Aidan

[Aidan3]

Posted by Aidan2 But common sense would have to tell you - if you want to train a dog efficiently, to a level that is reliable, you do what people who have to train dogs efficiently to a high level do. That hasn't been Koehler for a very long time.

Ok, I will ask the same question that I asked in the previous thread. Do you know of a method that can take a class of handlers and their dogs and get a 80% success rate in passing a AKC Novice test in ten weeks?

Are you suggesting that there are Koehler method instructors who do this to modern standards?

I've never seen a dog club using Koehler long line in a group class, the comment was referring to any group of people following the same recipe

To say it again, obedience clubs are the very last place I would go to see people following the "same recipe".

You probably need to visit a few more before you can make that sort of statement. Although to be fair to you, these days a lot of obedience clubs do recognise individual differences in dogs and have them do different things accordingly. Kind of proves my point though, you will not find two handlers and two dogs who progress at exactly the same rate. Different handlers, different dogs, different progress - and this holds true regardless of the method. Even where every detail is controlled (in the lab), two animals will learn at different rates. Variability is inherent, and necessary for adaptation and thus survival of the species.

perhaps Koehler long-line is the sole exception?

But why don't you know whether it is or isn't the exception? Surely a simple empirical study would very easily establish it one way or another. Why has such studies not been conducted by behaviorists?

You make it sound so simple

What exactly are we trying to establish? That Koehler relies on aversive conditioning? You can establish that yourself, I've already suggested how. I don't think there is really a big void in our understanding there at all. What theoretical basis would you have for suggesting that I'm wrong? Before we can conduct a study we need a reason.

Believe it or not, the subject of pet dog training does come up in the literature quite a lot. You are quite right to raise the question of whether we know what works in the real world or not ("external validity"), and whether that differs from what we see in the laboratory, under tightly controlled conditions ("internal validity"). In a nutshell, the more we have of one, the less we have of the other. So we do test both, and there are studies that have done this although I can't think of any that specifically utilise the Koehler method as a basis for comparison. Needless to say, we are getting consistent real world results that methods based on positive reinforcement get better outcomes on a wide variety of criteria.

Various working dog training organisations were using Koehler in the early days. I think everyone was for a while! Where results count, internal studies are conducted to determine the most appropriate method. You really don't see anyone still using the Koehler method for any sort of work where efficient, reliable training takes place.

One other thing, because in science we can't test every single thing, we do rely to some extent on generalisability. If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, and flies like a duck - it's probably a duck. If you were able to come back to me and say "for these reasons, I don't think we can generalise when it comes to the Koehler long-line method, it's different because of x,y, and z" then, if you had a strong argument, I would say "you're right, we should investigate this on those grounds". But so far all we've got is your experience with Koehler, with a single dog, and some video of someone getting high scores (but no verification of how she trained that dog). Well, probability says the likelihood of one person having one great experience with one dog is pretty high. Some dogs are just good dogs. Some handlers are just good handlers. Some lives are blessed.

As it is, we're having a hard time even trying to find anyone who uses the method "properly". What does that tell us? It could mean any number of things, but I'd suggest that the anecdotes we're hearing do shed some light on this mystery.

[Jumabaar]

Not sure if this is relevant. But when I train my dog in any method I look at the feedback that I am getting from the dog- so if its stressed, engaged and generally if I seem to be getting results. I tend to change how I am doing things as the dog progresses because I will find a pattern that seems to work for that particular dog. The feedback I get from one of my other dogs when I start down the same method will be slightly different and so the cues, hints and rewards (and corrections) will be slightly different to that dog. I like to read research but like you I found that working out what was best for my dog was.... well the best for me.

I find it interesting that you say EVERY Koehler trainer in Aus does it differently to the method Koehler actually set out. Now these trainers are also getting real world responses- so doesn't this say that they too have studied the dog and modified in order to achieve the best results based on the feedback that they have had. I actually find this to be the most profound argument against using such a prescribed method- that if even the core group of followers has had cause to make their own conscious and subconscious tweaks that relate to their own style as a trainer and the dogs that they are seeing. How can you say that those 11000 dogs were not all taught based on variations of the Koehler training rather than the set method? Surely if people struggle to get it 'right' now they were struggling back then as well?

[itsadogslife]

Aidan, I have taken one of your comments from the other thread and put it here. This is probably the better place to have our discussion.

Behaviorism simply stems from objective observations of overt behaviors.

No it doesn’t. There is no such thing as an ‘objective’ observation if you mean by that, observations uninfluenced by our assumptions. The assumption that guides behaviorism is that the mind is irrelevant to explaining and/or understanding behavior. Hence behaviorists simply do not see the mind in behavior.

You may be aware of a long standing problem within philosophy of Other Minds. How do we know other people have minds? How do we know that other people are not merely mindless automations? My point is not to argue the case, but to simply point out that philosophers have taken this problem seriously because of its plausibility. There is little doubt that behaviorism can plausibly explain behavior without recourse to the mind. After all, intelligent people have been doing it ever since Skinner.

You have said:

For me, the long-line is a very effective way to control the environment whilst giving the dog freedom to make choices, as it was for Koehler. For me, the focus is on letting the dog make good choices so that he can be rewarded, rather than setting him up to make bad choices early on that can be punished.

Now I don’t understand this at all. You say that “for me, the focus is on letting the dog make good choices…rather than setting him up to make bad choices.” But if you don’t allow the dog the freedom to make bad choices then in what sense is letting him make good choices really a ‘choice’. It seems to me that instead of allowing the dog to make choices you are in fact making the choice for the dog – by precluding the dog the opportunity to make bad choices.

I understand that Koehler trainers don't see his method as "setting the dog up to fail", but from a behavior analysts perspective, that is what actually happens in practice. It becomes about avoiding the correction, rather than working for the reinforcer.

Where in this perspective is any notion of the dog’s agency? Where is there any notion here as to the intrinsic reward/reinforcement that comes from freely exercising one’s own agency to work things out? Why do you think that some people buy the paper every day to work out the crossword puzzles? I mean there’s no obvious reward for this, they get don’t paid for it. Is it not because using one’s mind to work things out is itself intrinsically rewarding? You say:

It becomes about avoiding the correction, rather than working for the reinforcer.

But that’s because the behaviorist having already ruled out the mind as being relevant to behavior, simply cannot see nor recognize the intrinsic reward that comes from exercising one’s own agency to work things out. Making sense of the world, of one’s situation, is I might argue, the most powerful motivator of all things.

Saying that the dog’s behavior is being aversively conditioned is such a god-awful, ugly way of describing things. Worse, it robs the animal of it’s dignity. It refuses the animal it’s agency and autonomy. It refuses to recognize how empowering the free exercise of one’s own agency to work things out for oneself really is.

Do not let the long line attached to the dog confuse you. There is no such thing as ‘free agency’ if by that you mean agency without constraint. We are always and already under constraint. Our agency is freely exercised by our capacity to make sense of those constraints in a way that allows us to successfully negotiate the world.

Edited January 16, 2012 by itsadogslife

[Aidan3]

Before I answer some of these questions, may I ask whether you are referring to philosophical behaviourism (philosophy of the mind and self) or psychological behaviourism?

The two are not the same thing.

Edited January 16, 2012 by Aidan2

[itsadogslife]

Before I answer some of these questions, may I ask whether you are referring to philosophical behaviourism (philosophy of the mind and self) or psychological behaviourism?

I am not familar with the tenets of psychological behaviorism. As my background is in philosophy I tend to take a philosophical perspective, but I am not referring to any particular philosophical position other than my own. Not sure if that helps.

[Aidan3]

You have said:

For me, the long-line is a very effective way to control the environment whilst giving the dog freedom to make choices, as it was for Koehler. For me, the focus is on letting the dog make good choices so that he can be rewarded, rather than setting him up to make bad choices early on that can be punished.

Now I don’t understand this at all. You say that “for me, the focus is on letting the dog make good choices…rather than setting him up to make bad choices.” But if you don’t allow the dog the freedom to make bad choices then in what sense is letting him make good choices really a ‘choice’. It seems to me that instead of allowing the dog to make choices you are in fact making the choice for the dog – by precluding the dog the opportunity to make bad choices.

Make a list of all the things a dog could do on a long-line.

I understand that Koehler trainers don't see his method as "setting the dog up to fail", but from a behavior analysts perspective, that is what actually happens in practice. It becomes about avoiding the correction, rather than working for the reinforcer.

Where in this perspective is any notion of the dog’s agency? Where is there any notion here as to the intrinsic reward/reinforcement that comes from freely exercising one’s own agency to work things out?

Rather than making unfounded assumptions about what dogs find reinforcing, how about you try the Koehler long-line method without the long-line and tell me what happens? No-one else is punishing you for not solving a cross-word, that's not analogous.

It becomes about avoiding the correction, rather than working for the reinforcer.

But that’s because the behaviorist having already ruled out the mind as being relevant to behavior, simply cannot see nor recognize the intrinsic reward that comes from exercising one’s own agency to work things out.

Sorry, but this is utter nonsense. There are very few radical behaviourists who might take this position even as a theoretical side-trip. Did you know that the notion of intrinsic rewards comes from behaviourism?

Saying that the dog’s behavior is being aversively conditioned is such a god-awful, ugly way of describing things. Worse, it robs the animal of it’s dignity. It refuses the animal it’s agency and autonomy. It refuses to recognize how empowering the free exercise of one’s own agency to work things out for oneself really is.

But putting a check chain attached to a long-line around a dog's neck is none of these things in your view? Sorry, but "letting a dog self-correct" is hardly an "empowering free exercise". Tell me which "empowered" choices are available to this "free" dog?

You're right that there is no agency without constraint, this is absolutely true. But don't kid yourself into believing that you're bestowing some noble gift upon these dogs. You're putting a chain around their neck and letting them experience the discomfort of not blindly following you around to the exclusion of all else. How this is preferable to giving them opportunities to earn rewards that they will actually work for (rather than to avoid) is beyond me.

Yup, we're all trying to make sense of the world, we're all looking for security and comfort. Take away all the long lines, collars, and fences and see what wild dogs (e.g dingos) do. They hunt, they forage, and they look out for themselves and their kin. If you want to give a dog a life of dignity, try and give them what their biology is craving.

[Aidan3]

Before I answer some of these questions, may I ask whether you are referring to philosophical behaviourism (philosophy of the mind and self) or psychological behaviourism?

I am not familar with the tenets of psychological behaviorism. As my background is in philosophy I tend to take a philosophical perspective, but I am not referring to any particular philosophical position other than my own. Not sure if that helps.

Yes it does help, thank you. You're going to have to put aside philosophical behaviourism, there are very few radical behaviourists in psychology. I have seen nothing to suggest that Skinner was even a radical behaviourist. I could mount a fairly convincing (although not complete) argument that behaviourism in psychology is closer to functionalism in philosophy.

My assertion remains that behaviourism (in psychology) is simply a method of objective observation. Psychology had come from a period where Freudian theories were popular. The behaviourists took the view that we couldn't measure what was going on in the mind, so they wanted to investigate what actually happened - overt behaviours (or "operants"). This could be measured quite accurately. It was revolutionary, and freed us from the tyranny of unfounded opinions in psychodynamic theories.

No student of psychology is schooled in behaviourism to the exclusion of all other theories, but the methods (and the most robust findings) are taught to this day.

[itsadogslife]

Posted by Aidan Rather than making unfounded assumptions about what dogs find reinforcing, how about you try the Koehler long-line method without the long-line and tell me what happens? No-one else is punishing you for not solving a cross-word, that's not analogous.

What a dog, or anyone finds reinforcing in any given situation depends on the situation. Any and all situations come with constraints of one kind or another. When we move from one situation to another, we are simply moving from one set of constraints to another. I know perfectly well (as you do) what will happen or not happen in the above scenario. Why do you find this significant? If I put my dog in an open field with lots of distractions and offer him a treat, should I then conclude when said dog ignores the treat for something more interesting that treats are therefore not rewarding?

What a stupid thing to say. Of course, as I am not stupid I realise that what is and isn’t reinforcing depends on the situation.

You seem to want to conclude that because my dog would not choose to follow me around without the collar and lead attached that somehow disproves my point. As if you had not changed the situation and thus the constraints acting upon the dog.

It would be just as silly for me to say that treats are not rewarding on the basis of saying, well, why don’t put your dog off-lead in an open field full of distractions and then see how rewarding your treats are then.

I said: But that’s because the behaviorist having already ruled out the mind as being relevant to behavior, simply cannot see nor recognize the intrinsic reward that comes from exercising one’s own agency to work things out.

You said: Sorry, but this is utter nonsense. There are very few radical behaviourists who might take this position even as a theoretical side-trip. Did you know that the notion of intrinsic rewards comes from behaviourism?

Ok, I will ask the question again. Where in the behaviorist description of the line long as aversive conditioning, is notion of the dog’s agency and the role it plays in learning?

I said: Saying that the dog’s behavior is being aversively conditioned is such a god-awful, ugly way of describing things. Worse, it robs the animal of it’s dignity. It refuses the animal it’s agency and autonomy. It refuses to recognize how empowering the free exercise of one’s own agency to work things out for oneself really is.

You said: But putting a check chain attached to a long-line around a dog's neck is none of these things in your view?

No. I call it teaching.

Sorry, but "letting a dog self-correct" is hardly an "empowering free exercise". Tell me which "empowered" choices are available to this "free" dog?

The dog can freely choose to pay attention to the handler or not. That the dog will choose to pay attention to the handler merely shows that dogs aren’t stupid. And by the way, during a whole week of the line long exercises the dog will probably only get caught by the line 4 or 5 fives times. Yet the amount of times in which the dog self corrects himself during this period without hitting the end of the line will be far in excess of the times he is caught by the line.

You're right that there is no agency without constraint, this is absolutely true.

Yet in your responses you are trading on the (false) contrast on the dog being constrained by the leash as opposed to the dog being unconstrained, such as when you say –

Rather than making unfounded assumptions about what dogs find reinforcing, how about you try the Koehler long-line method without the long-line and tell me what happens?

The difference here, as always is not between constraint and the absence of constraint, but two different situations with different constraints being in place. How a dog behaves in one situation as opposed to another is dependant on what set of constraints are being applied. What a dog finds rewarding in one situation as opposed to another also depends on the situation. I know you know this, but for some reason you seem to forget when discussing the long line.

But don't kid yourself into believing that you're bestowing some noble gift upon these dogs.

The dignity is allowing the dog to learn through his own choices. Just because I have restricted those choices to either pay attention or don’t pay attention it doesn’t follow that I am not allowing the dog choices.

You're putting a chain around their neck and letting them experience the discomfort of not blindly following you around to the exclusion of all else.

How this is preferable to giving them opportunities to earn rewards that they will actually work for (rather than to avoid) is beyond me.

Because making the right choice is rewarding to the dog.

Yup, we're all trying to make sense of the world, we're all looking for security and comfort. Take away all the long lines, collars, and fences and see what wild dogs (e.g dingos) do. They hunt, they forage, and they look out for themselves and their kin. If you want to give a dog a life of dignity, try and give them what their biology is craving.

I have no idea of what you mean by this, other than the suspicion that you are once again trading on the idea of constraint versus the absence of constraint. Are you saying for instance, that bitches never correct their pups? Or are you saying that bitches ought not correct their pups? That they ought to simply allow their pups to follow whatever blind impulse their biological impulses bid them to do?

Do you really think that wild animals just blindly follow their biological impulses? You do realise that many wild apes of the male gender never get to procreate? You don’t think they want to?

[itsadogslife]

The behaviourists took the view that we couldn't measure what was going on in the mind, so they wanted to investigate what actually happened - overt behaviours (or "operants").

Then our differences can be expressed quite easily by a quote from Wittgenstein: "The best picture of the soul (meaning 'mind') is the body".

[Aidan3]

Posted by Aidan Rather than making unfounded assumptions about what dogs find reinforcing, how about you try the Koehler long-line method without the long-line and tell me what happens? No-one else is punishing you for not solving a cross-word, that's not analogous.

What a dog, or anyone finds reinforcing in any given situation depends on the situation. Any and all situations come with constraints of one kind or another. When we move from one situation to another, we are simply moving from one set of constraints to another. I know perfectly well (as you do) what will happen or not happen in the above scenario. Why do you find this significant? If I put my dog in an open field with lots of distractions and offer him a treat, should I then conclude when said dog ignores the treat for something more interesting that treats are therefore not rewarding?

Yes, you absolutely should conclude that.

What a stupid thing to say.

If you're going to say something, attribute it to me, then call it stupid then you can find someone else to play with. Does that sound fair?

You seem to want to conclude that because my dog would not choose to follow me around without the collar and lead attached that somehow disproves my point. As if you had not changed the situation and thus the constraints acting upon the dog.

It would be just as silly for me to say that treats are not rewarding on the basis of saying, well, why don’t put your dog off-lead in an open field full of distractions and then see how rewarding your treats are then.

Treats may or may not be rewarding in this situation. I'm not making any unfounded conclusions about what is or isn't rewarding, but you are. You are rejecting the notion of negative reinforcement completely in favour of a theory that you cannot support with evidence. You might as well put a crystal in your pocket and tell us the crystal is a vehicle for your dog's holy guardian angel. Sure, that sounds less plausible, but it offers the same degree of objective support.

Now, maybe you're 100% correct but the onus is on you to offer evidence to support your claim. You know this because your field is philosophy, and philosophy has quite a lot to say about this.

Ok, I will ask the question again. Where in the behaviorist description of the line long as aversive conditioning, is notion of the dog’s agency and the role it plays in learning?

The dog can exercise his agency to avoid the correction. No doubt you've considered the old "if someone puts a gun to your head and tells you to do something, do you have a choice?" Of course you have a choice...

I said: Saying that the dog’s behavior is being aversively conditioned is such a god-awful, ugly way of describing things. Worse, it robs the animal of it’s dignity. It refuses the animal it’s agency and autonomy. It refuses to recognize how empowering the free exercise of one’s own agency to work things out for oneself really is.

You said: But putting a check chain attached to a long-line around a dog's neck is none of these things in your view?

No. I call it teaching.

Aversive conditioning is teaching. You need to somehow prove to me that it's not aversive or that we don't need aversion to formulate a coherent theory of learning. This is what you are failing to do, and worse, asking me to accept with blind faith. Do you see the problem here? Would you accept the same deal from me? I hope not.

Sorry, but "letting a dog self-correct" is hardly an "empowering free exercise". Tell me which "empowered" choices are available to this "free" dog?

The dog can freely choose to pay attention to the handler or not.

OK, lift your argument up a notch and tell me what happens if the dog chooses not to pay attention to the handler? Explain to me how this exemplifies his "freedom" and "empowerment".

You're putting a chain around their neck and letting them experience the discomfort of not blindly following you around to the exclusion of all else.

How this is preferable to giving them opportunities to earn rewards that they will actually work for (rather than to avoid) is beyond me.

Because making the right choice is rewarding to the dog.

Avoiding the correction is reinforcing, I asked how it was preferable to giving opportunities to earn rewards they will work for?

Yup, we're all trying to make sense of the world, we're all looking for security and comfort. Take away all the long lines, collars, and fences and see what wild dogs (e.g dingos) do. They hunt, they forage, and they look out for themselves and their kin. If you want to give a dog a life of dignity, try and give them what their biology is craving.

I have no idea of what you mean by this, other than the suspicion that you are once again trading on the idea of constraint versus the absence of constraint. Are you saying for instance, that bitches never correct their pups? Or are you saying that bitches ought not correct their pups? That they ought to simply allow their pups to follow whatever blind impulse their biological impulses bid them to do?

Do you really think that wild animals just blindly follow their biological impulses? You do realise that many wild apes of the male gender never get to procreate? You don’t think they want to?

You're obfuscating the argument. I didn't say bitches don't correct their pups or that every male gets to procreate or that animals blindly follow biological impulses. I questioned why you would only correct and never offer positive reinforcement.

[itsadogslife]

Treats may or may not be rewarding in this situation. I'm not making any unfounded conclusions about what is or isn't rewarding, but you are.

Your observations are based on the assumption that “behaviourists took the view that we couldn't measure what was going on in the mind, so they wanted to investigate what actually happened - overt behaviours (or "operants").

My observations are based on the belief that “he best picture of the soul (mind) is the body.”

In other words, my assumption is that the best way to tell what is going on in the mind is by observing the overt behavior.

Behaviorists on the other hand, start with the assumption that we cannot tell what’s going on in the mind, so that its best to observe what is going on in behavior without reference to the mind.

Now, maybe you're 100% correct but the onus is on you to offer evidence to support your claim. You know this because your field is philosophy, and philosophy has quite a lot to say about this.

Yes, philosophy is my field, so let me explain this to you. The problem of other minds is a problem in philosophy because it is irrefutable. There is simply no way that you can prove that other people have minds. Now of course, the reason it is a problem is because no philosopher actually believes this (that other people don’t have minds) hence their forlorn and unfruitful attempts to prove the skeptic wrong.

Yes my field is philosophy, so I will once again quote Wittgenstein: “The best picture of the soul (mind) is the body.”

My evidence is the dog’s behavior.

You are rejecting the notion of negative reinforcement completely in favour of a theory that you cannot support with evidence.

No I am not, I am simply choosing to speak of the dog’s actions in a way that acknowledges the dog’s own volition and it’s capacity to learn and be rewarded and corrected through it’s own choices.

Aversive conditioning is teaching. You need to somehow prove to me that it's not aversive

Of course getting caught on the end of the line is aversive. I don’t know what gives you the impression that I would deny that. But getting caught on the end of the line ‘conditions’ the behavior of the dog? No. It is like saying, what motivates the sports person is the fear of losing, rather than the joy of winning. I see no reason to accept your take on what motives the behavior.

You ask what is the evidence. The fact that the long line method has proven efficiency in building the confidence of even the shyest and most fearful dogs.

If you don’t believe me that’s fine. You have no reason to. But if you really wanted to know, I would suggest you speak to someone with over 30+ years experience with the method, such as Tony Ancheta, or perhaps Margot Woods, or maybe Harold Hansen, or George Hobson or Pat Nolan. Unfortunately they are all in America, but you can find them if you wanted. So could any behaviorist if they really wanted.

OK, lift your argument up a notch and tell me what happens if the dog chooses not to pay attention to the handler?

The dog will get caught on the end of the line.

Explain to me how this exemplifies his "freedom" and "empowerment".

Freedom entails the risk of error. Reward would have no meaning in a world where there was no punishment. Why is it that one of the most common complaints we hear on these kind of forums is that the rewards one is using are no longer motivating to the dog? And why is it, that often the most commonly given advise is to increase the quality of rewards?

If my training did not entail a rapidly diminishing schedule of corrections I would seriously question either my training or method. My dog Riley is now on his second week of training. He has gone from the 15ft long line to the 6ft lease. It is almost impossible for me to catch him on the end of the line regardless of the distraction.

I questioned why you would only correct and never offer positive reinforcement.

I wonder why it is that you don’t understand the principle of the long line. I am not doing anything, I am not talking to the dog, I am not engaging the dog, I am not correcting nor rewarding the dog.

I am trying to stay out of picture as much as it is possible, so that the dog may reward or correct himself through the choices he makes.

Avoiding the correction is reinforcing, I asked how it was preferable to giving opportunities to earn rewards they will work for?

Because the choices the dog makes on his own that reward him are ultimately more rewarding than anything I might give him.

[Kavik]

I'm just curious itsadogslife why you think Koehler is the only method which allows the dog choice?

[Aidan3]

Explain to me how this exemplifies his "freedom" and "empowerment".

Freedom entails the risk of error. Reward would have no meaning in a world where there was no punishment. Why is it that one of the most common complaints we hear on these kind of forums is that the rewards one is using are no longer motivating to the dog? And why is it, that often the most commonly given advise is to increase the quality of rewards?

I don't know, are people using crappy rewards? My advice is usually to back up a bit and make it easier for the dog, if the reward has lost power you've jumped ahead too many steps. I have no qualms about conditioning the dog, this is your philosophical argument and I'm underwhelmed in your attempts to convince me that what you're doing anything differently, except for the lack of any sort of positive reinforcement.

I questioned why you would only correct and never offer positive reinforcement.

I wonder why it is that you don’t understand the principle of the long line. I am not doing anything, I am not talking to the dog, I am not engaging the dog, I am not correcting nor rewarding the dog.

I am trying to stay out of picture as much as it is possible, so that the dog may reward or correct himself through the choices he makes.

I hear this argument a lot from Koehler style trainers and I find it particularly disingenuous. Who put the corrective collar on the dog, who attached a line to it, who holds the end of the line, and who changes direction frequently? Truly take yourself out of the picture and see what the dog learns, absolutely nothing until the line gets tangled.

Even if you really do believe your own argument, how do you evidence your claim that the dog rewards or corrects 'himself'?

[huski]

I don't really ever use physical corrections when training obedience but I do use the removal of the reward and that is, for my dog, highly aversive. If your dog has value for you and the rewards you use, then it's easy to give a negative consequence to behaviour you don't want.

[itsadogslife]

I'm just curious itsadogslife why you think Koehler is the only method which allows the dog choice?

I don't. But the greater the contrast between the choice the greater the clarity for the dog. When people talk about giving dog's choices I notice that in many cases the consequences of those choices seem only to apply to one side of the equation. Again, the greater the consequences of our choices the more meaningful such choices become.

But I am sure that there other methods that use similar principles to that operating in Koehler.

[itsadogslife]

I hear this argument a lot from Koehler style trainers and I find it particularly disingenuous. Who put the corrective collar on the dog, who attached a line to it, who holds the end of the line, and who changes direction frequently?

But you don't think Koehler trainers realise this? The point of view that matters is not yours, but the dog's.

Truly take yourself out of the picture and see what the dog learns, absolutely nothing until the line gets tangled.

Actually, I think the dog will learn a great deal, it just wont be the kinds of things that he needs to learn in order to successfully negotiate the environment in which he lives.

Even if you really do believe your own argument, how do you evidence your claim that the dog rewards or corrects 'himself'?

I am firmly of the belief that dogs will either shut down or become aggressive in the face of corrections that they perceive as unfair or incomprehensible. This does not happen on the long line. It does not happen because the dog perceives that it is his own actions (and not the handlers) that determines the consequences both good and bad.

[Kavik]

Wouldn't good choice = get reward and poor choice = loss of opportunity to gain reward be just as effective? Doing SG's Recallers atm and there are definitely consequences for poor choices as well as rewards for good choices. Just because the consequences aren't dealt out on a correction chain and long lead doesn't mean they aren't effective.

[itsadogslife]

Wouldn't good choice = get reward and poor choice = loss of opportunity to gain reward be just as effective?

I don't know. Maybe, maybe not. I don't know.

Just because the consequences aren't dealt out on a correction chain and long lead doesn't mean they aren't effective.

Very true.

[huski]

If you have a dog that's driven to work for you and has a high value for the rewards you offer IME the loss of the reward is very aversive to the dog, certainly more effective in training than a correction on a check chain for my dog.

[itsadogslife]

If you have a dog that's driven to work for you and has a high value for the rewards you offer IME the loss of the reward is very aversive to the dog, certainly more effective in training than a correction on a check chain for my dog.

And if you have a dog that is not 'driven' to work for you and doesn't have a high value for the rewards you offer? It doesn't matter. Train using the methods that work best for you and your dog. I never said otherwise.