Bark Busters And Cesar Milan

[corvus]

This isn't a discussion or debate about positive versus correctional methods. I worry about trainers essentially charging people to give them what is likely incorrect information, and I worry about dogs subjected to training methods that may be not only aversive, but ineffective. It troubles me to think that people are encouraging other people to use a one-size-fits-all approach to managing their dogs that is known for being aversive and scientifically flawed. I don't know the full story, here, but what I did hear didn't make me feel very confident about the help people are receiving for their dogs. The person I spoke to the other day thought that BB were very expensive. I didn't ask how much they were charging her, but I wonder if cost factors into people's choices, or just recommendations from others? Maybe it just comes down to exposure and advertising?

[Cosmolo]

Corvus, from memory i think a consult was between 400-600 and includes a 'lifetime guarantee'

I think its important to remember many people don't really know how to define success when it comes to training their dog or fixing the problem. If there was an immediate decrease in the behaviour (suppression) they are likely to tell others it worked. Doesn't mean the dog is fixed or the behaviour will remain suppressed long term.

[Cosmolo]

Many vets recommend Bark busters- i think they may have a kick back type scheme with some.

[Jumabaar]

Many vets recommend Bark busters- i think they may have a kick back type scheme with some.

Part of it would also be that many vets don't know the behaviourists/private trainers in their area. Let alone that there would be a difference between them and bark busters. So I guess they would be recommending them because they are a franchise that is well advertised.

Edited March 5, 2011 by ~Woofen~

[corvus]

Corvus, from memory i think a consult was between 400-600 and includes a 'lifetime guarantee'

That seems expensive to me. Especially considering the kind of advice they apparently give! Do people think that's a fair price for private training? How many people don't get help because they can't afford it?

[Cosmolo]

Yes i think its expensive- but they market it as cheap because (and another franchise do the same) of the lifetime guarantee. I guess it depends how you look at it too- i'd be lying if i said it was rare for clients to spend that amount with us over a number of private or group training options etc.

Woofen, that would be true in some cases i'm sure, but not all.

ETA I believe there are probably some people don't get help because they can't actually afford it- some others simply don't make it a priority to justify spending any money.

Edited March 5, 2011 by Cosmolo

[Jumabaar]

Yes i think its expensive- but they market it as cheap because (and another franchise do the same) of the lifetime guarantee. I guess it depends how you look at it too- i'd be lying if i said it was rare for clients to spend that amount with us over a number of private or group training options etc.

Woofen, that would be true in some cases i'm sure, but not all.

ETA I believe there are probably some people don't get help because they can't actually afford it- some others simply don't make it a priority to justify spending any money.

I agree that some would get kick backs. Wouldnt be much different from doing discount desexing for certain pet shops!

I think I spent $450 on a Behaviouralist and I still have regular email contact. It was a lot of money for me, but not expensive IMO and certainly worth it knowing that my dog now has a much better quality of life. I had plenty of 'diagnoses' from trainers, however many of their methods didn't work because they were training over the underlying issue. Dealing with the issue itself has given much better results.

That being said, I would not have known about dog behaviourists 5 yrs ago, and at no point in any of his visits to vets (where he was uncontrollable in the end) was I advised to see one. I was told to desex him as this would help. I chose to do it chemically so he didn't have to be left in a clinic which would have been detrimental to him, surprise surprise no help.

So there would also be people out there that don't know they can get help.

[Aidan3]

Where did clipandcoach refer to negative reinforcement incorrectly? Looks alright to me. If a behaviour is increased or maintained in order to avoid an aversive, that is negative reinforcement. The aversive in this case is correctly referred to as a reinforcer.

I agree that "modern" dog trainers, that is dog trainers today, use more positive reinforcement today than at any time in the recorded history of dog training. What any one individual does or did, I don't care to comment on, but across the board that would certainly be a statement of fact and not a matter of opinion.

Edited March 5, 2011 by Aidan2

[Nekhbet]

because in dog behaviour referring to something as a negative/positive as in bad/good is technically incorrect when we want to really mean the application or removal of a reinforcer. We muddy the waters which we have these days hence making things more confusing. So calling it purely positive training is not technically correct since we have to use negative punishment, in some cases positive punishment through the use of sound aversives.

In some cases positive punishment can increase the value of positive reinfocement from the handler. We have come a long way but I would like to think we better understand the proper use of positive punishment and its value in dog training when used properly, just as much as we have the value of properly done positive/negative reinforcement.

[Kristov]

Drive training and positive reinforcement as we know it today began in the '60's and was largely recognised in trial dogs trained by Winifred Strickland who was one of the first to beat Koehler trained dogs in competition. Not because the Keohler trained dogs lacked precision, because Strickland had extracted animation in her routines popular with trial judges. Where the Koehler trained dogs performed in robotic fashion, Strickland's dogs had bounce in their step and "happy feet" as it was once referred, in other words it was noticable that her dogs enjoyed the work and provided a more glamorous performance.

Strickland didn't develop her training methods to avoid using aversions, in fact, she was masterful at the smack on the nose punishment regimes and issued her fair share of corrections and aversive measures, but coupled with positive reinforcement to extract the animated routines. As time evolved and certain groups opposed to the use of aversives began to run with positive reinforcement methods, what was once a balanced approach that Strickland promoted to extract animation in trial routines, turned into an obsession about training dogs without them ever learning the effects of an aversive consequence.

Where the concept of positive reinforcement gets out of hand which occurs in many modern training systems, is the emphasis on a ritual in almost a cult like obsession that a dog should never be physically corrected or suffer an aversive punishment. The emphasis is not about successfully training a dog, it's about sparing the dog an aversive experience where often a rediculous amount of routines are formulated with multi step time consumimg procedures to modify a behaviour that could be nipped in the bud instantly with a good leash correction.

Training systems based on obsessions that dogs should never experience aversive punishment will work with some dogs, but not all, and a good training system IMHO is one that embraces every trick and tool available with a trainer open minded and knowledgable enough to read dog behaviour and apply what ever method is best suited to a particular dog.

[Aidan3]

because in dog behaviour referring to something as a negative/positive as in bad/good is technically incorrect when we want to really mean the application or removal of a reinforcer.

I think you might have misread clipandcoach's post then. She was referring to the removal of a reinforcer (an aversive) to increase behaviours, thus gaining control of the dog through those behaviours. That is negative reinforcement, the aversive is referred to as a negative reinforcer. If we use an e-collar for escape training, the stim is a reinforcer. The same term is used in avoidance learning, although admittedly the conversation gets hard to follow when we go there

So calling it purely positive training is not technically correct since we have to use negative punishment

We don't have to use punishment. We necessarily have to use extinction, and I think most "purely positive" trainers would use negative punishment at some point, but they are not the same thing.

We have come a long way but I would like to think we better understand the proper use of positive punishment and its value in dog training when used properly, just as much as we have the value of properly done positive/negative reinforcement.

I agree. No-one who has ever seen me use +P or -R has ever had any cause for concern, and that includes other trainers who refer to themselves as "purely positive".

[Aidan3]

Where the concept of positive reinforcement gets out of hand which occurs in many modern training systems, is the emphasis on a ritual in almost a cult like obsession that a dog should never be physically corrected or suffer an aversive punishment. The emphasis is not about successfully training a dog, it's about sparing the dog an aversive experience where often a rediculous amount of routines are formulated with multi step time consumimg procedures to modify a behaviour that could be nipped in the bud instantly with a good leash correction.

No doubt there are plenty of trainers out there who you have described quite accurately, but your history of animal training and learning theory and the motivation behind using predominantly +R has a few gaps. Whilst animal welfare is an important aspect of our training procedures, some rather cold and unemotional science is behind the push for the emphasis on +R contingencies, and that began with Skinner. If +R contingencies are leading to slower learning, then we can quite comfortably blame the trainer and not the learner or the technology. Or we might look at the observer, "slower" is relative and I think a lot of people only see what is immediately in front of them without any basis for comparison. Sometimes we "make haste slowly". You can't build fine furniture with a chainsaw.

Winifred Strickland probably had a lot of wash-outs. Selection (which I think is very important in the breeding of dogs) is a big part of Schutzhund (or was). A lot of dogs don't do well with a slap on the nose, and arguably those dogs won't be producing the best workers, but then again those dogs who can bounce back from a slap on the nose would probably also be exceptional with the methods we find more acceptable today - and let's face it - Schutzhund has better tests of courage and hardness than whatever abuse the handler can dish out.

[Kristov]

Where did clipandcoach refer to negative reinforcement incorrectly? Looks alright to me. If a behaviour is increased or maintained in order to avoid an aversive, that is negative reinforcement. The aversive in this case is correctly referred to as a reinforcer.

I agree that "modern" dog trainers, that is dog trainers today, use more positive reinforcement today than at any time in the recorded history of dog training. What any one individual does or did, I don't care to comment on, but across the board that would certainly be a statement of fact and not a matter of opinion.

Yes, I agree most definitely that positive reinforcement is used more today then ever before, but the question is: Is it used as more to avoid the use of aversives or because it provides a better training result???.

[Aidan3]

Where did clipandcoach refer to negative reinforcement incorrectly? Looks alright to me. If a behaviour is increased or maintained in order to avoid an aversive, that is negative reinforcement. The aversive in this case is correctly referred to as a reinforcer.

I agree that "modern" dog trainers, that is dog trainers today, use more positive reinforcement today than at any time in the recorded history of dog training. What any one individual does or did, I don't care to comment on, but across the board that would certainly be a statement of fact and not a matter of opinion.

Yes, I agree most definitely that positive reinforcement is used more today then ever before, but the question is: Is it used as more to avoid the use of aversives or because it provides a better training result???.

It's a good question to ask, but I think you would really have to have your head in the sand to deny that it provides better training results. Almost any measure - precision, attitude, reliability - are all improved with +R. This is true at the elite level, and perhaps most surprisingly, at the level of complete novices.

[Kristov]

Where the concept of positive reinforcement gets out of hand which occurs in many modern training systems, is the emphasis on a ritual in almost a cult like obsession that a dog should never be physically corrected or suffer an aversive punishment. The emphasis is not about successfully training a dog, it's about sparing the dog an aversive experience where often a rediculous amount of routines are formulated with multi step time consumimg procedures to modify a behaviour that could be nipped in the bud instantly with a good leash correction.

No doubt there are plenty of trainers out there who you have described quite accurately, but your history of animal training and learning theory and the motivation behind using predominantly +R has a few gaps. Whilst animal welfare is an important aspect of our training procedures, some rather cold and unemotional science is behind the push for the emphasis on +R contingencies, and that began with Skinner. If +R contingencies are leading to slower learning, then we can quite comfortably blame the trainer and not the learner or the technology. Or we might look at the observer, "slower" is relative and I think a lot of people only see what is immediately in front of them without any basis for comparison. Sometimes we "make haste slowly". You can't build fine furniture with a chainsaw.

Winifred Strickland probably had a lot of wash-outs. Selection (which I think is very important in the breeding of dogs) is a big part of Schutzhund (or was). A lot of dogs don't do well with a slap on the nose, and arguably those dogs won't be producing the best workers, but then again those dogs who can bounce back from a slap on the nose would probably also be exceptional with the methods we find more acceptable today - and let's face it - Schutzhund has better tests of courage and hardness than whatever abuse the handler can dish out.

What I don't see taken into account enough is the temperament and character of the individual dog where a dog will either respond best with positive reinforcement or punishment and using the less responsive method for the particular dog is a detriment in the training process and results whether that be positive or punishment.

An example (true story) is a lady attending obedience class with a disruptive non responsive dog to positive methods lacking focus in distractions in a class where correction collars not allowed. The reason why the class restricts correction collars is due their policy of providing positive humane training methods, fair enough, understandable concept.

After a few classes this lady attended with little result, she was moved away from the group as her dog was disruptive to others as her dog failed to respond as the other dogs did in the methods provided. She hired a trainer who assessed her dog as needing prong collar training to correct the behaviour which she did with instantaneous results.

Back at the class, she attends using a new prong with a cover that at a glance looks like a flat collar and she was the star performer on the night and was congratulated with claps all round what a wonderful improvement she had made with the dog. She then revealed the prong collar and they freaked out and threatened to ban her membership from the class obviously in breach of their collar guidelines.

The point is, that isn't a dog training class, it's a class for training dogs that respond to particular methods, so what happens to the non responsive dogs, tough luck or wash the dog out???.

[corvus]

I wonder what part of "this is not a discussion or argument about positive versus correctional training" some people failed to understand? Let's be honest, here. Whatever side of the fence you sit on, you KNOW that the other side works as well. We all know it works. Personally, I have never met a dog that is non-responsive to positive methods. All animals with the ability to learn are responsive to rewards! If the dog is not responsive than you are not using an appropriate reward or have not addressed the underlying antagonistic emotion. How hard is this?? All animals with the ability to learn are responsive to punishment! If the dog is not responsive, you are not using an appropriate punishment or have not addressed the underlying emotion. Are we seeing a pattern, here? Those of us that choose to avoid aversives in training are not kidding ourselves that we are "purely positive". We know we use other quadrants, we are just wary of negative associations because they can be counter-productive to other training and conditioning aims we have. That is our choice and it is NOT a bad one. It is just the way we like to do things. Can we perhaps get over constructing opposing mythological arguments of sweeping generalisations so we can pull them apart and just be grown ups for once?

Once again, this is not a discussion about training methods. It's a discussion about the spread of training information to lay people and what leads them to make the choices about trainers and methods they do. And it is an expression of concern about the spread of misinformation by people that are being paid a lot of money for their advice.

[Kristov]

'corvus' date='6th Mar 2011 - 12:05 PM' post='5186268']

Once again, this is not a discussion about training methods. It's a discussion about the spread of training information to lay people and what leads them to make the choices about trainers and methods they do. And it is an expression of concern about the spread of misinformation by people that are being paid a lot of money for their advice.

A lot of the information spread about dog training to lay people promoted by training organisations is about training methods and quite often the highlight is about using positive only methods and the reasons why they don't use aversives as their marketing campaign to promote themselves as better trainers than the one's who use both. To a lay person the fact that no aversives will be used on their dog is an attractive option they will often go with.

That IMHO is a spread of misinformation because before long, the training organisation that doesn't use aversives will hired to train a dog that responds to aversives best of all and the customer is going to get messed around and waste their money.

[Kelpie-i]

We don't have to use punishment. We necessarily have to use extinction, and I think most "purely positive" trainers would use negative punishment at some point, but they are not the same thing.

Extinction training doesn't always work because behaviour can be reinforced by someone else and/or takes too long to achieve in the case of a large dog jumping up on a small child.

Edited March 6, 2011 by Kelpie-i

[Aidan3]

We don't have to use punishment. We necessarily have to use extinction, and I think most "purely positive" trainers would use negative punishment at some point, but they are not the same thing.

Extinction training doesn't always work because behaviour can be reinforced by someone else and/or takes too long to achieve in the case of a large dog jumping up on a small child.

I didn't say that it was always viable (although it does always work, it's just not always possible). I was responding to the assertion that "purely positive" was a misnomer because it necessarily includes negative punishment. The story goes that withholding a reinforcer is punishment, but this is incorrect (and probably irrelevant anyway).

[Aidan3]

and the reasons why they don't use aversives as their marketing campaign to promote themselves as better trainers than the one's who use both.

Are we discussing anyone in particular? Have you got an example?

That IMHO is a spread of misinformation because before long, the training organisation that doesn't use aversives will hired to train a dog that responds to aversives best of all and the customer is going to get messed around and waste their money.

A bad trainer of any persuasion is going to waster their money, what makes this example special or relevant to this discussion?

Why do some dogs respond "to aversives best of all"? Would it not be a combination of factors, most notably the behaviour they are trying to modify? What if you send me a dog who responds to positive reinforcement best of all, but it has chronic pica and probably won't survive the next operation? What if you send me a dog who responses to aversives best of all but we need to teach it to indicate low blood sugar?

Would you want a trainer who understands the science of learning, or someone who attributes all behaviour to dominance/submission relationships, or someone who doesn't use food treats on principle and does a great deal of teaching with a chain in a bag and a loud "Bah!!!"?