Topic For Discussion - Keep It Nice, Folks ;)

[persephone]

LINK TO ARTICLE

This is one person's writings about her very strong feelings against P O training .

I agree with a lot of her points .. but, in the end, it is just her opinion . :)

short excerpts :

We people live in a world of boundaries and consequences. Ignore the crossing light and possibly get hit by a car. Exceed the speed limit and you risk a ticket. Be mean too many times to a friend and you risk losing themBut in the PO universe there are no consequences for canine bad behavior. You are supposed to either ignore or distract bad behavior. Don't correct the dog for chewing your shoes; pick them up. Don't correct the dog for chewing on the couch; give him a toy. Don't correct the puppy for jumping on you; step back. Don't correct the puppy for biting your hand; move it higher or ignore it…he'll quit eventually. (Then give him a cookie for ceasing to bite!) Ignoring bad behavior will extinguish it, because they get no positive reinforcement from it. (Really? The dogs I see get a heck of a lot of positive reinforcement from jumping and chewing and biting what's around them.)

``````````````````````````````````````````````````

Competitive obedience trials are 60+ years old. During most of that time, Novice dogs lined up to perform their Sits and Downs without muss, fuss or controversy. Open dogs waited patiently for their people to come back from out of sight. Obedience trials once the bastion of canine compliance are now too regularly concerned about dog fights and mayhem. How has this come to pass?In the last 10-15 years, group Sits and Downs have become "Awful", "Impractical", "Dangerous" or "Foolish exercises". How did the sport manage to get from Group exercises being a "no big deal" part of the sport to a constant whining tempest?A culture, quite frankly a cult, has risen. This cult believes that a dog should never be corrected for bad behavior and that a dog should live in a world without framework, boundaries or consequences. Living in this type of environment makes a dog hyper, hysterical, aggressive and unable to function out in the world.

```````````````````````````

Back in the day, training methods were pretty harsh. After all, when you start with the premise that you have to wait until a puppy is 6 months old to be strong enough for the training…that gives you a clue. Now the Pendulum has swung all the way to the other side and Positive Only is the only sound that may be heardIf none of us can stomach the idea of going back to the choke and puke methods, and PO is dangerous and ineffective, what is left for us to try?How about a Balanced approach?Balance—to bring into harmony or proportion (Webster's DictionaryWhat a beautiful, rational goal. To accomplish this goal, a savvy teacher seeks out and dumps words with an extremist leanings such as Positive Only. When something is an "only" it is by nature unbalanced. Instead look for the balance of positive and negative reinforcementsReinforcements are information. I've used the example many times that teaching a dog is the process of escorting him down a hallway full of doors. These doors represent choices of action. The teacher's job is to help him make good choicesIn the PO world, if my dog chooses to walk to a door I can say, "Yes! Behind that door are cookies and hot dogs and all manner of good things to eat." If he walks to another door I can again say, "Yes! Behind that door are games and play equipment, friends and ball tossers." However, if my dog walks to a certain third door, I can say nothing. My dog walks thru the door…and gets eaten by a tiger.I think, "No, don't go there" would have been useful information.

Edited December 31, 2015 by persephone

[The Spotted Devil]

Positive is not permissive.

What if my dog doesn't move through the doorway until she's told she may...

Edited December 31, 2015 by The Spotted Devil

[superminty]

Balanced is often used by trainers as a "friendly" euphemism for old school, dominance theory based, aversive training methods that are used as an across the board practice when they are not necessary and much kinder and gentler positive training methods would be highly effective. When trainers advertise themselves as balanced, in my experience, it's not really about being balanced at all and involves things like dogs on check chains being physically pulled up on to their feet if they dare to lie down without permission during a very long class, dogs being forcibly dragged around a circle of dogs to meet at a short distance (but no contact) even though they're terrified and trying to scramble backwards and away from the other dogs, using ecollars to treat cases of extreme anxiety, tying dogs up so that they are unable to escape from things they are afraid of etc etc.

It's sad that the word "balanced" has become a poisoned cue, and not a word people can trust to mean their trainer is open minded and flexible. Every trainer I associate with and recommend is a balanced trainer - in the true sense of the word. Kind, humane, flexible methods, adaptable to dog and owner needs, applies classical and operant conditioning fairly and consistently.

The poisoning of the word "balanced" due to situations described above is why I don't label myself as any type of trainer, but rather explain to my clients how I approach individual situations and let them judge for themselves whether they are happy to hire me or allow me to handle their dog.

Edited December 31, 2015 by superminty

[mita]

I follow the evidence. University of Bristol is a great centre for studies on dog behaviour & the consequences of different approaches to training.... including the 'balanced' approach. They use rather blunt language ... 'correction' is put in terms of 'punishment' either verbal or physical. So a heck of a lot rides on exactly what trainer-behaviour fits what the OP article means by 'correction'.

Results of this Bristol study provide useful evidence. Even just the Discussion of the results & Conclusion, at the end, provide a useful read.

http://img2.timg.co.il/forums/1_149537364.pdf

Edited December 31, 2015 by mita

[Mrs Rusty Bucket]

I haven't got time to go through the whole article but it's clear to me that the person who wrote it doesn't understand reward based training, how to use it or why it works - and faster than aversive based training.

Here's what I've got so far.

But most of the more emotional statements - just look like crap to me. It does explain the trouble I have explaining to my brother and the old school trainers at the old school club (and yes some of them are well over 80 and refuse to even listen).

This cult believes that a dog should never be corrected for bad behavior and that a dog should live in a world without framework, boundaries or consequences. Living in this type of environment makes a dog hyper, hysterical, aggressive and unable to function out in the world.

The reward based trainers I follow, are not permissive. They do not allow their dogs to behave badly. They set up their dogs for success by starting their training in a low distraction environment - eg a small boring room in the home - not the crazy yank and crank paddock bashing fest that is most obedience dog club classes for beginners.

The obedience clubs are the ones punishing dogs for friendly behaviour - so 7 years ago - there were quite a few instructors who could not let their dogs near any other dogs. And during my time in that environment - I watched one instructor have the worst time getting her dog to recall. All the old school trainers believed it was impossible to train a dog to stay or recall before it was 12 months old and they hated puppy classes.

Could it be that hyper, hysterical aggressive dogs - might come from puppy farms where they get no propper human or dog socialisations before they go to their new homes. And the new homes belong to people where both parents work all day and the kids are at school all day. In the "Old days" - there was always someone home to keep the puppy out of trouble.

The rabid attacks on Ceasar Millan are a case in point

There's plenty of youtube video of Ceasar Milan that clearly show that what he does encourages dog bites. Even he says "do not try this at home" but I meet people every day that do try that at home - and they get bitten and their dog gets progressively more and more aggressive. There is lots of animal training science available now that shows that CM's methods actually slow the dog's ability to learn what is required. Counter productive at best, and dangerours at worst.

Positive Only holds sway in the training world.

I don't think this is true. The obedience clubs in this state are very slow to change over to best practice as proved by scientific study over and over. But if you'd like an anecdote - Black Caviar was trained using rewards, and never hit in a race.

Take those dolphins out into the Open Ocean and then prove how well PO works. (Yes, the Navy did do some work with dolphins out in the Open Ocean…but the dolphins wore muzzles that prevented them from eating.

Pretty sure Bob Bailey did not muzzle the dolphins - how can you reward a dolphin with fish if it is muzzled? Before Bob Bailey - I don't know what methods the Navy used. He probably did start the training off in a "controlled environment" where the dolphin could not nick off. I'm certain the Albatross he also trained for the Navy were not muzzled, and neither was the McCaw and other birds that do free flights at Adelaide Zoo. The McCaw did indeed nick off during a training session recently but as soon as it was found - it was very happy to return of its own accord to the trainers arm.

When PO training hits the real world, the real ocean, it falls apart the same as it does when PO trained dogs venture out into the world.

There's a world wide dog sport that challenges the validity of this. It's called Agility. You cannot get a fast dog with punishment. And these dogs will ignore all the distractions - other dogs running and barking in the next ring. Everything - to run with their owners. Most of them will hold a most excellent sit stay and not nick off to attack another dog. Better than I've seen in obedience classes where it's common with dogs that have been trained in a low distraction environment (no running and flapping and screaming during the stay practice at dog club) and then brought to compete in a high distraction environment.

The other issue that is overlooked about these wonderfully trained dolphins is that they are trained by PROFESSIONALS.

Nice back flip - it works or it doesn't. How do you feel about the person who brings you cake (or money or whatever you desire) in exchange for simple tasks - being good for santa - vs the person who gives you a speeding ticket, even when you thought you weren't speeding (limit changed, sign missing). Is it better for an amateur trainer to be using punishment and being nasty to their dog or to use rewards. The fall out for getting punishment wrong can be extreme, where if you get rewards wrong - all you need is a coach for better timing and mechanics and you can fix it.

You can't fix the trauma associated with years of badly done (amateur) yank and crank. How many dogs do we see out pullling like a freight train on their "slip" collar? Wouldn't be better if they were pulling on a flat collar, or hanging with the owner for a stream of treats (no pulling oooh). Neither is right but one is more successful than the other. With my dog - using a slip chain and yanking - meant I got a dog that did not want to walk to the park. For YEARS. Took me two years with good timing, rewards and a flat collar before she looked forward to a walk.

You don't need a clicker. And yes it's very precise but you don't need it. "yes" will do. "good dog" works. Shoving a treat in the dogs mouth works. Catch up, the science has moved on. How many of us feel a rush of pleasure when we see "approved" on the machine when we pay at the supermarket? I do.

Exquisite timing is more important when you're using punishment/averisves. If your timing is not perfect - it's not going to discourage a behaviour and then it's abuse. Hence CM does actually manage to train dogs while his casual students fail - because he has supurb timing. But the fall out is still bad. He and his students get bitten.

Using aversives is equivalent to teaching a child how to spell by hitting it with a ruler or just scolding it each time it makes a wrong guess about what letter comes next. And not telling the child what word it is they have to spell.

Edited December 31, 2015 by Mrs Rusty Bucket

[LisaCC]

Quite frankly I'm pretty damn sick of people in obedience complaining about modern methods and the sport being changed on one hand and on the other hand complaining how they can't get new people interested into the sport on the other.

[huski]

I don't understand the purpose of bashing other trainers to make a point or to make your training approach look good. If I see a trainer spend a lot of time bashing other methods (and this happens a lot on "both sides") I wonder why they have so much time to spare, and why they need to bring down others to promote their methods. Nothing makes a bigger statement than the results you get, IMO. you can argue about who is right until the cows come home but show me your dogs, and your clients dogs, then we can really judge ability.

[huski]

I haven't got time to go through the whole article but it's clear to me that the person who wrote it doesn't understand reward based training, how to use it or why it works - and faster than aversive based training.

Here's what I've got so far.

But most of the more emotional statements - just look like crap to me. It does explain the trouble I have explaining to my brother and the old school trainers at the old school club (and yes some of them are well over 80 and refuse to even listen).

This cult believes that a dog should never be corrected for bad behavior and that a dog should live in a world without framework, boundaries or consequences. Living in this type of environment makes a dog hyper, hysterical, aggressive and unable to function out in the world.

The reward based trainers I follow, are not permissive. They do not allow their dogs to behave badly. They set up their dogs for success by starting their training in a low distraction environment - eg a small boring room in the home - not the crazy yank and crank paddock bashing fest that is most obedience dog club classes for beginners.

The obedience clubs are the ones punishing dogs for friendly behaviour - so 7 years ago - there were quite a few instructors who could not let their dogs near any other dogs. And during my time in that environment - I watched one instructor have the worst time getting her dog to recall. All the old school trainers believed it was impossible to train a dog to stay or recall before it was 12 months old and they hated puppy classes.

Could it be that hyper, hysterical aggressive dogs - might come from puppy farms where they get no propper human or dog socialisations before they go to their new homes. And the new homes belong to people where both parents work all day and the kids are at school all day. In the "Old days" - there was always someone home to keep the puppy out of trouble.

The rabid attacks on Ceasar Millan are a case in point

There's plenty of youtube video of Ceasar Milan that clearly show that what he does encourages dog bites. Even he says "do not try this at home" but I meet people every day that do try that at home - and they get bitten and their dog gets progressively more and more aggressive. There is lots of animal training science available now that shows that CM's methods actually slow the dog's ability to learn what is required. Counter productive at best, and dangerours at worst.

Positive Only holds sway in the training world.

I don't think this is true. The obedience clubs in this state are very slow to change over to best practice as proved by scientific study over and over. But if you'd like an anecdote - Black Caviar was trained using rewards, and never hit in a race.

Take those dolphins out into the Open Ocean and then prove how well PO works. (Yes, the Navy did do some work with dolphins out in the Open Ocean…but the dolphins wore muzzles that prevented them from eating.

Pretty sure Bob Bailey did not muzzle the dolphins - how can you reward a dolphin with fish if it is muzzled? Before Bob Bailey - I don't know what methods the Navy used. He probably did start the training off in a "controlled environment" where the dolphin could not nick off. I'm certain the Albatross he also trained for the Navy were not muzzled, and neither was the McCaw and other birds that do free flights at Adelaide Zoo. The McCaw did indeed nick off during a training session recently but as soon as it was found - it was very happy to return of its own accord to the trainers arm.

When PO training hits the real world, the real ocean, it falls apart the same as it does when PO trained dogs venture out into the world.

There's a world wide dog sport that challenges the validity of this. It's called Agility. You cannot get a fast dog with punishment. And these dogs will ignore all the distractions - other dogs running and barking in the next ring. Everything - to run with their owners. Most of them will hold a most excellent sit stay and not nick off to attack another dog. Better than I've seen in obedience classes where it's common with dogs that have been trained in a low distraction environment (no running and flapping and screaming during the stay practice at dog club) and then brought to compete in a high distraction environment.

The other issue that is overlooked about these wonderfully trained dolphins is that they are trained by PROFESSIONALS.

Nice back flip - it works or it doesn't. How do you feel about the person who brings you cake (or money or whatever you desire) in exchange for simple tasks - being good for santa - vs the person who gives you a speeding ticket, even when you thought you weren't speeding (limit changed, sign missing). Is it better for an amateur trainer to be using punishment and being nasty to their dog or to use rewards. The fall out for getting punishment wrong can be extreme, where if you get rewards wrong - all you need is a coach for better timing and mechanics and you can fix it.

You can't fix the trauma associated with years of badly done (amateur) yank and crank. How many dogs do we see out pullling like a freight train on their "slip" collar? Wouldn't be better if they were pulling on a flat collar, or hanging with the owner for a stream of treats (no pulling oooh). Neither is right but one is more successful than the other. With my dog - using a slip chain and yanking - meant I got a dog that did not want to walk to the park. For YEARS. Took me two years with good timing, rewards and a flat collar before she looked forward to a walk.

You don't need a clicker. And yes it's very precise but you don't need it. "yes" will do. "good dog" works. Shoving a treat in the dogs mouth works. Catch up, the science has moved on. How many of us feel a rush of pleasure when we see "approved" on the machine when we pay at the supermarket? I do.

Exquisite timing is more important when you're using punishment/averisves. If your timing is not perfect - it's not going to discourage a behaviour and then it's abuse. Hence CM does actually manage to train dogs while his casual students fail - because he has supurb timing. But the fall out is still bad. He and his students get bitten.

Using aversives is equivalent to teaching a child how to spell by hitting it with a ruler or just scolding it each time it makes a wrong guess about what letter comes next. And not telling the child what word it is they have to spell.

I think you've used a lot of broad generalizations there, MRB.

Bad training is bad training whether you are using rewards or giving corrections. Neither are of benefit to the dog. If a dog has been incorrectly rewarded and bad behaviour reinforced, that doesn't make it better than a dog given a poorly timed correction. Both can have extreme consequences for the dog. Both have done damage. For every example of poorly used corrections I can give you an example of poorly used rewards... But that doesn't mean neither are effective when used properly.

Learning how to effectively use all quadrants of operant conditioning is a vital skill IMO. You could easily use your last paragraph to describe the pressure a dog can feel when free shaping. It's naive to believe there is no stress involved in "positive only" training, or that stress is a bad thing. Stress is present in all learning and dogs need to learn how to work through stress. You can use all four quadrants of OC in one training session, you don't have to pick one and only ever use that. A good trainer can instinctively adjust their methods or approach as the dog requires.

there is a lot of skill involved in using rewards properly, and they can be an extremely powerful tool. It doesn't make sense to me to say then, that using rewards incorrectly somehow does less damage or it is easy to fix things dogs learn incorrectly from rewards. my experience is actually the opposite, which is why I train everything with food or prey rewards.

[Willem]

I follow the evidence. University of Bristol is a great centre for studies on dog behaviour & the consequences of different approaches to training.... including the 'balanced' approach. They use rather blunt language ... 'correction' is put in terms of 'punishment' either verbal or physical. So a heck of a lot rides on exactly what trainer-behaviour fits what the OP article means by 'correction'.

Results of this Bristol study provide useful evidence. Even just the Discussion of the results & Conclusion, at the end, provide a useful read.

http://img2.timg.co.il/forums/1_149537364.pdf

sorry, but IMO this study(?) is pathetic - I can't see that the adopted methodologies could lead to any reasonable findings considering e.g.:

• small numbers of respondents (plus 70% women - how can they assume that this is a representative survey?)... plus neglecting the experience of each dog owner and the time spent for the training on the findings;
  
• ignoring impact of spaying on toilet training for female dogs;
  
• no objective assessment for obedience (in a way they leave it to the dog owners to rate the success of their trainings methods);
  
• total ignorance of breed specific behaviour;
  
• total ignorance of history of dog (owned and trained as a puppy, rehomed,...);
  

...and I never met a dog that didn't bark from time to time at other dogs...if this is classified as 'problematic behaviour'...oh dear...

Edited December 31, 2015 by Willem

[LisaCC]

...and I never met a dog that didn't bark from time to time at other dogs...if this is classified as 'problematic behaviour'...oh dear...

You haven't met many dogs then.

[Willem]

...and I never met a dog that didn't bark from time to time at other dogs...if this is classified as 'problematic behaviour'...oh dear...

You haven't met many dogs then.

if your dog never barked I would get him checked ...

[Denis Carthy]

mita

I follow the evidence. University of Bristol is a great centre for studies on dog behaviour & the consequences of different approaches to training.... including the 'balanced' approach. They use rather blunt language ... 'correction' is put in terms of 'punishment' either verbal or physical. So a heck of a lot rides on exactly what trainer-behaviour fits what the OP article means by 'correction'.

Results of this Bristol study provide useful evidence. Even just the Discussion of the results & Conclusion, at the end, provide a useful read.

http://img2.timg.co....1_149537364.pdf

mr rusty bucket

I haven't got time to go through the whole article

Bristol uni animal behaviour dept, specificaly in the 'dog training' area and senior lecturer Dr Rachel Casey was trashed in terms of its credibilty years ago.

The author of the vids below was contacted by the unis' lawyer as long ago as 2009 and told to remove the only existing vid (at that time) about Dr Casey from youtube -

The response to that letter was the vid maker made more vids which are all over youtube on Dr Rachel Casey Bristol Uni search 5 years on, the vid maker has the PDFs to prove his evidence and Bristol uni's legal dept could not and cannot do anything as a result, proffesionaly 'scared for life' comes to mind.

Using Bristol unis 'science' as 'evidence' is like going to court and pleading guilty of silliness

Bristol Dr Casey search

http://bit.ly/1mTii5N

.

Edited December 31, 2015 by Denis Carthy

[Xyz]

[*]ignoring impact of spaying on toilet training for female dogs;

I don't think you understand the difference between toilet training and incontinance??...

[Willem]

I don't think you understand the difference between toilet training and incontinance??...

well, that's the question the study should have included in their survey...I'm pretty sure their are quite some frustrated owners of spayed female dogs out there who have no idea that some of the accidents (urinating inside the house despite whatsoever toilette training they adopted) could be linked to spaying...

[LisaCC]

...and I never met a dog that didn't bark from time to time at other dogs...if this is classified as 'problematic behaviour'...oh dear...

You haven't met many dogs then.

if your dog never barked I would get him checked ...

There is a difference between a dog barking and problem barking.

And no my previous dog did not once bark at other dogs. I know many dogs that have no interest in barking at other dogs.

My current dog does get over excited some times and will bark, I recognise this as a problem behaviour and am taking steps to resolve this.

There is a time and a place.

[Willem]

mita

I follow the evidence. University of Bristol is a great centre for studies on dog behaviour & the consequences of different approaches to training.... including the 'balanced' approach. They use rather blunt language ... 'correction' is put in terms of 'punishment' either verbal or physical. So a heck of a lot rides on exactly what trainer-behaviour fits what the OP article means by 'correction'.

Results of this Bristol study provide useful evidence. Even just the Discussion of the results & Conclusion, at the end, provide a useful read.

http://img2.timg.co....1_149537364.pdf

mr rusty bucket

I haven't got time to go through the whole article

Bristol uni animal behaviour dept, specificaly in the 'dog training' area and senior lecturer Dr Rachel Casey was trashed in terms of its credibilty years ago.

The author of the vids below was contacted by the unis' lawyer as long ago as 2009 and told to remove the only existing vid (at that time) about Dr Casey from youtube -

The response to that letter was the vid maker made more vids which are all over youtube on Dr Rachel Casey Bristol Uni search 5 years on, the vid maker has the PDFs to prove his evidence and Bristol uni's legal dept could not and cannot do anything as a result, proffesionaly 'scared for life' comes to mind.

Using Bristol unis 'science' as 'evidence' is like going to court and pleading guilty of silliness

Bristol Dr Casey search

http://bit.ly/1mTii5N

.

the video is not any better than the study...beside this the name of this Dr C. is not even mentioned in the report so I don't think it is justified to trash the study just because of the origin.

If a scientific study claims to verify something, the results need to be repeatable and their have to be objective benchmarks, e.g. for the obedience level as the indicator of the success of the particular trainings methodology. This is not the case for this study, they compare the obedience levels of dogs with different ages, different breeds with different traits, different origin, different experience of the dog owners, and then they leave the rating to the owners - and finally they link the 'results' to the trainings method, that's scientific bollock.

[Willem]

...and I never met a dog that didn't bark from time to time at other dogs...if this is classified as 'problematic behaviour'...oh dear...

You haven't met many dogs then.

if your dog never barked I would get him checked ...

There is a difference between a dog barking and problem barking.

And no my previous dog did not once bark at other dogs. I know many dogs that have no interest in barking at other dogs.

My current dog does get over excited some times and will bark, I recognise this as a problem behaviour and am taking steps to resolve this.

There is a time and a place.

I had such a soft toy too when I was 9 years old, but I always wanted a real dog :D

Edited December 31, 2015 by Willem

[karen15]

My dogs don't bark at other dogs, I won't tolerate it. That's not to say the don't yip to encourage play, but barking at passing dogs is not on.

MRB not sure why you've had more success with a flat collar than slip lead, which I'm presuming is a choker? The cocker spaniel I got six months ago pulled so badly in a collar she'd give you blisters. One burl on the choker and she's a different dog. Her last owner cannot believe she walks on a loose lead for me. Correction is usually only ratcheting the chain not engaging it. Rarely do I need to engage the chain. I find flat collars give them something to lean into and they can pull to their hearts content.

[huski]

Dogs can learn to pull on any collar or tool, I've seen dogs pulling like steam trains on prong collars. It's just a tool, success is in the user

I wouldn't find it acceptable for my dogs to bark at others, either.

[Willem]

Dogs can learn to pull on any collar or tool, I've seen dogs pulling like steam trains on prong collars. It's just a tool, success is in the user

I wouldn't find it acceptable for my dogs to bark at others, either.

geez, and I thought that is the way they communicate...our dog barks sometime at the neighbour dog (the only way they can communicate as they are separated by a colourbond fence)....she barks something like I guess, 'ha, they let you out today, but stay away from my guinea pigs'...and he response 'who's interested in your stinky guinea pigs'...or something similar (the subject matter experts might be able to translate it :D ),...takes 5-10 seconds, and then each one follow their own business. If it takes longer the neighbour calls his dog or I call her, they come and barking stops. Sometimes we met her big Lab friend in the off leash area and sometimes they bark (to each other or just out of fun) while we let them run free...I can't see any kind of problematic behaviour in this...they are dogs.

Edited December 31, 2015 by Willem