Where Is Dog Training Heading?

[huski]

I think you can run into problems no matter what 'method' you try because ultimately as I am sure we all agree there is no one size fits all training program.

When I started training my beagle the methods I used were the ones I was taught at a obedience club, she was worked on a check chain and it was pretty physical correction heavy. It didn't work for my dog and the main response I would get if something didn't work would be to correct her harder. While she's not a high drive dog IMO, she's not a very soft dog either. The people who knew us 'back then' tell me now that watching us in class was like I was fighting her the whole way - and we did use food rewards in class as well as corrections but she had little to no interest in them.

It wasn't that using physical corrections is wrong, or aren't beneficial when used properly, but just like food rewards they have to be used in the right way. I don't use physical corrections at all really when we're training now and even though I still use food I'm using it differently to how I used to use it. And even though I don't use physical corrections anymore I don't think of myself as a 'positive only' trainer or whatever - I just use whatever works to get the best out of my dog.

ETA: I've started instructing at the same obedience club now, and even within the four years since I first became a member, there is a stronger move away from being so heavy on physical corrections. Some people are still over the top IMO in how they use corrections but I don't think that style of training will last. I think clubs have to become more progressive in the methods they use or they won't survive.

Edited March 9, 2011 by huski

[Kelpie-i]

Good post Cosmolo.

Are we talking methods for teaching general obedience ie sit, drops, come and lead walking...or are we talking about methods used for behaviour modification??

The approach one trainer has to teaching a drop or recall may be somewhat, in some cases VERY, different to when modifying unwanted behaviour such as jumping and the more serious stuff like resource guarding.

I think this is where some 'arguments' are born in that there may be a marked difference in the approach to each of the above. Also, one trainer argues his/her techniques based on a simple teaching of obedience skills, whilst the other trainer (engaged in the same argument) is envisaging a large family dog that had just knocked over the 3 year old child due to it's out of control jumping. Make sense??!!

[corvus]

One thing that seriously disappoints me about many trainers (ALL types!!) is the lack of genuine understanding of the practical application of classical conditioning. Trainers that lean heavily on positive reinforcement should have CC as their basis but many do not and then the training falls down for a good percentage of dogs. A lack of understanding of 'drive' is also a problem.

That is so true. Especially classical conditioning. Whole text books have been written on just one specific application of CC! I also am disappointed how this aspect of training gets overlooked.

Kelpie-i, I guess I don't really differentiate between training and behaviour modification. I use the same methods either way. Behaviour is behaviour. Behaviour modification I guess tends to encompass the emotional state of the dog, but I honestly think this is useful in just regular training as well. I am often mindful of my dogs' emotional states and arousal. I think things tend to go more smoothly when I am, but maybe that's just wishful thinking on my part.

[Kelpie-i]

never mind...

Edited March 9, 2011 by Kelpie-i

[Jigsaw]

Good post Cosmolo.

Are we talking methods for teaching general obedience ie sit, drops, come and lead walking...or are we talking about methods used for behaviour modification??

The approach one trainer has to teaching a drop or recall may be somewhat, in some cases VERY, different to when modifying unwanted behaviour such as jumping and the more serious stuff like resource guarding.

I think this is where some 'arguments' are born in that there may be a marked difference in the approach to each of the above. Also, one trainer argues his/her techniques based on a simple teaching of obedience skills, whilst the other trainer (engaged in the same argument) is envisaging a large family dog that had just knocked over the 3 year old child due to it's out of control jumping. Make sense??!!

Agree great post Cosmolo!

I think you make sense Kelpie-i!

[Muddybear]

Where is it heading?

Most trainers are regurgitating the same unsuccessful methods, tweaking them a little to try to differentiate in the market place but getting the same results or should I say, lack of results. The general public who actually take the time to want to train their dogs are getting disillusioned by incompetent trainers, training methods that don't work and idiots at clubs who are only interested in the mighty $. This is not good for the industry or, more importantly, the dogs.

What would I like to see?

RESULTS based training, simple, no nonsense, easy to understand, easy to teach and easy to maintain. It is not rocket science...

[Erny]

Where is it heading?

Most trainers are regurgitating the same unsuccessful methods, tweaking them a little to try to differentiate in the market place but getting the same results or should I say, lack of results. The general public who actually take the time to want to train their dogs are getting disillusioned by incompetent trainers, training methods that don't work and idiots at clubs who are only interested in the mighty $. This is not good for the industry or, more importantly, the dogs.

What would I like to see?

RESULTS based training, simple, no nonsense, easy to understand, easy to teach and easy to maintain. It is not rocket science...

That's a fairly strong "anti" post, Muddybear - you're entitled, of course, but do you really think it is "most" (that are using unsuccessful methods and who are incompetent and who are idiots)? And I'm not sure what you would mean by being "only interested in the mighty $". Are you talking about fees for classes? If so, what is it that you would expect?

Genuine interest. Genuine questions.

[Kavik]

All the clubs that I've attended are run by volunteers and the fees are very low ($3 or $4 per session plus a yearly fee of around $20), don't see how anyone is in it for $ ?

[huski]

All the clubs that I've attended are run by volunteers and the fees are very low ($3 or $4 per session plus a yearly fee of around $20), don't see how anyone is in it for $ ?

Same here - I'm a volunteer instructor and there is certainly no $$

[Cosmolo]

I make a living from dog training- does that make me 'only interested in the mighty dollar'?

[corvus]

:snort:

They have to make a living. I'm yet to meet a wealthy animal trainer. Well, maybe Ken Ramirez and Steve White. I imagine they make a lot of money speaking. Ramirez seems to be doing a seminar or being keynote speaker every other week. Maybe Karen Pryor seeing as she seems to be a pretty smart businesswoman as well as a good trainer. Anyway, exceptional trainers with excellent communication skills are not particularly common.

[bedazzledx2]

What methods are you talking about Muddybear? What methods would you prefer to see?

Where is it heading?

Most trainers are regurgitating the same unsuccessful methods, tweaking them a little to try to differentiate in the market place but getting the same results or should I say, lack of results. The general public who actually take the time to want to train their dogs are getting disillusioned by incompetent trainers, training methods that don't work and idiots at clubs who are only interested in the mighty $. This is not good for the industry or, more importantly, the dogs.

What would I like to see?

RESULTS based training, simple, no nonsense, easy to understand, easy to teach and easy to maintain. It is not rocket science...

[Kelpie-i]

I make a living from dog training- does that make me 'only interested in the mighty dollar'?

Same here Cosmolo and my question is the same too

[Muddybear]

Ok, bad day yesterday, venting big time, didn't mean to offend.

Firstly I am talking about companion animal trainers and behaviourists, not comp, agility, etc.

Too many trainers, behaviourists and/or training organisations that I have heard about lately are all; positive training only, using treats and say if the dog isn't interested put it away and try again later. Later doesn't cut it when someone needs to know that a dog will comply with a command (for safety as an example).

Still using treats in middle level classes for basic obedience?? (not that I agree with treats at all for basic obedience)

Giving an aggressive dog food to 'divert' its attention and expecting the owner to cart food around to prevent an incident. Then blaming the owner, who has sought and paid for the advice of a supposed expert, when it goes wrong.

Saying if you give a dog a bone, it is the dogs bone then and you should never try to get it back.

A dog is disrupting the class so they are ostracised or kicked out.

Trainers charging $300 for an in home consult and producing a check chain and saying this is the answer.

There are consequences for all behaviours, you don't say ignore them and hope they go away, they are still there, unchecked waiting to appear again if and when the circumstance present.

Those who think behaviour and training are not linked?

I would like to see results, trainers who practice what they preach and have their own trained dogs, hell, there are trainers who don't even own a dog, hello.... am I missing something???

If you are giving bad advice and taking money, then you are in it for the money - what other reason could there be???

As for volunteers they are obviously not in it for the money and have the best intention. What method are they following; does it work on 95% of dogs?

How can the likes of Pavlov, Thorndike and Skinner's research be interpreted in so many different ways, is it all still valid now? Where is the evidence that the latest methods work? (not saying that the old way of adversive only was correct either).

Yes there are great trainers around who make a living out of it and love dogs but why are there so many frustrated owners?? Why are there so many dogs with 'behaviour problems'??

No wonder the industry is heading downwards, in my opinion. Just saying……..

[Aidan3]

Still using treats in middle level classes for basic obedience?? (not that I agree with treats at all for basic obedience)

To be honest, it's all but impossible to work with someone who has already made up their mind. You either need help or you don't. If you don't, don't complain when you go looking for it and if you do, then put your opinions on the backburner for a while. If you've done your research and the help you have sought is known to get results, then maybe they deserve a bit of respect?

[Erny]

Yes there are great trainers around who make a living out of it and love dogs but why are there so many frustrated owners?? Why are there so many dogs with 'behaviour problems'??

No wonder the industry is heading downwards, in my opinion. Just saying……..

There are so many things in your post that I could respond to, but I don't think the discussion it would raise from there is going to be in keeping with the thread title. However, in reference to the bolded part above, are you asserting that "so many frustrated owners" are the product of trainers? Are you saying that the reason there are "so many dogs with behaviour problems" is also the fault of trainers?

I'm not entirely sure where you are coming from and why and that makes it difficult for me to understand or see your point, if there is one. Perhaps an explanation as to why you seem so anti-trainers (even though you've at least acknowledged there are great trainers around) would help?

What are your experiences? What do you want training to be like? I agree with Aidan's post above. Who says it's "bad advice"? You?

Edited March 17, 2011 by Erny

[corvus]

Dogs live more demanding lives now than ever IMO. We have dogs confined to small backyards or houses, dogs who are left alone for 10 hours a day, dogs that were bred to work all day that get just an hour of exercise, dogs that get no exercise... To me we ask an awful lot of them these days and I am not surprised some have difficulties adjusting.

I don't think people giving "bad" advice and taking money for it think they are giving bad advice.

[Muddybear]

I am not anti trainers, there is so much advice and methods that do not produce consistent results.

Frustrated owners are not always the fault of a trainer, the owner(s) needs to be willing to work with the trainer and follow the advice, why would they bother to contact them if they have no intention of following it. Not much works without maintenance of some sort.

It is bad advice when an owner who has sought the advice of an expert, follows it to a T, it doesn't work. They contact the trainer and are told they did something wrong, or it must be the dog, they take it somewhere else and another trainer fixes the problem. Yes there are variables but there should be most constants.

I just don't think it needs to be this complicated, I've read that dogs are similar in mind set say, to that of a 3 or 4 year old child, yet they can be taught right from wrong pretty easily.

I am interested in this as I am studying and questioning why, you learn through asking questions.

Treats have there place, absolutely -, perhaps I will keep my opinions to myself, I was not looking for an argument...

[Kelpie-i]

I'm not sure I'm understanding the point of your posts too MB? Do YOU even know?

Are you a frustrated dog owner due to experience with a 'bad trainer'? Or perhaps because you've just completed the NDTF course and you saw so many differing techniques and was given conflicting information that it may have confused you somewhat? Perhaps you feel torn between techniques...your belief is telling you "no food in training" but your learning of classical conditioning and learning theory is telling you otherwise.

Giving an aggressive dog food to 'divert' its attention and expecting the owner to cart food around to prevent an incident.

Food shoud NOT used to divert attention, it is used to mark/capture appropriate responses from the dog. It also can be used to reinforce a new set of behaviours used to replace the current reactivity responses. How do you deal with dog aggressive dogs MB?

Too many trainers, behaviourists and/or training organisations that I have heard about lately are all; positive training only, using treats and say if the dog isn't interested put it away and try again later.

Dogs who do not take treats usually have elevated stress levels. If a dog does not take food in training, you can bet your bottom dollar that dog will look as though he is watching 20 televisions at the same time, heavily panting, lip licking and/or sniffing the ground. This dog is stressed and most certainly not in a calm trainable state. Sure you can compel the dog to sit or drop, but there is no learning occurring, or rather that the dog learns to comply in order to avoid a correction. This dog is also prone to constant breaking of positions and focus work is but a dream to the owner. BTW, I am NOT a positive only trainer in case you're wondering

Still using treats in middle level classes for basic obedience?? (not that I agree with treats at all for basic obedience)

Regardless of which level in obedience your dog may be, you will always be adding new criterion to an existing skill. In which case you must approach the training as though the dog were back in the early teaching phase....so yes, treats as reinforcement in the higher levels CAN and should continue to be used. Also, do you go to work each day for a simple pat on the back each day?? I doubt it..therefore wouldn't either a food reward or a great game of tug be something the dog would be looking forward to. Pats are good but how many times a day do you think the average dog owner pats their dog for nothing?

There are consequences for all behaviours, you don't say ignore them and hope they go away, they are still there, unchecked waiting to appear again if and when the circumstance present.

Which trainer actually said this MB?

How can the likes of Pavlov, Thorndike and Skinner's research be interpreted in so many different ways, is it all still valid now? Where is the evidence that the latest methods work?

We achieve Classical conditioning when training regularly. Teaching a conditioned name response is a a good example. It is all extremely valid to what we know and use today....and it will always be open to interpretation to some degree as is the way with humans....but the teachings are there although we have come to understanding learning theory much better these days I believe.

Yes there are great trainers around who make a living out of it and love dogs but why are there so many frustrated owners?? Why are there so many dogs with 'behaviour problems'??

Because:

1. Many dog owners do not employ the services of dog trainers, or they wait until their dog's behaviour has escalated to an uncontrollable level

2. SOME of those who DO employ the services do not bother with the advice or training program given to them, preferring instead to take the easy way out by either rehoming the dog or dosing it up on calming drugs to mask the problem

3. Some trainers are not experienced enough to deal with the dog's problem and unfortunately won't admit to it, therefore continuing to give incorrect advice and techniques that actually worsen the behaviour rather than fixing it

4. If the method does not show an immediate result some owners give up quickly on it

5. Some owners will "trainer hop", going from trainer to trainer to trainer, never applying a single method in it's entirety and never giving a method the chance to actually work.

I think those trainers who have been around since God was a boy will concur with the above

No wonder the industry is heading downwards,

So along comes Muddybear who is going to change the world of dog training as we know it... :D

ETA

I am interested in this as I am studying and questioning why, you learn through asking questions.

You didn't ask questions MB, you merely slammed us trainers and tainted us all with the same brush.

Edited March 17, 2011 by Kelpie-i

[corvus]

I am not anti trainers, there is so much advice and methods that do not produce consistent results.

I think that if trainers better understood why their methods work when they do, this would not be such a problem. I think I probably mentioned this earlier in the thread. It's not that the method doesn't work. More likely, it's not suitable for the situation because it cannot be applied correctly for whatever reason. That is my opinion. A punishment for one dog is a reward for another. A reward one moment is an aversive the next. If a trainer can nut out what exactly the balance of reward and punishment are from moment to moment, and are able to work out what the owner is capable of doing, they should be able to prescribe a method that will be used correctly and therefore will work. Provided they have also taken into account the emotional state of the dog, and perhaps the owner!

If it doesn't work, that's no reason to throw your hands up in defeat. Sometimes people are wrong about what they think is going on. However, just saying "you're not doing it right" is of limited use. If the owner can't for whatever reason do it right, the trainer needs to be able to recognise that and change the approach. For me, I think it is sometimes difficult to tell the difference between something that is not working and should be abandoned and something that is working slower than it should because it needs some tweaking. I know my dogs and how fast they should learn, but I don't know other dogs.

I would still like to see trainers with a stronger background in theory. I think it would reduce this kind of frustration.