Pulling And Pulling

[haven]

Will find out for you, certainly. What is an Ecollar?

[pgm]

Ecollar - electronic dog collar used for training.

[haven]

Yeah I know about remote trainers etc, but you mentioned that with the ecollar the dog can turn it off? how does this work and to what purpose? Or do you mean the dog can 'learn how to turn it off' by offering the correct behaviour eg not barking or faster recall etc.

[pgm]

Or do you mean the dog can 'learn how to turn it off' by offering the correct behaviour eg not barking or faster recall etc.

Yes, that is what I mean. And it is the first thing the trainer does. Here is an example. Press the ecollar and hold it down (low level stim) and at the same time say 'sit' whilst simultaneously placing the dog in a sit, as soon as the dog's bum hits the ground take your finger off the button (whole thing takes less than a second). Half dozen reps, the dog will be sitting on its own accord as it will have figured out that sitting turns off the ecollar. Every exercise is taught in a similar fashion.

[haven]

Yep, getcha. When you say every excersise is taught in a similar fashion, to me that implies that you start teaching a new skill using - reinforcement. Is this a correct assumption? BTW is it nearly 1am where you are? I gotta get to bed!

Edited June 1, 2005 by haven

[pgm]

that implies that you start teaching a new skill using - reinforcement.

Yes.

I am somewhere in Australia, and you should go to bed...

[Kavik]

The experiment with the two mice was to show that that if not shown how to turn off the negative stimulus (no control over environment), you get learned helplessness - the animal thinks there is no way out of the unpleasantness and enevtually doesn't even try.

[Rusky]

oh dear PGM this is why we will never get along

To my way of thinking, the only thing that is better 'ethically' is to get better results - meaning: a confident, healthy, well-behaved animal. If one could produce better results by smashing the dog over the head with a sledgehammer, then in principle, I would have no objections.

not that it matters really I am just astounded and will now leave you all to debate *cough* to your hearts content.

hate this too Kavik makes me ill, you are correct of course.

The experiment with the two mice was to show that that if not shown how to turn off the negative stimulus (no control over environment), you get learned helplessness - the animal thinks there is no way out of the unpleasantness and enevtually doesn't even try.

[Steve K9Pro]

K9: actually, learned helplessness is a stress related condition rather than anything to do with negative stimulus or environmental control.

A dog can reach learned helplessness by being stuck in a fence, being yelled at, feeling sick & many other factors.

[Kavik]

Just going from memory there, knew I may not have gotten it totally right! I remember the example in the course being about it though . . .

[MonElite]

learned helplessness - you know about the elephants that are tied up by the back leg when they are young. They grow up and easily can break of the line but never try. This is learned helplessness.

[Steve K9Pro]

K9: many would have you believe that LE is an e collar condition, but it isnt, & when using an e collar correctly, you wont raise stress in your dog as much as other types of training

[Guest Tess32]

The only reason people describe themselves as 'positive trainers' is to differentiate themselves from other types of trainers, such as traditional trainers.

I don't think so - I still think it's just become a handy catch phrase.

Maybe most people mean they don't use +P? I *know* that some do not use "NO".

I don't know why - I don't see how it's possible to *always* teach an alternate behaviour instead. Eg. I wanted to stop Reilly going around the heater, so I used "NO" and he no longer does. The only alternate behaviour I can think of is to teach a "sit" instead of 'go around the heater' but I don't exactly want him sitting every time he passes the object AND I'm teaching "around" so I don't want him to stop going around things in general.

*shrug*.

Nat

[Staranais]

I honestly think that most trainers that advertise as "positive" or "purely positive" really just mean that they try not to use physical corrections.

The one trainer I know who describes herself as purely positive (won't use verbal corrections) still uses negative punishment, so even she's not purely positive in the operant conditioning sense of the term.

Since the general public normally think of "positive" as meaning "good" or "nice", then I guess calling yourself "positive" is a good marketing ploy - who wouldn't want to go to a "positive" trainer? It just gets kind of confusing when you talk operant conditioning, since those "positive" trainers don't actually only use operant conditioning "positive" techniques.

This issue is really very confusing.

[Kavik]

I'm pretty sure the example with the mice was done to show learned helplessness, but I can't find it in my notes. Will have to do a thorough search.

I think because the mouse that was shocked and not initially shown how to turn it off took a really long time to learn to turn it off when eventually shown how to.

[m-j]

Pqm I'm not trying to wind you up.

The Koehler I remember reading did mention praise but the emphasis is on reprimand (why would he have insult the "humanics" it appears he so despises if the books emphasis was on praise).

He appears anthropomorphic in several areas but the one I remeber the best was the "revenge piddler" the dog that, after housetraining, starts eliminating when left alone. The solution, tie the dog near it's mess and give severe and prolonged(there was a lot of emphasis on this I do remember) beatings every 20 mins for how long I can't remeber..... Oh please!!!!!!!!!! What about the other reasons, other than waging a vendetta against it's owner for leaving it alone (this would be laughable if it wasn't so sad), like say a bladder infection, I don't recall any mention of getting this possibility eliminated. Perhaps I remember the bad bits more than the good? bits, cos I'm one of those pathetic "humanics", the people I think you referred to as soft in the head and full of petty insecurities Wasn't always tho.

I have seen the long line technique used ( the book passes over into what I call cruelty on this ) and another dog hung, both failed DISMALLY to the detriment of the these dogs and another that was very badly attacked. The hanging training did work for a short time (about 4 mths) but in the long run had actually made the dog more cunning so therefore quite dangerous, all they did was suppress the outward signs of aggression they didn't completely change her mind. The trainer had been a Koehler advocate, he had used it and had obedient dogs for about 20 yrs of which I had known him for about 5 back then.

I train using no verbal or physical reprimands that are intentionally given by me. I can't physically reprimand the dog as I don't have the dogs onlead when teaching behaviours (except loose lead walking) and I don't verbalise except to give a cue or praise and encouragement. I do set myself up to succeed.

I instruct at a compulsion club (corrections/reprimands verbal and check chains and praise) every second week and at a "positive" school every week. I have had 3 nearly 4 yrs of observing the general differences, as an instructor , 7 more as a crossover trainer after 20 yrs training using compulsion, (not saying I'm a good trainer just that I have had the opportunity over a certain amount of time, to make these observations), between the 2 methods whose motivators are different and I know what I like. Not the stuff scientific research is made of but an observation nonetheless, but each to their own opinion.

As far as terminology goes I must admit I'm not right up on it, but while training I don't think that I'm operantly conditioning the dog and it is operantly conditioning me, or that I'm using P+, P- or whatever, I just train, trying to give the dog/animal the least amount of stress I can.

cheers

M-J

[haven]

I'm pretty sure the example with the mice was done to show learned helplessness, but I can't find it in my notes. Will have to do a thorough search.

I think because the mouse that was shocked and not initially shown how to turn it off took a really long time to learn to turn it off when eventually shown how to.

Yes you are correct in both instances kavik.

What the experimeners were not expecting was finding that the mouse that did have the ability to control the situation from the start by turing off the shock became far more confident and exceeded all the other mice in problem solving tasks. In fact, when this mouse was then put into the environment where he could not turn off the shock, he did not develop learned helplessness.

Sorry still working on the reference.

Amhailite, I agree. Lack of education leads to incorrect use of training terms. When people say they use positive methods, the general public perceive it in the context of positive meaning good, when it fact in this context it simply means giving or doing to (the dog).

[pgm]

m-j

The section you mention regarding housetraining is contained at the back of the book in the small section titled 'Problems'. There are 174 pages preceding this section. There is also five paragraphs on housetraining which is almost identical to the advice given today before any mention is made of dealing with those dogs that do not respond to normal housebreaking methods. These methods are preceded by the advice given in the introduction that only in exteme cases as a 'last resort' should these methods be employed. They are also preceded with the advice that the dog should be taken through the ten week course BEFORE addressing these problems. Koehler knew as well as everybody else that many of these issues stem from boredom which are easily solved through physical and mental exercise - namely training, which provides both.

Why you and others are drawn to this small section of the book, which is preceded by the advice that only after the training has been completed and only in extreme cases, where the only other alternative is to be pts, one can only guess.

What I do know however, is only someone who has failed to read the preceding 174 pages would think that Koehler puts the emphasis on reprimand rather than on praise.

Those of us who have indeed read the first 174 pages and followed the advice know better.

As to your charge of anthropomorphism I notice that like most people you use it when it suits you. So on one hand, a dog is incapable of doing something 'out of revenge', yet in the very next paragraph you say -

The hanging training did work for a short time (about 4 mths) but in the long run had actually made the dog more cunning so therefore quite dangerous, all they did was suppress the outward signs of aggression they didn't completely change her mind.

So on one hand, the dog is not capable of 'cunning' (peeing out of spite) and yet on the other hand he IS capable of 'cunning'?

why would he have insult the "humanics" it appears he so despises if the books emphasis was on praise

Maybe it's because the mere mention of reprimand turns such people's minds to mush rendering them incapable of reading and understanding something IN CONTEXT.

Edited June 2, 2005 by pgm

[m-j]

So on one hand, the dog is not capable of 'cunning' (peeing out of spite) and yet on the other hand he IS capable of 'cunning'?

Yes cunning was a bad word to use. It took her 4 mths but she watched her owner learnt why the new training was applied, how he operated, saw a momentory loophole seized the moment (she needed to let those suppressed feelings out) and ran with it, the result a nearly dead dog. Yes I do believe that dogs can work things like that out, we couldn't train them if they didn't.

There is also five paragraphs on housetraining which is almost identical to the advice given today before any mention is made of dealing with those dogs that do not respond to normal housebreaking methods. These methods are preceded by the advice given in the introduction that only in exteme cases as a 'last resort' should these methods be employed.

Putting the dogs nose near it and "spanking with a rolled up newspaper" is not in any more recently published books that I have read, or the advise we give at the compulsion club. There is a difference between teaching the dog by giving it a correction and correcting because you are proofing, the book didn't seem too concerned with this in the front 174 pages. During the learning phase before and after training the dog needs to be locked up so you are percieved as a good guy.

No deprivation for me, the training itself is rewarding. I've lost count of the times I have fed the dogs, then gone and done a training session using food as my motivator and been very happy with the results.

Would you really beat a "revenge piddler" a dog that could have a WHOLE RANGE OF PROBLEMS that a 10 week course using Koehler and going through his house-training regime wouldn't fix in this lifetime or the next

Maybe it's because the mere mention of reprimand turns such people's minds to mush rendering them incapable of reading and understanding something IN CONTEXT

As I have mentioned in a previous post my mind wasn't always mush. I am ashamed to say there was a period of time, when Koehler would have been proud of me. and I do instruct at a compulsion training club (physical ie check chains and verbal corrections/reprimands with praise) my mind can't be too mushy yet.

Koehler knew as well as everybody else that many of these issues stem from boredom which are easily solved through physical and mental exercise - namely training, which provides both.

This is a great idea if you have a lot of spare time, didn't have to work no family to do things for and had the energy to keep up with a very active Kelpie and have only one dog. I prefer to keep them busy with other things that exercises their minds, that I don't even have to be home for, as well as training, exercise etc.

What would you advise a handler who is elderly, or had a stroke or had a neurological disorder so was unsteady on her feet, that owned big youngish basically untrained dogs ? I fail to see how Koehler could help people like these.

[pgm]

There is a difference between teaching the dog by giving it a correction and correcting because you are proofing, the book didn't seem too concerned with this in the front 174 pages.

Are you kidding? I thought you said that you read the book? What, have you really forgotten everything before page 175?

Page 67: "Nevertheless, continue to follow through with the mechanics of placing each time you stop, for to risk failure of response before it is time to correct the dog for not obeying your single command is to do damage."

If you have been reading and following instructions (which obviously excludes yourself and Rusky and many others) you will have placed the dog approx 200 times over four days, with praise being given after each and every repetition, before you are in a position to apply a correction - and only then assuming your dog fails to comply.

Would you really beat a "revenge piddler" a dog that could have a WHOLE RANGE OF PROBLEMS that a 10 week course using Koehler and going through his house-training regime wouldn't fix in this lifetime or the next

If I knew for a fact that NOTHING would correct the problem then the answer is no. But what this has got to do with anything I don't know...

What would you advise a handler who is elderly, or had a stroke or had a neurological disorder so was unsteady on her feet, that owned big youngish basically untrained dogs ? I fail to see how Koehler could help people like these.

Why not go further and ask me what Koehler would advise for someone in a coma who had an out of control dog? I mean please - can you get any sillier?

During the learning phase before and after training the dog needs to be locked up so you are percieved as a good guy.

Fancy leaving your dog out in the back garden for an hour or so by themselves...oh, the cruelty, the inhumanity of it all...!!!!

I am ashamed to say there was a period of time, when Koehler would have been proud of me.

I doubt that very much given your inability to read. I doubt very much whether you have ever used Koehler as INSTRUCTED. Either that or you have suddenly become senile and forgotten everything.

Just because you may have used a check chain or seen others using a check chain does not mean that you were using Koehler.