And I have seen both of these things occur in the positive-only and correction-based camps.

[malsrock]

too many I have seen walk away from behaviours they were unable to correct, and on several occassions deemed the dog untrainable, too far gone and advised that the dog should be PTS

Some dogs should be PTS, but assuming these dogs were not in that category (and I'm not sure that you are in a position to judge this) then those trainers were incompetent and should refer. They are not representative of every "purely positive" trainer in the world.

training competence boils down to the trainers who are good enough to determine a method of training that can actually correct the dog's behaviour and are prepared to use a variety of methods with the ultimate goal to produce a result.

Putting all the divisive "us and them" political nonsense aside, a competent trainer is one who can solve that client's problem. That's it. Competent defines itself to a large extent and doesn't need sub-cultures to add their bit.

I think I could train dogs for another 100 years and still not train "enough" dogs, or at least someone would be able to level that criticism at me and what defence could I put up? There is always a new and different dog around the corner, and perhaps more relevant - new and different clients with new and different needs. This point is driven home when you actually train someone else's dog and not just a string of your own dogs, for which the point of difference is mostly in the dog because you stay more or less the same.

It is, in fact, impossible not to use aversives with fearful or aggressive dogs. They wouldn't be that way if there wasn't some aversive stimulus in the environment. But putting that aside, I have not used a prong collar, check chain, e-collar or otherwise on an aggressive dog in one of my classes simply because they do not fit with what I do in classes and what I do consistently works and has done with a statistically significant sample. There are very few exceptions, and these are dogs for whom either classes aren't the best environment or the owner is grossly non-compliant. No doubt there are purely positive trainers who could work even with these clients, but I am not that patient nor do I see the benefit in being purely positive for the sake of it.

The point I am making refers to this model Aidan:

A lady with a large dog that pulls on leash, she has been to training and hired trainers to help with the probelm which is not being resolved. The dog has a head collar or harness on, she is equipped with a treat pouch and clicker, sometimes the dog walks nicely and things are working to a degree, but when a distraction occurs, the dog is all over place in misbehaviour. The lady has spent a lot of money and time training in this method with maginal result.

In assistance, I have taken the head collar/harness etc off the dog, and in some instances used only a flat collar and leash, done a few routines and a few corrections and in less than an hour, dramatically improved the dog's on leash behaviour out of sight???. This is not an over embellishment on my part, but as just an amateur trainer with experience with my own dogs, I have assisted people in this fashion over the years many times.

The loose leash situation as I present in this model, I am thinking considering the lady has been under professional trainers for 6 months, what the hell are they teaching when an amateur like me can greatly improve the dog's behaviour in less than an hour, and completely resolve the problem under my instruction in less than a week

[Kavik]

With that model for a start:

1) obviously the person has not been shown how to use a clicker effectively to get attention with distractions (ie look at me method or other names where the dog is taught to automatically look at handler).

This is not a problem with positive training (it works very well and has improved my dog aggressive dog's manners heaps, and I now use it with all my dogs in helping to deal with distractions) but in how it has been taught/applied.

I can say the same thing about check chains - that I see many people walking their dogs on one and the dogs are choking and their owners have no control over them - doesn't mean that check chains are bad or ineffective, just that they haven't been taught how to use them correctly.

[Aidan]

A lady with a large dog that pulls on leash, she has been to training and hired trainers to help with the probelm which is not being resolved. The dog has a head collar or harness on, she is equipped with a treat pouch and clicker, sometimes the dog walks nicely and things are working to a degree, but when a distraction occurs, the dog is all over place in misbehaviour. The lady has spent a lot of money and time training in this method with maginal result.

You don't seem to be making the distinction between "competence" and "incompetence".

The dogs who come to me have seen someone else first, and in many cases they have been to an obedience club or breed club who uses the methods you describe. I only take referrals from other trainers or veterinary behaviourists, so in every case someone who is competent at whatever they do has referred that person to me as someone competent at what I do.

We could trade examples going back and forth all day but that would achieve nothing other than further evidence that people can become competent using different methods, and I already knew that.

[siks3]

I use a prong collar not as a punishment but a tool that requires the smallest correction to get the dog to focus on what it should be doing. If a dogs drive around other dogs is stronger then the drive for food common sense would say a correction is needed in this case no if's or buts.

So yes I use a prong in certain circumstances and it is an excellent tool that does have the power to be misused by an inexperienced handler.

I like them so

[Aidan]

If a dogs drive around other dogs is stronger then the drive for food common sense would say a correction is needed in this case no if's or buts.

I think a lot of people have trouble believing that the above is not necessarily true until they have seen someone do otherwise effectively. Dogs do weigh up reinforcers based on their value, but this does not always determine their behaviour if they are conditioned to emit one response over another (by someone competent).

Whether we would choose to do that without corrections is another matter entirely, but what appears to be common sense is not always that simple.

[merijigs]

Thanks a lot, Shell - now I'm bawling tears of joy.

Bl---y well done