Excrutiatingly Stubborn Dog

[Aidan3]

Interstingly I don't see recommendations for Delta trainers who practice purely positive concepts in preference to these guys, so wouldn't it be fair to say given the history of results provided by trainers like Steve and Mark in the pet dog training market that a balanced combination of all training methods work best?

Steve is a brilliant trainer, but how does this support your argument that "in the pet dog training market that a balanced combination of all training methods works best"? You are comparing a rare talent against a lowest common denominator, and using the opinion of this forum (one of thousands around the world, and not a representative sample) to support your claim. Some forums recommend Cesar Millan, others recommend Susan Garrett, others recommend Uta Bindels. It depends on what people are training for, and who is the brilliant trainer closest to them. For example, if you ask on this forum who to see in WA, you will more than likely get the recommendation of one of several no-compulsion trainers.

Steve's link I posted supports my argument Adian, so Steve is wrong in that case?

Steve is a respected friend of mine, but I do not agree with some points in that article even though I "have a tool box with many options" and agree with many of the other points he makes.

However, your claim was made on the basis of popular opinions from this forum and the history of results from Steve and Mark. This ignores every purely positive trainer who also has a brilliant history of results, the opinions of every other forum in the world, and the fact that sometimes this forum recommends purely positive trainers if they are in the area.

It also ignores the fact that Mark and Steve do not agree on many things.

So who is right? What is "best" and what does "best" mean? Is there a "best" across the board?

What I would like to see is an end to this ridiculous divisiveness in dog training, but I think hell will probably freeze over first. We know that trainers of every persuasion will fail or succeed depending on the dog in front of them and their ability to use those methods with those dogs. This includes purely positive, this includes purely compulsion, and this includes everything in-between.

I haven't used a check chain to give a correction in 10 years and haven't needed to. This does not mean that I think every trainer who uses a correction chain is a crap trainer or "wrong" for doing so, although some undoubtedly are. I don't personally use a head halter either, but I have absolutely no problem with trainers and behaviourists such as Dr Overall or Dr Sophia Yin who use them intelligently, although some undoubtedly do not.

Who is best? No such thing, I think we need to get over the idea. Every dog is unique, but no dog is a special snowflake.

ETA: I do have a problem with abusive training techniques or those that ultimately damage the relationship between the dog and handler, or the relationship between the dog and people in general. Punishment and negative reinforcement do not have to be confrontational or harmful. If what you are doing is confrontational, then you're stepping into dangerous territory as your husband found out and recognised (to his credit) with Bronson.

See http://companionanimalsolutions.com/blogs/confrontational-behavior-modification-techniques-and-the-risk-to-owners/ for empirical support for this opinion. If you had to say which was a "better" way to go based on the results of those surveys, which would you pick? (It's a trick question)

I think a lot of trainers are too quick to label something as being damaging or abusive on the basis of a tool or quadrant used, which is an over-generalisation. Fall-out is real, I cannot stress this enough, but it is not assumed that harmful or irreversible fallout will occur simply because someone used a correction, or acted to stop dangerous or harmful behaviour.

Edited May 30, 2011 by Aidan2

[PetSitters]

Interstingly I don't see recommendations for Delta trainers who practice purely positive concepts in preference to these guys, so wouldn't it be fair to say given the history of results provided by trainers like Steve and Mark in the pet dog training market that a balanced combination of all training methods work best?

Steve is a brilliant trainer, but how does this support your argument that "in the pet dog training market that a balanced combination of all training methods works best"? You are comparing a rare talent against a lowest common denominator, and using the opinion of this forum (one of thousands around the world, and not a representative sample) to support your claim. Some forums recommend Cesar Millan, others recommend Susan Garrett, others recommend Uta Bindels. It depends on what people are training for, and who is the brilliant trainer closest to them. For example, if you ask on this forum who to see in WA, you will more than likely get the recommendation of one of several no-compulsion trainers.

Steve's link I posted supports my argument Adian, so Steve is wrong in that case?

I think the point Aidan is making is that great trainers are the best because of their talent, not the methods they use. Given the best trainers do not all use the same methods, then the argument that the methods those trainers are using is what creates their success not only appears to be inaccurate, but I think diminishes the skill of those trainers.

A method must be used to train a dog and the talent of a trainer is dependant on their ability to determine what to use most appropiately for that particluar dog. Like I mentioned previously, my older GSD is a difficult dog to establish a reward base in distractions with a default behaviour of reactive aggression, so what we needed to fix with my dog was aggressive lunging at strangers and strange dogs and if my dog was a customer dog, the result they want is to stop the dog lunging which I did with compulsion on a stabilisation collar very quickly so we have a result. If I tried to train my particular dog with reward base methods, it would be a very long draw out exercise before the lunging would cease if at all on those methods, so from a customer perspective my talent as a trainer would be dependant upon deminished lunging, so I would need to determine assessing the dog which method would be the most appropriate to best achieve the desired result.

[Aidan3]

If I tried to train my particular dog with reward base methods, it would be a very long draw out exercise before the lunging would cease if at all on those methods

So is that the method, or the trainer?

Keep in mind that I have worked with a lot of dogs like yours, I doubt Rex is a special snow-flake. Getting dogs to a standard where they are enjoyable to take for walks around other dogs is not a long, drawn out process.

[Staranais]

That sounds like a spin off from Koehler especially the social isolation was one of Koehler's specialities prior to a training session on the "make the dog really excited to be with you concept" after a few hours of isolation. Koehler had some really silly and aversive behaviour problem techniques that ruined his credibility somewhat, but his leash training techniques and ability to transform that into off leash obedience was his forte and leash training in Koehler methods by the book will produce excellent off leash obedience which is probably what this guy's training is modelled on and how he gives performance guarantees?

Yes, I think he probably is from the Koehler lineage. I suspect his methods do work very well, at least to teach certain things to most dogs.

However, it did disturb me that his student was happy to trash talk clicker training/food reward training without having any understanding of the system they were disparaging - from the things he said, it was pretty obvious to me that the trainer didn't actually understand any of the principles behind what he was trash talking. Being so close minded that you refuse to even learn about a different tool or a different method isn't the mark of a good trainer, IMO.

[PetSitters]

Interstingly I don't see recommendations for Delta trainers who practice purely positive concepts in preference to these guys, so wouldn't it be fair to say given the history of results provided by trainers like Steve and Mark in the pet dog training market that a balanced combination of all training methods work best?

Steve is a brilliant trainer, but how does this support your argument that "in the pet dog training market that a balanced combination of all training methods works best"? You are comparing a rare talent against a lowest common denominator, and using the opinion of this forum (one of thousands around the world, and not a representative sample) to support your claim. Some forums recommend Cesar Millan, others recommend Susan Garrett, others recommend Uta Bindels. It depends on what people are training for, and who is the brilliant trainer closest to them. For example, if you ask on this forum who to see in WA, you will more than likely get the recommendation of one of several no-compulsion trainers.

Steve's link I posted supports my argument Adian, so Steve is wrong in that case?

Steve is a respected friend of mine, but I do not agree with some points in that article even though I "have a tool box with many options" and agree with many of the other points he makes.

However, your claim was made on the basis of popular opinions from this forum and the history of results from Steve and Mark. This ignores every purely positive trainer who also has a brilliant history of results, the opinions of every other forum in the world, and the fact that sometimes this forum recommends purely positive trainers if they are in the area.

It also ignores the fact that Mark and Steve do not agree on many things.

So who is right? What is "best" and what does "best" mean? Is there a "best" across the board?

What I would like to see is an end to this ridiculous divisiveness in dog training, but I think hell will probably freeze over first. We know that trainers of every persuasion will fail or succeed depending on the dog in front of them and their ability to use those methods with those dogs. This includes purely positive, this includes purely compulsion, and this includes everything in-between.

I haven't used a check chain to give a correction in 10 years and haven't needed to. This does not mean that I think every trainer who uses a correction chain is a crap trainer or "wrong" for doing so, although some undoubtedly are. I don't personally use a head halter either, but I have absolutely no problem with trainers and behaviourists such as Dr Overall or Dr Sophia Yin who use them intelligently, although some undoubtedly do not.

Who is best? No such thing, I think we need to get over the idea. Every dog is unique, but no dog is a special snowflake.

ETA: I do have a problem with abusive training techniques or those that ultimately damage the relationship between the dog and handler, or the relationship between the dog and people in general. Punishment and negative reinforcement do not have to be confrontational or harmful. If what you are doing is confrontational, then you're stepping into dangerous territory as your husband found out and recognised (to his credit) with Bronson.

See http://companionanimalsolutions.com/blogs/confrontational-behavior-modification-techniques-and-the-risk-to-owners/ for empirical support for this opinion. If you had to say which was a "better" way to go based on the results of those surveys, which would you pick? (It's a trick question)

I think a lot of trainers are too quick to label something as being damaging or abusive on the basis of a tool or quadrant used, which is an over-generalisation. Fall-out is real, I cannot stress this enough, but it is not assumed that harmful or irreversible fallout will occur simply because someone used a correction, or acted to stop dangerous or harmful behaviour.

What I disagree with regarding purely positive trainers is limiting resources to train on the one size fits all basis because not two dogs in temperament and drive are the same. Some dogs do respond best with compulsion to extinguish unwanted behaviours and some don't and the skill in training is to have the ability to determine the method and tools most applicable to a particular dog and behaviour and I think there are too many temperament, disposition and drive combinations out there to successfully train every dog effectively with a limited box of tools.

[PetSitters]

I've trained with Steves methods for quite some time now and we don't use any physical corrections in the training program I use with my dog, so I dont think it's fair to use that article to back up what you are saying, Petsitters. My

dog had similar issues to your old GSD - unresponsive to any rewards bar scenting as soon as we left the house etc, many people told me to use leash corrections on a check chain and I did with poor results. Good training IMO is not about positive vs negative but about using the best method for the dog you are working with.

It's not fair that I agree with Steve's article regarding his training concepts

[PetSitters]

If I tried to train my particular dog with reward base methods, it would be a very long draw out exercise before the lunging would cease if at all on those methods

So is that the method, or the trainer?

Keep in mind that I have worked with a lot of dogs like yours, I doubt Rex is a special snow-flake. Getting dogs to a standard where they are enjoyable to take for walks around other dogs is not a long, drawn out process.

There is only one like mine Aidan, and you are yet to assess him ;)

[corvus]

Building the reward system is the problem with some dogs which can be a very complex drawn out exercise and if this can't be established well

Bollocks. Building a reward system in a hare can be a very complex, drawn out exercise that is difficult to establish well. A dog is about a thousand times easier to reward than a hare. Dog trainers need to HtFU and just accept that good foundations take time to establish, but are worth every second twice over down the track. If you don't want to do it just say you don't want to and use corrections. No one here cares. I only care that your reasons aren't excuses.

[corvus]

What I disagree with regarding purely positive trainers is limiting resources to train on the one size fits all basis because not two dogs in temperament and drive are the same.

I have seen this in positive and traditional trainers. I think we can all agree it is not very beneficial for dogs and their owners, but I don't think it's a problem exclusive to so-called "purely positive" trainers.

I thought that looked like Bronson. :D Handsome dog, don't you think, Joe?

[Aidan3]

Keep in mind that I have worked with a lot of dogs like yours, I doubt Rex is a special snow-flake. Getting dogs to a standard where they are enjoyable to take for walks around other dogs is not a long, drawn out process.

There is only one like mine Aidan, and you are yet to assess him ;)

Very true But I can state with some confidence that all dog behaviour is normally distributed, and that he would be within 3 standard deviations from the mean. Here's a statistic that's not made up, that means there is a 1/500 chance that he is significantly less responsive than the worst dogs that I've worked with. Possible, but is it probable?

[Mrs Rusty Bucket]

Building the reward system is the problem with some dogs which can be a very complex drawn out exercise and if this can't be established well, even Susan Garrett acknowledges in her presentations that results in her methods will be limited without this foundation. If the particular dog responds better with complusion than it does establishing a reward system, it would be silly not to use some compulsion if it is getting results. The point is, dogs like this in the hands of positive trainers who refuse to use complusion from dedication to a method as their priority in training is detrimental to the dog and the owner in my opinion.

So you're rewarding the dog by removing an adversive/unpleasant thing when it does what you want?

I think Susan Garrett would say that she could find something the dog will work for ie a reward for every dog. She would pay attention to what distracts a dog or what it enjoys doing that and use that as a reward ie Premack - dog must do what trainer wants, so dog can do what dog wants (as long as it's safe).

And I think a trainer that decides their dog finds nothing rewarding and therefore needs to force their dog to do what they want (compulsion), probably shouldn't be training dogs.

What I like about Susan Garrett besides her excellent knowledge of learning science, is that she is not completely perfect when it comes to reading dogs and timing so her methods are easier for me to use. I don't have to depend on excellent timing and dog reading skills which Steve Courtney has. And while I might make mistakes and accidentally reward my dog for doing something I don't want - I don't kill her enthusiasm for working with me.

Where more limiting tools are used like head halters and prong collars, I think the plan should be to get the collar off the dog as soon as possible. Ie you're using the tool to control the dog's environment and possible responses, so you make the right choice easy for the dog to make. I think the prong collar can be helpful but I'd try everything else I know first.

I do wonder if you train a dog to come to you (and loose lead walk) to avoid the pressure of the prong collar, that you can't train a dog to do the same for the pleasure of some food or a game or getting to go somewhere fun.

I admit I don't know what Susan Garrett would do with a dog that only wants to kill every human it encounters, I would ask for Steve Courtney's help with such a dog. So long as we were sure it wasn't a medical problem (ie brain damage) that was the cause of the problem. You'd have to wonder how the dog got to be like that in the first place.

[Kavik]

Different trainers have different skills and areas of expertise. For top level agility training I would go to Susan Garrett, for aggression problems I would go somewhere like Steve. Not any one trainer is the best for everything, it depends on what you want to achieve as well as your dog and the methods you prefer to use. There are brilliant trainers in all disciplines using a wide variety of methods.

[PetSitters]

Building the reward system is the problem with some dogs which can be a very complex drawn out exercise and if this can't be established well, even Susan Garrett acknowledges in her presentations that results in her methods will be limited without this foundation. If the particular dog responds better with complusion than it does establishing a reward system, it would be silly not to use some compulsion if it is getting results. The point is, dogs like this in the hands of positive trainers who refuse to use complusion from dedication to a method as their priority in training is detrimental to the dog and the owner in my opinion.

So you're rewarding the dog by removing an adversive/unpleasant thing when it does what you want?

I think Susan Garrett would say that she could find something the dog will work for ie a reward for every dog. She would pay attention to what distracts a dog or what it enjoys doing that and use that as a reward ie Premack - dog must do what trainer wants, so dog can do what dog wants (as long as it's safe).

And I think a trainer that decides their dog finds nothing rewarding and therefore needs to force their dog to do what they want (compulsion), probably shouldn't be training dogs.

What I like about Susan Garrett besides her excellent knowledge of learning science, is that she is not completely perfect when it comes to reading dogs and timing so her methods are easier for me to use. I don't have to depend on excellent timing and dog reading skills which Steve Courtney has. And while I might make mistakes and accidentally reward my dog for doing something I don't want - I don't kill her enthusiasm for working with me.

Where more limiting tools are used like head halters and prong collars, I think the plan should be to get the collar off the dog as soon as possible. Ie you're using the tool to control the dog's environment and possible responses, so you make the right choice easy for the dog to make. I think the prong collar can be helpful but I'd try everything else I know first.

I do wonder if you train a dog to come to you (and loose lead walk) to avoid the pressure of the prong collar, that you can't train a dog to do the same for the pleasure of some food or a game or getting to go somewhere fun.

I admit I don't know what Susan Garrett would do with a dog that only wants to kill every human it encounters, I would ask for Steve Courtney's help with such a dog. So long as we were sure it wasn't a medical problem (ie brain damage) that was the cause of the problem. You'd have to wonder how the dog got to be like that in the first place.

Does Susan Garrett rehabilitate dogs with behavioural issues, like transform low drive fear aggressive dogs into agility champions or she shaping dogs having the genetic traits for agility work to exctract their full potential?

[Kavik]

Susan Garrett is an agility trainer - she does not say she is a behaviourist

[Cosmolo]

As someone who uses phyysical corrections at times- (though nowhere near what i used to) i agree with Aidan. There is negative fallout to be aware of but that doesn't mean everyone who uses a particular quadrant is damaging the human-animal bond.

Also, choosing to use a quadrant that involves compulsion does NOT always mean the trainer 'did not want to build foundations'. And compulsion and positive reinforcement are no mutually exclusive for some trainers.

Some trainers are great, some are not- regardless of technique used.

Edited May 30, 2011 by Cosmolo

[PetSitters]

Susan Garrett is an agility trainer - she does not say she is a behaviourist

A lot of people I have noticed try to apply training techniques designed for driven dogs upon dogs of low drive or dogs with behavioural issues on the basis of something being a Susan Garrett technique for example assuming it will work, but there is a massive difference how dogs of different drives respond to these techniques. I agree with your previous post Kavik, horses for courses

[PetSitters]

As someone who uses phyysical corrections at times- (though nowhere near what i used to) i agree with Aidan. There is negative fallout to be aware of but that doesn't mean everyone who uses a particular quadrant is damaging the human-animal bond.

Also, choosing to use a quadrant that involves compulsion does NOT always mean the trainer 'did not want to build foundations'. And compulsion and positive reinforcement are no mutually exclusive for some trainers.

Some trainers are great, some are not- regardless of technique used.

I have seen negative fallout many times between dog and handler, but the dogs have been subject to some heavy abuse and cruel treatment or have been handler sensitive dogs massively over corrected for their temperament level, but personally I think it's an over exaggerated aspect for the marketing of positive training methods for the most part perhaps.

[corvus]

Also, choosing to use a quadrant that involves compulsion does NOT always mean the trainer 'did not want to build foundations'. And compulsion and positive reinforcement are no mutually exclusive for some trainers.

Hey, I didn't mean that. I said I didn't think claims that building a reward system was too difficult and complicated for some dogs was a reason to not use rewards with them. It's a cop out. I don't think that means there is no reason to not use rewards and I do think it's the owner's call and I don't really care what call they make. But if they think they can't build a reward system because the dog is too hard, I challenge that.

I don't know how many times I have to point out that I have used punishments for it to sink in, but I'll point it out again. I find it rare that I really want to suppress a behaviour. I don't think it's conducive to my aims with my dogs to regularly suppress behaviour. I am well aware that that is my personal choice and I do not think that all positive reinforcement trainers should have the same aims. I thought I made it clear that I think it's a personal choice and doesn't really matter in the scheme of things.

[sas]

Why do people over think simple concepts?

[Vickie]

A lot of people I have noticed try to apply training techniques designed for driven dogs upon dogs of low drive or dogs with behavioural issues on the basis of something being a Susan Garrett technique for example assuming it will work, but there is a massive difference how dogs of different drives respond to these techniques. I agree with your previous post Kavik, horses for courses

not always. Sometimes, actually I would say often, exactly the same techniques DO work. I don't think many dogs are truly low drive. The ones classed as low drive often have different or unchannelled drive rather than low drive.

I have a dog here at the moment for training. She would be classes by most as low drive, stubborn and just plain odd behaviour wise. I am training her exactly the same way as I train my own high drive dogs. Only difference is that I have had to take the time to give her the reward history & consistency that I have given my own dogs. In the beginning a basic behaviour would take a week. Now it's a day.

6 weeks later & the average person would be hard pressed to tell the difference between them.

Edited May 30, 2011 by Vickie