Caucasian Ovcharka

[Danefied]

Originally Posted by StephyMei1112

Danified,

The Russian gentleman's words - not mine lol. I didn't even explain positive training properly to him and he didn't seem very interested - so I really can't speak for him but he and his dog seemed to be doing very well. Please see my note above about just doing what works for you and your dog and individuals.

My words still stand, I don’t care who said it, its BS.

My friend breeds CAS, lives with them along with other dogs, and she is a positive trainer. Her dogs go everywhere, to dog shows, to dog events, and they do the actual work they’re supposed to do - guard livestock.

“It works” is a really poor litmus test of effective training. Karen Pryor wasn’t being inflamatory when she titled her book “Don’t shoot the dog.” She was being real. Shooting a dog works too - and it is still to this day one of the sure-fire ways to stop a dog from worrying livestock. Either shooting to kill (100% effective to make the behavior stop), or shooting with a pellet gun to hurt but not kill.
Plenty of stuff “works”. Basing your training decisions on what “works” is like basing your diet on what has calories. A twinkie has calories, an apple has calories, doesn’t mean they’re both equal foods.

[~Tucker&Me~]

Originally Posted by Danefied

“It works” is a really poor litmus test of effective training. Karen Pryor wasn’t being inflamatory when she titled her book “Don’t shoot the dog.” She was being real. Shooting a dog works too - and it is still to this day one of the sure-fire ways to stop a dog from worrying livestock. Either shooting to kill (100% effective to make the behavior stop), or shooting with a pellet gun to hurt but not kill.
Plenty of stuff “works”. Basing your training decisions on what “works” is like basing your diet on what has calories. A twinkie has calories, an apple has calories, doesn’t mean they’re both equal foods.

This is what I was trying to say in my giant rambling post, thank you

[Romy]

Originally Posted by Danefied

My words still stand, I don’t care who said it, its BS.

Keep in mind there's a language barrier at work here. In my experience, colloquial expressions like "heavy hand" or whatever don't always translate the way non native speakers intend them to. A really good friend of mine from Romania refers to his ex girlfriend as a "loose canyon". Doesn't really mean what it sounds like, lol.

[Danefied]

Originally Posted by Romy

Keep in mind there's a language barrier at work here. In my experience, colloquial expressions like "heavy hand" or whatever don't always translate the way non native speakers intend them to. A really good friend of mine from Romania refers to his ex girlfriend as a "loose canyon". Doesn't really mean what it sounds like, lol.

I wasn’t basing my reply solely on the “heavy hand” comment, and I clarified that I was responding to whoever might say something like that - which frankly, many people do.

I’m protective of my training preferences and I’m protective of my friend. She hears this same type of BS all. the. time. Despite the fact that she’s out there every single day with her dogs proving it wrong.

It gets old.

Whenever you try to dispel the old myths it seems like someone is always there to say “yeah but with *this* kind of dog...” and if its a rare breed it turns in to a conversation of “until you’ve met the breed you don’t know what you’re talking about.”

I am here saying that I’ve met the breed, my friend lives with the breed, breeds the breed, and she trains with food, clickers, positive reinforcement, and does NOT resort to force, fear, pain or intimidation to gain compliance.

[Laurelin]

Originally Posted by Greenmagick

This is the part I really don't understand. This is how you explained it? Of course his response is going to be ridiculous.

^That. Of course he's going to respond ridiculously. That is really not what 'positive' training is about.

I am 99.9999% sure the kind of training I do, you could not do with aversives. At least you could not get good results.

The idea that force free training is cookie bribing is ridiculous and silly. It's all about motivating the dog into doing what you want without using unnecessary force. You should see what accomplishments some of the trainers on Chaz have managed with their clicker and treat training.

If I was not firm with Mia, she would have run all over me. She does run all over my family.

[SaraB]

Fantastic post Tucker&Me.. Seriously fantastic.

[RD]

I've had the same experience as Laur. I am firm with my dog, but it doesn't mean I bully her using the threat of physical violence or other (imo) harsh aversives.

Training is about feedback, and training by giving positive feedback for appropriate behavior is more efficient. It's not even about coddling dogs, it's about positive training being easier and faster. If you want a dog to do X, but instead of rewarding the dog for doing X, you punish the dog for doing W, Y and Z, the dog still doesn't know that X is correct!

Most dogs need firmness. My 35lb border collie will walk all over people if they aren't firm with her. Firmness doesn't mean they need to be heavy-handed, they just need to be consistent!

Guardian breed enthusiasts hardly seem to consider dogs like mine to be dogs at all, so it's rather pointless to share my experiences with her in this thread, but I'll do so anyway because I can.

dealwithit.jpg

[Renee750il]

I guess it seems a little harsh, but to me, anyone who *trains* an LGD or any other big, powerful dog using harsh methods and force is not only missing out on just how incredible the bond between them can be, but is acting like an egotistical, delusional idiot.

The whole control freak, "I'm the boss, my dog submits to my wishes -- in whatever degree -- is so . . . ridiculous. It's a contract, of sorts. Yes, my dog does [mostly] what I want, behaves [mostly] in a manner that makes me proud of her, but she does it because she WANTS to, because there's a bond there, and she takes pride in how we work and live together, just like I do. She is civilized out in public because she wants to be with me, not because she's softened (ask Zoom, Smkie or Barb how she reacts to gunshots at night) and that makes her dependable. You don't get that kind of deep down dependability with aversives or heavy handedness.

I love what Colleen and Smkie have both said over and over about dealing with dogs: "don't do anything to your dog you wouldn't do to your child."

I feel like that's a great guideline no matter how big or small, hard or soft the dog.

[Barbara!]

Originally Posted by StephyMei1112

I will say this only once more: DO WHAT WORKS FOR YOUR DOG - WHATEVER THAT MAY BE. If it's force free stuff - great, aversion style training - that's fine too - as long as it works and is safe and productive.

This. 100%. Dogs are living things and each one is different. It drives me bonkers when someone tries to act like their training technique is the only one that should be used on any dog, or when someone tries to claim that one philosophy is "universal". Some dogs respond best to positive reinforcement. Others respond best to correctional based training. There isn't one way to train every dog.

[Danefied]

Originally Posted by Barbara!

This. 100%. Dogs are living things and each one is different. It drives me bonkers when someone tries to act like their training technique is the only one that should be used on any dog, or when someone tries to claim that one philosophy is "universal". Some dogs respond best to positive reinforcement. Others respond best to correctional based training. There isn't one way to train every dog.

Except that the principles of learning theory ARE universal.
Saying that X dog doesn’t respond to positive reinforcement is like saying X object doesn’t respond to gravity. A feather and a rock may look very different in how they respond to gravity, but they are both most certainly responding to gravity.