Excrutiatingly Stubborn Dog

[JoeK]

I'm not sure I really understand the concept of 'not using breed as an excuse'. There are going to be dogs that are much more difficult to train than others, and I don't see the shame in admitting that. It would be silly of me to expect the same results with the same training between my two dogs, who have very, VERY different personalities.

I'm not saying it should absolve people of responsibility, but saying a dog is x breed which has made it harder to train than y dog who is y breed makes sense to me.

Some breeds are easier to train is true and some dogs of the same breed are easier to training also happens.

Joe

[Are You Serious Jo]

For me it's not about realising different breeds have different training considerations it's the "I won't bother trying because my dog is x breed" excuse that I don't like.

[Aidan3]

Basically, unless whatever the dog is doing is being reinforced, instead of what you asked him to do(or it puts him in immediate danger), there is not a lot of justification for providing a consequence for non-compliance. If he's just sitting there like a stunned mullet, there is no reason to provide a consequence. Failing to give a reinforcer is not a consequence, it's a "do nothing".

There is a school of thought that says we should provide a consequence for disobedience no matter what. I would argue that unless the dog clearly understands that he can avoid the consequence by complying with the cue, then there is no justification for this approach. Given that it's highly likely that the only reason the dog did nothing in response to your cue was that he didn't understand what he had to do, or hadn't been reinforced often enough for it, I would not want to further complicate things by adding extraneous consequences that may only serve to confuse the dog.

We can build extremely reliable behaviours without anything more than reinforcement, extinction and response-prevention. See http://www.dolforums.com.au/topic/221011-weave-proofing/ for an example.

I agree with this with dogs of the right trait for this type of training, but is not reliable on every dog where consequence works better on some traits and cant training every dog best from one training method doesnt work, it depends on the individual dog character what is best working.

If a dog having good focus from food and toy drive, this dogs you can training without consequence easy, but dogs with low drive and tunnel vision on the bad behaviour is easier to train from consequence in the training also. Drive is born in the dog, you can build drive to a point but you cant put drive in a dog for handler focus for all distractions when the dog has low drive on the genetics and the training must be suiting the type of dog.

Joe

Note that I didn't apply a blanket statement regarding consequences or otherwise. I stated that we can build very reliable behaviours without anything more than reinforcement, response prevention and extinction; I did not say that we could do that for every behaviour that we want from every dog.

But I'll play along - if you have the most stubborn, hard-headed dog in existence, what benefit does a correction for failure to comply offer if the dog is just sitting there like a stunned mullet? How would you know if he was being "stubborn" vs "unmotivated" vs "confused"? (I'm not saying you can't know, I'm asking how you might satisfy yourself that this is the case)

If you choose to ignore the failure to respond appropriately, wait a second, ask again then reward the correct response - are you in a better or worse position than if you had chosen to "correct" the dog instead?

[JoeK]

For me it's not about realising different breeds have different training considerations it's the "I won't bother trying because my dog is x breed" excuse that I don't like.

I agree on this point. Is the same as someone saying they great trainer from result of training a great dog easy to train.

Joe

[wuffles]

For me it's not about realising different breeds have different training considerations it's the "I won't bother trying because my dog is x breed" excuse that I don't like.

So should I be ashamed if I admit that I haven't trained a really reliable recall with one of my dogs because it has been too difficult? I've put much, much, much more time into his recall than my other dog yet he's way less reliable than her.

Edit: I'm not saying that training a great recall on him is impossible, it just takes too much work and management than I am prepared to put in. Even getting him to recall in the house is almost a full time job :p

Edited May 27, 2011 by wuffles

[Are You Serious Jo]

Why should you feel ashamed? Even if you did sit back and say I can't train my Transylvanian Ghost Hunting Dog to stay because he has been bred to run around and look for ghosts and it's taking forever and I gave up that is your business and nothing to be ashamed about. But if you said those dogs can not be trained to stay because of their breed then that does a disservice to the breed. Some breeds are going to be a pain with some behaviours but it can be taught depending on how much time is put in. My clingy coolie has selective deafness on recall at times and it's her only fault, but I don't have the energy to fix that, so I just don't put her in the situation where it is a problem.

I think there is a balance between working on the behaviour and making allowances for breed, I just don't think it's a good enough to say I never do this because my dog is x breed.

[wuffles]

Why should you feel ashamed? Even if you did sit back and say I can't train my Transylvanian Ghost Hunting Dog to stay because he has been bred to run around and look for ghosts and it's taking forever and I gave up that is your business and nothing to be ashamed about. But if you said those dogs can not be trained to stay because of their breed then that does a disservice to the breed. Some breeds are going to be a pain with some behaviours but it can be taught depending on how much time is put in. My clingy coolie has selective deafness on recall at times and it's her only fault, but I don't have the energy to fix that, so I just don't put her in the situation where it is a problem.

I think there is a balance between working on the behaviour and making allowances for breed, I just don't think it's a good enough to say I never do this because my dog is x breed.

That's fair enough and I agree

[JoeK]

Basically, unless whatever the dog is doing is being reinforced, instead of what you asked him to do(or it puts him in immediate danger), there is not a lot of justification for providing a consequence for non-compliance. If he's just sitting there like a stunned mullet, there is no reason to provide a consequence. Failing to give a reinforcer is not a consequence, it's a "do nothing".

There is a school of thought that says we should provide a consequence for disobedience no matter what. I would argue that unless the dog clearly understands that he can avoid the consequence by complying with the cue, then there is no justification for this approach. Given that it's highly likely that the only reason the dog did nothing in response to your cue was that he didn't understand what he had to do, or hadn't been reinforced often enough for it, I would not want to further complicate things by adding extraneous consequences that may only serve to confuse the dog.

We can build extremely reliable behaviours without anything more than reinforcement, extinction and response-prevention. See http://www.dolforums.com.au/topic/221011-weave-proofing/ for an example.

I agree with this with dogs of the right trait for this type of training, but is not reliable on every dog where consequence works better on some traits and cant training every dog best from one training method doesnt work, it depends on the individual dog character what is best working.

If a dog having good focus from food and toy drive, this dogs you can training without consequence easy, but dogs with low drive and tunnel vision on the bad behaviour is easier to train from consequence in the training also. Drive is born in the dog, you can build drive to a point but you cant put drive in a dog for handler focus for all distractions when the dog has low drive on the genetics and the training must be suiting the type of dog.

Joe

Note that I didn't apply a blanket statement regarding consequences or otherwise. I stated that we can build very reliable behaviours without anything more than reinforcement, response prevention and extinction; I did not say that we could do that for every behaviour that we want from every dog.

But I'll play along - if you have the most stubborn, hard-headed dog in existence, what benefit does a correction for failure to comply offer if the dog is just sitting there like a stunned mullet? How would you know if he was being "stubborn" vs "unmotivated" vs "confused"? (I'm not saying you can't know, I'm asking how you might satisfy yourself that this is the case)

If you choose to ignore the failure to respond appropriately, wait a second, ask again then reward the correct response - are you in a better or worse position than if you had chosen to "correct" the dog instead?

Firsty the dog he must know the behavior so is no good correcting the stunned mullet on the come command if he dont know what come is meaning. If he know come is meaning and deciding not to obey because he want to go in opposite direction to have a sniff or chase other dog becuase is better for him to do that instead of obeying handler commanding, then correction is good for consequence of disobey. Dogs learning to trust handler command if corrections done properly becuase you command to save him from correction they learn this. I say come becuase something bad happen if he doesnt he learn that and the dog learn to trust that what you commanding is best for him. Is not always about avoiding the correction when correction is done properly becuase when the correction is done fast and calm with no emotion, the dog is not realising you doing it and it just happening when he dont listen. Then the dog learn to trust your commanding is best you see?

Too much correction is done from anger on the handler frustration is wrong and the dog will learning to avoid correction, but this is not how proper correction techniqing should be working. Is even better with Ecollar becuase the dog is at distance from handler so it lessen the conflicting possiblilty even better.

Joe

[JoeK]

For me it's not about realising different breeds have different training considerations it's the "I won't bother trying because my dog is x breed" excuse that I don't like.

So should I be ashamed if I admit that I haven't trained a really reliable recall with one of my dogs because it has been too difficult? I've put much, much, much more time into his recall than my other dog yet he's way less reliable than her.

Edit: I'm not saying that training a great recall on him is impossible, it just takes too much work and management than I am prepared to put in. Even getting him to recall in the house is almost a full time job :p

Even dog of the same breeding, I have years ago two Shepherd girls for the training sisters of the litter and both training is the same. One of the girls she having natural recall beautiful you dropping the leash she stop and wait for me. The other girl her sister I droppig the leash, she run away and I chasing her for 5 kilometer the bugger, and she very hard dog to train on the recall where he sister she just does it no effort.

joe

[Lab_Rat]

Going back to dealing with different breeds, you do have to factor in breed characteristics when training but you shouldn't use breed as an excuse for not getting results.

I dont use her breed as an excuse, but do know that she will be more difficult to train than the kelpie......I can use my lack of knowledge as one though

There are breed differences but I think we sometimes use them as an excuse. I have sighthounds, not the most hard-headed of the sightound breeds but still one waaay down the bottom of the list of 'trainable' by most judgements.

With the exception of recall in the presence of prey, which I haven't pinged yet for all of them, they train very well. But only when I really train as I know how to, in a measured and structured way that takes advantage of how they learn. I used to have a working breed - they were much more eager to please, quicker to train but not really any easier to train well. I found them easier to stuff up really as they hated making a mistake. Not sure the 'zoi think they can make mistakes, they know it's always my fault, LOL.

For me it's not about realising different breeds have different training considerations it's the "I won't bother trying because my dog is x breed" excuse that I don't like.

For me it's not about realising different breeds have different training considerations it's the "I won't bother trying because my dog is x breed" excuse that I don't like.

So should I be ashamed if I admit that I haven't trained a really reliable recall with one of my dogs because it has been too difficult? I've put much, much, much more time into his recall than my other dog yet he's way less reliable than her.

Edit: I'm not saying that training a great recall on him is impossible, it just takes too much work and management than I am prepared to put in. Even getting him to recall in the house is almost a full time job :p

One thing I did discover with the help of a behaviourist/trainer is to teach my dog to stay (at varying distances) rather than to try and rely on a dodgy recall!! And it works

When my Hound looks like she wants to head off into the bush rather than screaming her name out loud a dozen times for nothing, I yell or say, depends how far away she is, Stay! Zola stay! While that is not yet 100%, its more reliable than a recall...And I try and remember to practice it anytime, in and outside.

I dont feel ashamed that I cant teach my dog something, but I do feel "thick" sometimes when I cant figure out how to train something differently

Meant to add, that although my RR has poor recall when distracted, I still use and train for it

Edited May 27, 2011 by Lab_Rat

[corvus]

so what if you're at someone else's house? And he can't come inside?

If he chooses to baulk then & you can't catch him, what would you do?

Is the problem fixed?

I don't know what you're asking me. That's a whole new problem, isn't it? If "come inside" is the behaviour, and the dog can't come inside, then it's a different behaviour you're asking for, right? Are you asking me what I'd do if I recalled my dog and he ran away and I couldn't catch him? What does anyone do? Try anyway? Run in the opposite direction squealing and hope the dog is fooled into coming after you? Whatever the case, obviously there's a big problem that needs more training.

People judge you because you regularly contradict yourself in your posts. You label your dogs one way and give anecdotes which do not match your labels.

The anecdote was to demonstrate why I stopped enforcing behaviours. I am mystified why everyone thinks it's why I obviously need to enforce behaviours. I'm not sure how having fixed the problem without enforcing the behaviour makes my dogs disobedient. I'm not even sure what I apparently claimed or labelled anymore. So, yeah, I probably sound contradictory. I honestly do not know what we're talking about anymore. I try to respond to general ideas, but there are always exceptions and when people keep asking about the exceptions we get into these silly discussions about what I do maybe 2% of the time and people think I do it much more often than that seeing as I'm talking about it so much.

People judge you because you regularly give advice on things you are yet to achieve with any of your own dogs...and when you get called on it, your excuse is often not that you can't do it, but can't be bothered doing it or have chosen a work around instead.

What haven't I achieved with my own dogs? Reliability? Is 98% reliability not reliability? What have I worked around or not bothered doing? The inability to enforce a behaviour? Why does it matter if the result is still reliability?

I kind of resent that. I worked really hard to get that reliability and I continue to work hard to maintain it and improve upon it. You don't have to believe me, but I'd rather you didn't claim that I haven't done it.

ETA I don't want people to think I'm giving out advice. This is an internet forum, for heavens' sake. As far as I'm concerned the whole point is to share information. I try to be upfront about what I have done myself and what I know about through other people or theory. If the line blurs sometimes, I apologise for that. I'm not as clear as I should be. If people want advice they can count on they should hire a professional or single someone out who they trust.

Edited May 27, 2011 by corvus

[Aidan3]

If he know come is meaning and deciding not to obey because he want to go in opposite direction to have a sniff or chase other dog becuase is better for him to do that instead of obeying handler commanding, then correction is good for consequence of disobey.

So here is a situation where doing something other than what you have asked is likely to be reinforced.

Is not always about avoiding the correction when correction is done properly becuase when the correction is done fast and calm with no emotion, the dog is not realising you doing it and it just happening when he dont listen.

Avoidance learning is where the dog learns to do what you want in order to avoid a correction. Ultimately you want the dog to do what you have asked, when you ask, not when you correct him for not doing it in the first place. Does that make sense?

[Are You Serious Jo]

so what if you're at someone else's house? And he can't come inside?

If he chooses to baulk then & you can't catch him, what would you do?

Is the problem fixed?

I don't know what you're asking me. That's a whole new problem, isn't it? If "come inside" is the behaviour, and the dog can't come inside, then it's a different behaviour you're asking for, right? Are you asking me what I'd do if I recalled my dog and he ran away and I couldn't catch him? What does anyone do? Try anyway? Run in the opposite direction squealing and hope the dog is fooled into coming after you? Whatever the case, obviously there's a big problem that needs more training.

People judge you because you regularly contradict yourself in your posts. You label your dogs one way and give anecdotes which do not match your labels.

The anecdote was to demonstrate why I stopped enforcing behaviours. I am mystified why everyone thinks it's why I obviously need to enforce behaviours. I'm not sure how having fixed the problem without enforcing the behaviour makes my dogs disobedient. I'm not even sure what I apparently claimed or labelled anymore. So, yeah, I probably sound contradictory. I honestly do not know what we're talking about anymore. I try to respond to general ideas, but there are always exceptions and when people keep asking about the exceptions we get into these silly discussions about what I do maybe 2% of the time and people think I do it much more often than that seeing as I'm talking about it so much.

People judge you because you regularly give advice on things you are yet to achieve with any of your own dogs...and when you get called on it, your excuse is often not that you can't do it, but can't be bothered doing it or have chosen a work around instead.

What haven't I achieved with my own dogs? Reliability? Is 98% reliability not reliability? What have I worked around or not bothered doing? The inability to enforce a behaviour? Why does it matter if the result is still reliability?

I kind of resent that. I worked really hard to get that reliability and I continue to work hard to maintain it and improve upon it. You don't have to believe me, but I'd rather you didn't claim that I haven't done it.

You don't have 98% reliability though, you have kidded yourself into thinking your dogs are well trained because you only do things that you know they'll do reliably. I don't know why you can't understand what people are telling you? You said yourself that your dog runs away and you can't catch him, then you try and tell us he has 98% reliability, no he doesn't. You get around him not wanting to be caught by teaching him to come in the house, that isn't a recall because you said you can't catch him in the house when you want to. So you have a crap recall with that dog, not 98% reliability. Nobody cares if you can't recall your dog, not our problem, but at least call a spade a spade, you just ignore behaviours that are too hard to work on and stick to tricks that are easy. best not to give advice on training when you can't do it yourself.

[corvus]

I don't know why excuses based on breeds came up. I mentioned my dogs were spitz breeds and generally don't do things they don't want to do. Apparently that equates to me not asking them to do things they don't want to do and accepting that if they don't want to do something that's that, they don't have to do it. I do make it their choice, but that doesn't make me helpless if once in a blue moon they choose not to do it. I usually get the behaviour one way or another, and it's usually their choice when I do.

[JoeK]

If he know come is meaning and deciding not to obey because he want to go in opposite direction to have a sniff or chase other dog becuase is better for him to do that instead of obeying handler commanding, then correction is good for consequence of disobey.

So here is a situation where doing something other than what you have asked is likely to be reinforced.

Is not always about avoiding the correction when correction is done properly becuase when the correction is done fast and calm with no emotion, the dog is not realising you doing it and it just happening when he dont listen.

Avoidance learning is where the dog learns to do what you want in order to avoid a correction. Ultimately you want the dog to do what you have asked, when you ask, not when you correct him for not doing it in the first place. Does that make sense?

I dont using the corrections for forcing a dog to do something. What I do is apply aversive for disobeying and give him a choice, come to me for praise and reward or choose not to come and get a correction so the dog make the choice which is best for him on the command and he learn is nice to listen and obey becuase he get the praise the treat or the toy rewarding and if he doesnt obeying he gets correction and no rewarding.

Joe

[Are You Serious Jo]

You said yourself that you don't bother with behaviours that you can't enforce, people can only go by the posts you make. You said you can't catch your dog when he doesn't want you to, that actually equates to him running rings around you. By you only working on behaviours that you know they do consistently you have allowed the dogs to train you.

So now you are saying that you do enforce behaviour? Your posts give me a comprehension headache and I think I should give up trying to understand them, they are full of contradictions even within posts!

[Aidan3]

Is not always about avoiding the correction when correction is done properly becuase when the correction is done fast and calm with no emotion, the dog is not realising you doing it and it just happening when he dont listen.

Avoidance learning is where the dog learns to do what you want in order to avoid a correction. Ultimately you want the dog to do what you have asked, when you ask, not when you correct him for not doing it in the first place. Does that make sense?

I dont using the corrections for forcing a dog to do something. What I do is apply aversive for disobeying and give him a choice, come to me for praise and reward or choose not to come and get a correction so the dog make the choice

I think you are confused about what "forcing a dog to do something" means. If you apply an aversive if the dog doesn't do what you want, you are forcing the dog.

If you don't have to use the aversive any more, that is avoidance learning. The reward may or may not mean anything at all. In fact, if you leave out the correction and the dog doesn't make the choice to come to you, the reward was meaningless no matter how much the dog lapped it up. You need to find something that is actually a reinforcer, and not just something your dog will enjoy but not enough to choose it without coercion.

[JoeK]

Is not always about avoiding the correction when correction is done properly becuase when the correction is done fast and calm with no emotion, the dog is not realising you doing it and it just happening when he dont listen.

Avoidance learning is where the dog learns to do what you want in order to avoid a correction. Ultimately you want the dog to do what you have asked, when you ask, not when you correct him for not doing it in the first place. Does that make sense?

I dont using the corrections for forcing a dog to do something. What I do is apply aversive for disobeying and give him a choice, come to me for praise and reward or choose not to come and get a correction so the dog make the choice

I think you are confused about what "forcing a dog to do something" means. If you apply an aversive if the dog doesn't do what you want, you are forcing the dog.

If you don't have to use the aversive any more, that is avoidance learning. The reward may or may not mean anything at all. In fact, if you leave out the correction and the dog doesn't make the choice to come to you, the reward was meaningless no matter how much the dog lapped it up. You need to find something that is actually a reinforcer, and not just something your dog will enjoy but not enough to choose it without coercion.

Forcing a dog to do something on the aversive on my books is like stepping on the leash from a sit position to force a drop, the leash pop doesnt doing this is over in milisecond like the Ecollar stim doesn't force the dog becuase nothing attached to the dog and the handler 100 meters away, dog has the choice to come or not, come to me and we have a pat and a treat or go the other way and cop a correction. The reward of no meaning is someone opinion I am not believing is true on my experience.

As I mentioning before, if the dog has good drives is easy to finding reinforcer to make the choice to come in any distraction, but if the drive is low on the dog finding the reinforcer sometimes needing a little extra to keep his head in the right track what we doing.

Joe

What you tell us here about the reward and correction is someone opinion is not fact

[Erny]

I think you are confused about what "forcing a dog to do something" means. If you apply an aversive if the dog doesn't do what you want, you are forcing the dog.

Hhhhmmm ...

So, because the hot stove top burnt my hand when I touched it, the stove is forcing me to not touch it? I wouldn't have thought of it in terms of being "forced" not to touch it. I'd just as soon not though.

Edited May 27, 2011 by Erny

[Aidan3]

I think you are confused about what "forcing a dog to do something" means. If you apply an aversive if the dog doesn't do what you want, you are forcing the dog.

Hhhhmmm ...

So, because the hot stove top burnt my hand when I touched it, the stove is forcing me to not touch it? I wouldn't have thought of it in terms of being "forced" not to touch it. I'd just as soon not though.

In philosophy there is a question, if someone holds a gun to your head and tells you to do something, do you have a choice whether to do it or not?

Of course you do... you always have a choice.