Have A Training Question....

[Erny]

LuvMyBc:  Basically when i caught her i told her "no, not yours" and then handed her one of her toys

T32:  "no" has already stopped the puppy (and presumably acted as a mild aversive)

Where, in LMB's quote above, is it described that the pup stopped the unwanted behaviour?

T32:  If LuvMyBC does this correctly and had conditioned the "NO" to mean...well, No .......... then it is the same as what you said earlier and the NO startles/stops the puppy and then puppy is then set up for success by giving it to the new, appropriate chew toy and rewarding.

No - it's not the same. As I mentioned earlier, this is good that it worked for LMB. But as I said above, for many pups/dogs, the time lapse between the "No" and the "Reward" can be insufficient enough for the pup to pair the two together and regard the "No" as a precurser to the "Reward". The method I suggested serves to greater remove the risk of this occuring.

T32:  .....that's a whole other discussion, lets just assume it's been done...

Aaahh, assumption again. What if "No" wasn't conditioned, though. Would that alter your thoughts on the method LMB used? Do you think it should be different for one (ie before conditioning) than the other (ie after conditioning)?

T32:  Haven - I don't think this sounds like an "alpha" issue, the puppy hasn't even yet been taught what is acceptable.

No one has suggested it is an alpha issue. Are you suggesting to wait until there are "alpha issues" evident and THEN be reactive?

I'd rather be pro-active by teaching my pup from the very beginning that I am leader and that he/she can trust and depend on that leadership. Part of being a leader is assuming the right to govern.

T32:  Lets be clear - I disagree with Kitty being told to physically grab the puppy in this instance

You've already made this clear in your earlier posts, Nat. And you're entitled to your opinion, as you've already expressed.

And just as equally, IMO, I see nothing wrong with holding the skin on a pup's neck. As I mentioned in my earlier posts, you are the one imposing into the OP's words the intensity with which the pup is held. Another assumption on your part.

T32:  Wasn't the punishment LATE? As the puppy has already run off, she catches up with it, punishes it .....

As has already been mentioned, Kitty's club has spoken to her and clarified things for her.  Kitty was unaware that she could call ADT during the week to query anything that she wasn't sure of.

Edited October 4, 2005 by Erny

[Guest Tess32]

Where, in LMB's quote above, is it described that the pup stopped the unwanted behaviour?

This is getting quite pedantic. Aren't we looking at the *method*? The method she described is IMO "say "no" to stop the puppy and then redirect.

As with any method, there are ways it can be done incorrectly. IMO, this would be to shove a toy towards the puppy even if the "no" was ineffective or to not have conditioned the "no" in the first place.

I thought it was clear (maybe not) I would be comparing your method (done correctly) with LMB's method (also done correctly) rather than your method (done correctly) and her method incorrectly. Seems a waste of time?

However if you're assuming the pup didn't stop because that wasn't clearly stated, and I'm assuming it did stop, then the argument can't really be argued until she clarifies.

Aaahh, assumption again.  What if "No" wasn't conditioned, though.  Would that alter your thoughts on the method LMB used?  Do you think it should be different for one (ie before conditioning) than the other (ie after conditioning)?

As above, that would make it pointless. But, if Kitty also hadn't conditioned the "No", and grabs the puppy and says "no"...that's also pointless.

No one has suggested it is an alpha issue.  Are you suggesting to wait until there are "alpha issues" evident and THEN be reactive? 

Ha Erny - isn't that one of those ASSUMPTIONS you keep talking about?

As has already been mentioned, Kitty's club has spoken to her and clarified things for her.  Kitty was unaware that she could call ADT during the week to query anything that she wasn't sure of.

That doesn't really answer my question though. Do you consider the punishment LATE?

The puppy has ALREADY run off - don't you think that holding the puppy and saying "no" might confuse the puppy and the puppy might think it was punishment for running away, and not even connect the dots and think of the chewing?

Puppy might remember the 'body language' though and run off even quicker? That's the trick with punishment isn't it - puppy wants to escape it and how do you escape it? Run away quicker!

Might not someone start to escalate the punishment even thought the pup STILL hasn't been taught what it should be chewing?

I'm not against aversives Erny, I just wouldn't advise this method to someone inexperienced in case the above happens.

Nat

Edited October 4, 2005 by Tess32

[Erny]

T32: This is getting quite pedantic. ................... Seems a waste of time?

Pedantic? No. Waste of time ... for you, perhaps. But some may not find it so.

All I'm suggesting to readers is that they should be careful to ensure there is a reasonable pause (eg. 5 seconds) between the pup stopping the unwanted behaviour and receiving a reward, so's best to avoid the possibility of the dog pairing the two together.

Can't see anything wrong with that suggestion.

However if you're assuming the pup didn't stop because that wasn't clearly stated

It wasn't stated at all.

then the argument can't really be argued until she clarifies.

I'm not arguing .... Just posting so some may benefit. ;) again.

T32:  But, if Kitty also hadn't conditioned the "No", and grabs the puppy and says "no"...that's also pointless.

But that's how the "unconditioned" becomes the "conditioned". Kitty holds her pup, sternly says No, takes the wrong chew item away. A small time break and Kitty gives her pup an appropriate chew item and praises for it chewing on it.

What's your method of conditioning the unconditioned?

T32:  I don't think this sounds like an "alpha" issue .. 

Erny:  No one has suggested it is an alpha issue.  Are you suggesting to wait until there are "alpha issues" evident and THEN be reactive? 

T32:  Ha Erny - isn't that one of those ASSUMPTIONS you keep talking about?   

No - I was asking you a question. Didn't get an answer, though.

T32:  That doesn't really answer my question though.  Do you consider the punishment LATE? The puppy has ALREADY run off - don't you think that holding the puppy and saying "no" might confuse the puppy and the puppy might think it was punishment for running away, and not even connect the dots and think of the chewing?

I never endorsed running after the puppy and then punishing it. And that was not advice that was given for Kitty to do. In fact, that was her question in her OP ... should she do it? And she only posted it there because she was unaware that she could speak with ADT during the week.

Should I have the feeling you're trying to push me to the wall, Nat?

T32:  Might not someone start to escalate the punishment even thought the pup STILL hasn't been taught what it should be chewing?  I'm not against aversives Erny, I just wouldn't advise this method to someone inexperienced in case the above happens.

So ... are you suggesting that no one should speak of holding on to the scruff of the dog's neck and sternly say "No" for fear that they might escalate the punishment? To what degree? Are you suggesting to the "abusive" degree?

[Guest Tess32]

All I'm suggesting to readers is that they should be careful to ensure there is a reasonable pause (eg. 5 seconds) between the pup stopping the unwanted behaviour and receiving a reward, so's best to avoid the possibility of the dog pairing the two together.

Sure, sounds good. Your post implied to me that you felt she wasn't doing that though.

The method is pretty common, my point was that it's pretty much the same as yours, except you specified more.

What's your method of conditioning the unconditioned?

Like I said, whole other discussion that could go on a long time! Basically I would use the method you described and say no to "startle" and stop and reward for the stopping. So 'no' basically means "stop what you're doing and you *won't be going back to it*" and then you can proceed with a reward or whatever. In the kitty example, the puppy can't stop what it's doing as it is being held and so it has no chance of stopping by itself. But as I have 20000 photos to edit, maybe we could keep the conditioning thread for another time?! Or maybe someone else wants to discuss it.

I never endorsed running after the puppy and then punishing it. And that was not advice that was given for Kitty to do. In fact, that was her question in her OP ... should she do it? And she only posted it there because she was unaware that she could speak with ADT during the week.

Should I have the feeling you're trying to push me to the wall, Nat?

Not at all - my point was that kitty went on to say she was right, and I wanted it to be clear (and frankly, I would have been very surprised if ADT had of supported obviously late punishment) that it *wasn't* right. She may have been referring to or meaning "no I feel the METHOD is right and am sticking to it", but it didn't really come across that way and so I didn't want anyone else to read it and think it was a good option to run after the pup.

So ... are you suggesting that no one should speak of holding on to the scruff of the dog's neck and sternly say "No" for fear that they might escalate the punishment? To what degree? Are you suggesting to the "abusive" degree?

I'm saying I wouldn't discuss it until the person really knew what they were doing and understood the importance of timing punishment.

Once the person understands timing, then the situation changes.

Nat

Edited October 4, 2005 by Tess32

[Herr Rottweiler]

I'm honestly enjoying this debate ;)

I would have to say that anyone who is new to training would benefit by reading along with this thread as it raises some good concerns and some good answers.

One point that I will make.... not everydog can be trained withe the EXACT same methods and some owners are clearly more competent than others.

Further back in one of the posts someone mentioned never calling your dog to you to punish it. This statement should be framed and placed in every household of every dog owner! The greatest injustice you could ever do to a dog is call it to you to be punished This would probably be the most bond diminishing exercises in the book!

Nat, as far as grabbing dogs by the scruff for bad behaviour, I personally don't have a problem with it providing that;

A: It's trained properly

B: That the punishment fits the crime

If only some people had been a little firmer on their dogs then we would have a lot less dogs treated as disposable commodities in pounds.

In making this statement, let me add that I have no objection to positive training as I regularly encourage it and so do the other trainers at ADT however, my personal philosophy in training is, "Use what works best for the dog"

[Eldoop]

Also Kitty said earlier she felt what she did was right - really? Wasn't the punishment LATE? As the puppy has already run off, she catches up with it, punishes it - isn't it being punished for running off (the last immediate action) and not the chewing anyway?

Nat

Hi Nat, No Minx only got afew steps from me as I was stand in the yard with her at the time, I asked the question about what to do 'if' the dog took off as this made me think, sorry if I worded it badly

Oh and for everyone else BTW Minx hasn't touched the bedding since, and my recall training is going fantastic, so NO!! she hasn't been scarred or thought she was punshed for running off (which as I said, she didn't 'run' off, only afew steps, so she knew what she was being told NO for, it was clear, so you have that straight now ok )

[Eldoop]

Please refer to original (first) post

[chezzyr]

Hey Kitty, I reckon if what you did worked and you werent committing any criminal acts (and the dog isnt suffering as a result), then go for it. We are all still learning. Some people just get caught up in the esoterics of the situation

[Guest Tess32]

Kitty - it's one of those times where the discussion wasn't "really" about you anymore, it becomes kinda theoretical instead

That's how people learn, thinking and discussing it

Nat

[Erny]

Oh and for everyone else BTW Minx hasn't touched the bedding since, and my recall training is going fantastic ....

Glad to hear, Kitty! Keep up your good work and enthusiasm. I'm rapt to hear you're enjoying training with your pup and sharing special times. Good for you.

[Eldoop]

No worrys guys glad to hear all is good again

[Herr Rottweiler]

It's always good Kitty It doesn't matter if people are jumping up and down and breathing fire, debate is a healthy part of Australian democracy. The main thing is that you get the best results for your puppy and you're both elated by the outcome.

Animal advice always tend to get a little heated at times especially when fact is substituted by emotion, misunderstanding and limited education.

My old science teacher used to always say, " A little knowledge can be very dangerous"

[pgm]

sorry to get technical, but I don't really understand the part about rewarding the dog after he has stopped chewing, whether its immediately after, or whether it ten seconds or so after.

I mean stopping my dog from chewing is not about teaching a behavior its about extinguishing behavior.

Some of you are talking about conditioning the word 'no', so as you can use the word to stop certain unwanted behaviors - why?

What happens when you are not around to say 'no'?

Of course, having the word 'no' is handy for many things - I just don't understand why you would want it in this particular situation when what you want to do is to extinguish behavior rather than teach.

[haven]

Because ideally you should do both. Pups need to chew so they must be provided with appropriate chew items. You can simply punish the pup for chewing the inappropriate items (which, by the way is not extinction training) or you can also teach the pup what IS an appropriate chew item by rewarding them for doing it.

[yogibear]

ah a little learning can be a dangerous thing but a lot of ignorance is just as bad

bob edwards

[Herr Rottweiler]

Haven :p Nice short answer.

I have been thinking scenarios to this question for a couple of hours and I agree with your reply. Puppies won't stop chewing, dogs wont stop stop chewing, so infact they need to form an associtaion to what is allowable to chew and what isn't. Part of this process is conditioning the command 'NO' with some form of reprimand that modifies the dogs current behaviour.

This way we can begin to condition the dog to understand if it touches any item that it shouldn't it carries consequences however if the dog chews on something that is presented to it it by the owner/ alpha we pair that with a positive.

pgm, you asked, "what happens if you're not around to say no?"

To answer that easily, who knows? You wern't there and you have to deal with the aftermath when you get home, (which doesn't involve dragging the dog over to the destruction) OR you can do what I do and put Vicks vapour rub on things that the dog would most likely chew as a preventative measure.

6 P's of training

Proper planning prevents piss poor performance

Plan ahead before you go out. pick up your stuff you don't want chewwed, leave a lambs neck out for th dog which will distract it for quite some time, maybe a kongball with some peanut butter inside, whatever it takes.

[Herr Rottweiler]

ah a little learning can be a dangerous thing but a lot of ignorance is just as bad

bob edwards

Hmmm, that means exactly the same thing :p

[yogibear]

does it really hmmm

[yogibear]

Education is a progressive discovery of our own ignorance.

[Herr Rottweiler]

Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level then beat you with experience