Pinch Collars

[TrinaJ]

OMG is that really what you use or are you having us on

No way would I use Krispy Kremes - they won't appreciate that

110% serious!!! That and gingerbread is my super special high value treat - I am not kidding, she would rather have a sweet biscuit or donut over meat any day!!

I don't use it every time, usually only for "special occasions" like trials etc.

This is what happens when I crack out a donut at training...

or a gingerbread bickie...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EirXW2xt52Q

ETA: And she doesn't get the whole biscuit or donut, well maybe if we got a really good pass (but that hasn't happened yet ) LOL

That's fantastic, love the focus. You found the tool that worked for her - I may have to try Krispy Kreme donuts myself with my 2 - if they dont pay attention at least someone will get the reward in the end ME!!! I never thought of using a sweet for motivation, but hey they have tastebuds just like we do.....

[malsrock]

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.

Doesn't the "otherwise" Aidan, only prevent the dog from learning there a consequences to it's actions good and bad. I remember some misbehaviours as a kid would earn me a smack on the bum, and others would cause a loss of my lollies, but I can sure remember the correction that provided the best reinforcer..........shouldn't that system also apply to dogs???

Fiona

[malsrock]

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.

Agree

What is the big deal these days with giving a dog a correction so it regains focus (not to be confused with a punishment) some dogs i would never fit a prong collar it is simply not needed. It would do more harm than good but as somebody has stated in this thread that it has changed a dogs behaviour for the better than to have it simply put down what is the better option putting it to sleep or giving the owner a tool that works when all other approaches have failed.

Another thing I would like to add is that a lot of dogs these days are bred with week temperaments if a dog goes to water after a small correction in my book it has a week temperament and at the end of the day could possibly in a certain circumstances turn into a fear biter.

Dogs are that dogs a correction that they understand is not doing a dog with the proper temperament any harm.

Coz you can't call yourself a positive trainer then.........you'r just a big meanie

[Aidan3]

Doesn't the "otherwise" Aidan, only prevent the dog from learning there a consequences to it's actions good and bad

No, the "otherwise" teaches the dog what to do instead. If the dog is no longer making unwanted choices, why on earth would it matter if he isn't punished for making them?

Whether getting smacked was a bigger reinforcer than losing lollies or not is not something you can tell by which one you remember more, lol. I would imagine you do remember getting smacked, but it would be a bit pointless to take two unrelated events and compare them like that then try to draw a conclusion.

Edited September 14, 2010 by Aidan2

[Aidan3]

I did actually explain my definition of competence in my previous post

In that case the examples you used did not fit your definition either.

How do you know that other methods are slower? And slower at what exactly? Achieving something in the first 5 minutes, or over the life of the dog?

[Staranais]

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 that with my girl sometimes, the consequence of losing something is far worse for her than the consequence of getting a correction. If she really wants the tug, she does not deal well with losing the chance to get it. Same with downing before we start tracking, she learned pretty quickly that dogs that don't down, don't track. So sometimes I think, if you can control the dog's access to the reinforcer (which is quite often true in daily life), then that can be a more powerful & memorable consequence for the dog than correcting the dog.

[malsrock]

I did actually explain my definition of competence in my previous post

In that case the examples you used did not fit your definition either.

How do you know that other methods are slower? And slower at what exactly? Achieving something in the first 5 minutes, or over the life of the dog?

Yes, my example did fit my definition of competence..........a trainer persevered with a method for a particular dog unseccessfully for 6 months which I corrected in less than a week. The only difference was, the trainer wouldn't administer an aversive method and I did. The trainer should have had the competence to understand that the methods used didn't work with the wisdom to try something else.

Fiona

[Aidan3]

Yes, my example did fit my definition of competence..........a trainer persevered with a method for a particular dog unseccessfully for 6 months

So that trainer was "incompetent"? OK, so we're in agreement. So why would you draw conclusions about what training method is best or what anyone else should do based on an example of an incompetent trainer? That would be like me saying "check chains are bad, I had a client who was using a check chain under instruction from someone else for months and got nowhere and in the first lesson with me it was like a light-switch went on" (and for the record, I have examples like quite regularly).

Just so we're clear, I'm not replying for your benefit but for anyone who might be reading this. I know we've already had this discussion "Fiona"

[malsrock]

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 that with my girl sometimes, the consequence of losing something is far worse for her than the consequence of getting a correction. If she really wants the tug, she does not deal well with losing the chance to get it. Same with downing before we start tracking, she learned pretty quickly that dogs that don't down, don't track. So sometimes I think, if you can control the dog's access to the reinforcer (which is quite often true in daily life), then that can be a more powerful & memorable consequence for the dog than correcting the dog.

My Mal doesn't want to do anything much without showing him what's on offer first

Fiona

[malsrock]

Yes, my example did fit my definition of competence..........a trainer persevered with a method for a particular dog unseccessfully for 6 months

So that trainer was "incompetent"? OK, so we're in agreement. So why would you draw conclusions about what training method is best or what anyone else should do based on an example of an incompetent trainer? That would be like me saying "check chains are bad, I had a client who was using a check chain under instruction from someone else for months and got nowhere and in the first lesson with me it was like a light-switch went on" (and for the record, I have examples like quite regularly).

Just so we're clear, I'm not replying for your benefit but for anyone who might be reading this. I know we've already had this discussion "Fiona"

Did you continued on with the check chain and use it properly Aidan, or did you take it off and use something else when the light switch went on???

[Aidan3]

Did you continued on with the check chain and use it properly Aidan, or did you take it off and use something else when the light switch went on???

I haven't used a check chain for 9 years.

[malsrock]

Did you continued on with the check chain and use it properly Aidan, or did you take it off and use something else when the light switch went on???

I haven't used a check chain for 9 years.

Are you saying Aidan, that the use of a check chain prevented the light's coming on with the dog you mentioned as an example, or did you feel that using an alternate tool or method would achieve a better result...........just interested to hear you thoughts on this. I personally haven't used a check chain for a while either and prefer a prong if a flat collar is ineffective.

Fiona

[Cosmolo]

I just wanted to add that training without aversives should rely heavily on classical conditioning IMO. There are times when a trainer chooses to train without particular aversives, doesn't have a good understanding of or simply doesn't use CC and therefore doesn't have a reward of high enough value that counters the distraction and then 'positive training' gets itself into trouble. The alternative isn't just to give a correction- you can do that or you can look at more conditioning. The value of the reward doesn't matter nearly as much when you have done lots of classical conditioning.

I use aversives too- i just know my training has changed alot since using more and more classical conditioning.

[Aidan3]

Did you continued on with the check chain and use it properly Aidan, or did you take it off and use something else when the light switch went on???

I haven't used a check chain for 9 years.

Are you saying Aidan, that the use of a check chain prevented the light's coming on with the dog you mentioned as an example, or did you feel that using an alternate tool or method would achieve a better result...........just interested to hear you thoughts on this. I personally haven't used a check chain for a while either and prefer a prong if a flat collar is ineffective.

Fiona

The check chain did nothing on it's own, and I'm sure a more competent trainer could use one effectively. It is not where my competence lies, however.

[malsrock]

I just wanted to add that training without aversives should rely heavily on classical conditioning IMO. There are times when a trainer chooses to train without particular aversives, doesn't have a good understanding of or simply doesn't use CC and therefore doesn't have a reward of high enough value that counters the distraction and then 'positive training' gets itself into trouble. The alternative isn't just to give a correction- you can do that or you can look at more conditioning. The value of the reward doesn't matter nearly as much when you have done lots of classical conditioning.

I use aversives too- i just know my training has changed alot since using more and more classical conditioning.

Very good explanation Cosmolo, spot on

Fiona

[corvus]

I personally haven't used a check chain for a while either and prefer a prong if a flat collar is ineffective.

But is it the flat collar that is ineffective? A flat collar could just as easily be conditioned to have a positive meaning to a dog as a negative or neutral meaning.

I clicker train and I'm loving how versatile that little clicky box is. The power it has over my dogs is pretty impressive. They hear a click or a marker word when they are too distracted to notice me calling their name, and they respond by going into training mode and coming over to wait for me to tell them what to do to earn a treat. It's quite expedient IME.

[poodlefan]

I personally haven't used a check chain for a while either and prefer a prong if a flat collar is ineffective.

But is it the flat collar that is ineffective? A flat collar could just as easily be conditioned to have a positive meaning to a dog as a negative or neutral meaning.

I clicker train and I'm loving how versatile that little clicky box is. The power it has over my dogs is pretty impressive. They hear a click or a marker word when they are too distracted to notice me calling their name, and they respond by going into training mode and coming over to wait for me to tell them what to do to earn a treat. It's quite expedient IME.

So you use the click as a cue, not just as a marker. No different to training the recall to a whistle then except the whistle has a longer range.

[malsrock]

Did you continued on with the check chain and use it properly Aidan, or did you take it off and use something else when the light switch went on???

I haven't used a check chain for 9 years.

Are you saying Aidan, that the use of a check chain prevented the light's coming on with the dog you mentioned as an example, or did you feel that using an alternate tool or method would achieve a better result...........just interested to hear you thoughts on this. I personally haven't used a check chain for a while either and prefer a prong if a flat collar is ineffective.

Fiona

The check chain did nothing on it's own, and I'm sure a more competent trainer could use one effectively. It is not where my competence lies, however.

My competences lay with aversive training, where coming from the other side of the fence, I see too many IMHO trying to avoid aversives and what it seems like to me, is messing around for far too long to achieve the desired behaviour, but I don't understand a "valid" reason why avoiding the use of aversives provides a supposed better result other than from the political correctness of a humane aspect to say that "I have never corrected my dog in an aversive manner".

Fiona

[Aidan3]

result other than from the political correctness of a humane aspect to say that "I have never corrected my dog in an aversive manner".

Suffice to say that is not my motivation.

[malsrock]

I personally haven't used a check chain for a while either and prefer a prong if a flat collar is ineffective.

But is it the flat collar that is ineffective? A flat collar could just as easily be conditioned to have a positive meaning to a dog as a negative or neutral meaning.

I clicker train and I'm loving how versatile that little clicky box is. The power it has over my dogs is pretty impressive. They hear a click or a marker word when they are too distracted to notice me calling their name, and they respond by going into training mode and coming over to wait for me to tell them what to do to earn a treat. It's quite expedient IME.

It's a different circumstance when training a dog from scratch than for instance correcting behavioural issue as the OP has shared with us, and it depends also on the individual dog too I think. My Malinois who is 12 1/2 months old and trained from an 8 week old puppy, only wears a flat collar and to date has never experienced an aversive correction.........thought about a couple of times , but I am not training him in aversive methods at all.

But if for instance I had a 2 year old dog to rehabilitate for aggressive lunging, I would use prong collar on that dog straight up with aversive methods as my immediate choice, again depending on the dog and the behaviour.

Fiona