Alpha Dog Training?

[Kavik]

I certainly like to think I am open to new ideas :) . I have done two online courses in the last two years, and about to start another, they have taught me a lot of great things, most notably in my attitude and approach to training and are certainly responsible for a lot of my recent success competing

Edited February 22, 2013 by Kavik

[Cosmolo]

I don't think it's just about trainers being open minded to different techniques but also that they take into account owners preferences and ability- there seems to be a bit of a tendency to look more so at the dog and what training technique suits the dog- both sides of the combination (dog and owner) are equally important.

[Remarkabull]

I agree that every dog and owner is different and what works for one might not work for another and that is why this particular 'trainer' immediately put me off. Not just her but Alpha Dog Training too as she was promoting herself as certified with them and using their methods.

After talking to me on the phone for 5 mins and not setting eyes on me or my dog (she didn't even ask me what breed etc, I volunteered that halfway through the call as I felt it was relevant) she assured me that by not letting him on the furniture, making him sleep outside and putting a halti on him she would have him fixed in no time! I couldn't get off the phone quick enough and my husband got a 'talking to' for giving this person my phone number!

[corvus]

People seem fond of saying things like no method works for every dog, and some methods aren't right for some dogs and so on... It leaves me wondering what they consider a method. Personally, I train based on operant conditioning and classical conditioning, mostly. I figure science-based training is a single method... If I have to troubleshoot it's usually because I haven't correctly identified what the problem is rather than because learning theory doesn't work. When I decide to switch quadrants it's because I've ascertained it's not a signaling problem or an emotional or arousal problem and made an assessment based on the balance of reinforcers and punishers and my ability to control them and the persistence of the animal I'm training. I don't hold with the apparent gold standard of doing what's "best" for the dog. There's no way to measure that. Nor do I consider that if it works, it's the best. A lot of things will work. Instead I hold to the principles of least invasive, minimally aversive.

There is certainly a need to pick tools and approaches that the handler is capable of doing without constant guidance. But that's not to say tools that will probably be a permanent addition to the routine aren't valid. We have to acknowledge that sometimes management is all somebody wants, and that's okay.

[Cosmolo]

But don't you consider least invasive, minimally aversive to be what's best for the dog? I think you can measure what's best for the dog- just not scientifically.

I would love to use classical conditioning with every dog and owner i see. But some owners don't want to/ can't for whatever reason. It's no good continuing to give advice when you KNOW it's not going to be implemented- that's where variation should come into play.

[Weasels]

Trainers can advise me to use shaping all they like but I know I lack the patience and memory to implement it well So I use luring heaps for teaching new things, although I'm sure the dogs would do fine with either we've found what works for the 'team' best (through no fault of the dogs, just due to my puny human limitations!) :)

Edited February 22, 2013 by TheLBD

[Santo66]

I don't think it's just about trainers being open minded to different techniques but also that they take into account owners preferences and ability- there seems to be a bit of a tendency to look more so at the dog and what training technique suits the dog- both sides of the combination (dog and owner) are equally important.

Most owners would know what techniques are best otherwise they wouldn't be hiring trainers?. Assessment of the dog I think is first and foremost then the competency of the owner/handler and work it from there. You can teach people how to handle and train a dog, not everyone is incapable of taking their skills to a new level we all have to start somewhere?

[Cosmolo]

Of course handlers don't know what techniques to use. But many have preferences for or against certain things for a variety of reasons and this simply shouldn't be ignored. I don't ask clients what techniques they want to use (that's what i'm there for :) ) but part of my job is to gather enough information from them and the dog to select something appropriate for them- we talk about their previous experiences (if any) and their feelings regarding certain things tend to come forth at that stage. That's what i mean by taking their opinion/ preferences/ ability into account. There are lots of ways to gather information without asking the owner directly- what do you want to use- and that's what trainers need to do.

[corvus]

But don't you consider least invasive, minimally aversive to be what's best for the dog? I think you can measure what's best for the dog- just not scientifically.

To me a LIMA approach is more about erring on the side of caution than doing what might be someone's idea of best. My point was that I might say one thing is best and others may say another is best and there's no way we will ever know who had the best way for that dog. Those that do it one way will have success and continue to see what they expect to see and continue to miss what they are not looking for and continue to believe their way is best and so will those doing it another way. Without objective measures that is a hard cycle to break out of. In my view there are tonnes of dogs out there suffering needlessly because their trainers are locked into the confirmation bias vortex. You don't have to look hard to find them. I expect that's why there's a lot of back-stabbing and dissing other trainers and methods. Because talk is cheap and beliefs are expensive and most training approaches will have success with a significant proportion of the dog population. I think we can avoid getting sucked into the confirmation bias vortex by dealing in simple observations, frequencies and testable predictions. Leave behind ideas like 'best' that can't be defined or quantified and will always be subjective and instead concentrate on figuring out why things work or not so your next step is always an informed one. It's easy to be open-minded when you're always looking for more information. :)

[Santo66]

Of course handlers don't know what techniques to use. But many have preferences for or against certain things for a variety of reasons and this simply shouldn't be ignored. I don't ask clients what techniques they want to use (that's what i'm there for :) ) but part of my job is to gather enough information from them and the dog to select something appropriate for them- we talk about their previous experiences (if any) and their feelings regarding certain things tend to come forth at that stage. That's what i mean by taking their opinion/ preferences/ ability into account. There are lots of ways to gather information without asking the owner directly- what do you want to use- and that's what trainers need to do.

I don't think that owners/handlers preferences should be ignored, but often their preferences are based on misinformation and I think we have an obligation to the dog and owner to provide the most appropriate information so they are properly informed. I see too many failed attempts at training using the wrong methods for the dog type from misguided knowledge.

[Santo66]

My point was that I might say one thing is best and others may say another is best and there's no way we will ever know who had the best way for that dog.

You can see what works best for a particular dog quite easily where you really have only two types of "basic" reinforcement being aversive or motivational then a fine tuning of either collectively. My opinion it's no good to keep plugging away at motivational training with a dog who lacks genetic focus and drive where a couple of corrections and consequence for the wrong behaviour does the world of good for that particular dog.....on the other hand, it's no good leash cranking a dog that does have strong genetic focus and drive like the Jack Russell I saw a couple of weeks ago with failed check chain training......he was a little pocket rocket, took to reward based training like a duck to water, awesome little dog I was initally coached in check chain training in the days when you did what the instructor told you to do in that obedience club and the old check chain was "the" tool of the trade so to speak, but it wasn't until I owned a dog of my own with genuine high drive that put the clairty into motivational and reward based training, but it doesn't work the best on all dog types, but as far is whether you can see what works best, I believe you can in the matter of minutes how a dog naturally responds to some simple exercises yes?

[Cosmolo]

I understand your point Santo re: the misinformation. But it is still a factor to be considered.

[Santo66]

I understand your point Santo re: the misinformation. But it is still a factor to be considered.

I don't disagree.......I just try and set the record straight from my opinion and educate them towards other considerations I feel are better for the dog's progress.

[corvus]

My point was that I might say one thing is best and others may say another is best and there's no way we will ever know who had the best way for that dog.

You can see what works best for a particular dog quite easily where you really have only two types of "basic" reinforcement being aversive or motivational then a fine tuning of either collectively. My opinion it's no good to keep plugging away at motivational training with a dog who lacks genetic focus and drive where a couple of corrections and consequence for the wrong behaviour does the world of good for that particular dog.....on the other hand, it's no good leash cranking a dog that does have strong genetic focus and drive like the Jack Russell I saw a couple of weeks ago with failed check chain training......he was a little pocket rocket, took to reward based training like a duck to water, awesome little dog I was initally coached in check chain training in the days when you did what the instructor told you to do in that obedience club and the old check chain was "the" tool of the trade so to speak, but it wasn't until I owned a dog of my own with genuine high drive that put the clairty into motivational and reward based training, but it doesn't work the best on all dog types, but as far is whether you can see what works best, I believe you can in the matter of minutes how a dog naturally responds to some simple exercises yes?

Not necessarily...

Every person brings their own flavour to training, and people relate better to some dogs than others. I would be unsurprised if a person who just 'gets' a dog on a basic level where other people do not will have more success with that dog regardless of the method they use. WIthin reason. It's a dance after all. You are pretty much bombarding them with signals whenever you interact with them and they are flooding you with signals as well. I've had trainers from the same organisation disagree pretty dramatically on just one aspect of the personality of a dog they all train. I expect it's because that deviant's particular style just gels really nicely with that dog and they do much better as a team than the same dog with other trainers using the same methods.

[Erny]

It's a dance after all. You are pretty much bombarding them with signals whenever you interact with them and they are flooding you with signals as well.

This ^ part of what Corvus has written is something I wholeheartedly agree with. THIS is the part that touches on the 'inside' of the dog rather than thinking on the 'surface' of the dog. I feel this a lot when I work with dogs. It is about "connection" at an 'inner sense' level. Sure, the outward training method used assists as an aid to the training desired to be achieved (as can the training tools and how they are applied) and can be a part of the message/s being sent to the dog, but reading signals from the dog and delivering signals to the dog does not just come from training tools or training methods. This traverse of signals, back and forth, is as Corvus says, "a dance". This is the part of dog training I particularly love.

[moosmum]

It's a dance after all. You are pretty much bombarding them with signals whenever you interact with them and they are flooding you with signals as well.

This ^ part of what Corvus has written is something I wholeheartedly agree with. THIS is the part that touches on the 'inside' of the dog rather than thinking on the 'surface' of the dog. I feel this a lot when I work with dogs. It is about "connection" at an 'inner sense' level. Sure, the outward training method used assists as an aid to the training desired to be achieved (as can the training tools and how they are applied) and can be a part of the message/s being sent to the dog, but reading signals from the dog and delivering signals to the dog does not just come from training tools or training methods. This traverse of signals, back and forth, is as Corvus says, "a dance". This is the part of dog training I particularly love.

Yeah ! :)