Article - your thoughts?

[Dekka]

As for the dog carrying (is that a hotdog?) my retriever used to fetch bacon, which is great and all, but doesn't apply to the theory of instinctual drift in any way so I'm unsure the point you're trying to make.

Yep that is a hot dog..

But my point was that eating the hotdog is highly self rewarding. She learnt not too with no aversives. I started out training 'balanced' I have taken classes that used prong collars and e collars. I do think they have their place in training, but not as most people use them.

 

[Shai]

If one wishes to be technical, I do believe "eating food" is instinctual behavior lol

 

[Dekka]

many self rewarding behaviours (peeing on things, counter surfing, etc) are instinctual.

 

[corgipower]

As for everyone else, there's too much coming at me at once and frankly I have things to do today to respond to everyone.

No worries.
We're not going anywhere.

That article went well beyond choke chains vs. head halters.

Yes.

 

[corgipower]

many self rewarding behaviours (peeing on things, counter surfing, etc) are instinctual.

Pillow hogging?

*glares at Morgan*

 

[DogsInTraining]

Quote:
Originally Posted by DogsInTraining View Post
Once again, however, comes the argument that if PR doesn't work it must be the trainer. It can't ever be the dog or the method.

What happens if leash/collar pops don't work?

I just LOVE how PR trainers consider themselves so adept at problem solving and yet can't grasp the concept that there is middle ground between a cookie and a leash correction. So open minded of you.

You felt compelled to respond but not to have a discussion? Isn't a discussion by definition basically a series of responses between two or more parties?

And that article went well beyond choke chains vs. head halters.

Yes, but a discussion is a little difficult to have when you're trying to have a dozen simultaneously. And I don't appreciate you trying to bait me, frankly.

The article went beyond check chains and head halters into the WHY (doG forbid). Again, if I have to explain to you why this was necessary... well, perhaps in the future I will design a set of articles that deals clearly and definitively with only a single issue at a time. Preferable?

 

[Sekah]

They are not trained to greet people correctly. I would consider them not trained. What they ARE trained to do is to get themselves under control when instructed. Great, they can follow your command. But my dogs use their own self control when I get home, and no command is necessary. They have learned the appropriate way to greet people at the door.

I'm not sure if you were speaking specifically to a poster, or to R+ trainers in general. If it's the latter, I just wanted to chime in to say that it is indeed very possible to teach self control without a command without the use of corrections. See Garrett's "Its Yer Choice" games for examples of it. It's all about allowing the dog to make choices, never putting your hand on the dog, and controlling the consequences for the dog's choices. It's really amazing stuff once you take it to the advanced level and beyond.

I suspect that Garrett's method is much more difficult to teach than self control with corrections, and probably beyond the scope of Joe Dog Owner. However I personally adore the approach, and it will forever be in my training arsenal. It has such wide-reaching applications for every facet of dog ownership.

 

[DogsInTraining]

But my point was that eating the hotdog is highly self rewarding. She learnt not too with no aversives. I started out training 'balanced' I have taken classes that used prong collars and e collars. I do think they have their place in training, but not as most people use them.

Sure, if your dog likes hotdogs and doesn't consider the reward at the end to be of a higher value.

I'm not suggesting that certain rewarding behaviours can not be solved using PR. What I'm suggesting is that not ALL rewarding behaviours can be solved using PR.

My dogs "leave it" without aversives, and at one point we had our retriever trained to feed cookies to our ACD mix. That doesn't mean either of them don't get the occasional leash pop to remind them of their manners while we're out and about, or that they each didn't learn that directly disobeying a command they understood and were capable of carrying out would result in a negative consequence.

One is not exclusive of the other, and one is not more inherently "EVIL" than the other.

As for why Bailey ended up in the conversation, he married Marian Breland and the two continued to train together - mainly using PR, but also using aversives.

He and Marian continued the Brelands' work. He's also considered in very high regard by the majority of PR's "Big Guns."

As a matter of fact, he's mentioned positively in "When Pigs Fly - Jane Killion," "How to Behave So Your Dog Behaves - Sophia Yin," and even "Oh Behave! - Jean Donaldson" (in fact, she refers to him as an "uber-trainer".

Bob Bailey, originally a purely positive trainer, and his wife, Marian Breland Bailey, arguably the founder of positive dog training, ended their career(s) being decidedly NOT "purely positive." Why? Because after thousands and thousands of animals trained, they discovered it was not the most effective way to train. Breland may not have had a clicker originally, but whether or not they had a specific plastic box is irrelevant - they were using a bridging stimulus, which is comparing apples to apples. Bailey is still involved in training today.

 

[corgipower]

I'm not sure if you were speaking specifically to a poster, or to R+ trainers in general.

It was directed at a specific poster...or me to be more specific.

 

[lizzybeth727]

Bob Bailey, originally a purely positive trainer, and his wife, Marian Breland Bailey, arguably the founder of positive dog training, ended their career(s) being decidedly NOT "purely positive." Why? Because after thousands and thousands of animals trained, they discovered it was not the most effective way to train.

Actually he said that it was during his career training animals for the military.... The gov't wanted the animals trained quickly, and punishment does get the job done quickly. Of course there are side effects, but they were prepared to deal with them.

Does that mean that pet dog trainers should teach novice clients these same methods? You still have the side effects, but most novice clients - and many pet dog trainers - are certainly not prepared to deal with them.

 

[DogsInTraining]

Sekah, I disagree with you. I happen to believe that "It's Yer Choice" is the simplest and easiest way to teach "leave it" (although it's teaching self control only in this particular situation, let's be clear) - not to mention the method fraught with the fewest opportunities to screw up your dog.

However, at the same time once I have trained a dog to "leave it" if said dog takes a nose dive for a piece of yummy garbage on the ground that could potentially be dangerous, I am going to apply a fair leash correction. Beyond that, we're now going to spend a few minutes circling this piece of garbage while I reward him for making the correct choice.

From where I sit, immediate negative consequences are what take a behaviour from "In this situation mom wants me to..." to "In this situation, the only acceptable choice is to..."

This doesn't mean that all dogs learning this command are going to require a correction. Puppies trained using this method generally fall into this category - those who understand there is only one acceptable choice. Older dogs or dogs with say, an existing pica issue are going to learn quicker with a fair correction AFTER the groundwork has been laid and proofed.

What I think is too difficult for the average dog owner to deal with is the time and commitment it takes to train this technique into an older dog with acceptable reliability using only PR, not the training itself (although there are certainly other PR techniques that I do consider too extensive for your average owner, I just don't think this is one of them).

I am a firm believer in the use of corrections to proof behaviours that could be dangerous. For example, pulling on leash could cause the dog to knock someone over - or worse, get loose and run into traffic. Once I've taught a dog to walk on a loose leash I have no problem applying a correction as necessary. Same with training the recall, "drop it" and jumping up on people.

In my city poison meat left out for dogs is an issue at least yearly. A command-free "leave it" is a necessity as far as I'm concerned. We only have a handful of off leash areas and they are not fenced. A reliable recall is not an option. Our neighbourhood is full of seniors who love to pet and cuddle the dogs. A single ill-timed jump, even one that merely startles, could cause a serious injury should that person fall. A jumping dog is not acceptable. In addition, a scratch is classified the same as a bite in our city and requires quarantine if reported.

Am I willing to leash correct my dog because they disobeyed my command to get off the sofa? No, don't be silly. They're going to get my angry eyes, which is more than enough to initiate a move from the sofa followed by an "oops - sorry about that" snuggle from the dog. But when it comes to issues that could cause my dog or another person serious harm, I have no problem applying appropriate corrections to further reduce the behaviour once, as I mentioned, the groundwork has been laid.

 

[Shai]

I just LOVE how PR trainers consider themselves so adept at problem solving and yet can't grasp the concept that there is middle ground between a cookie and a leash correction. So open minded of you.

I have never once in this thread either said or insinuated that there is no middle ground between a leash correction and a cookie. I also never said how I train my dogs beyond two very specific instances of training in the presence of instinctual drive.

I use positive reinforcement, but not exclusively. Just like every other trainer in existence. The only difference is how and a matter of proportions.

Yes, but a discussion is a little difficult to have when you're trying to have a dozen simultaneously. And I don't appreciate you trying to bait me, frankly.

Which is why I deleted that part almost immediately after posting it and before this post appeared. I don't appreciate a lot of things but that's another discussion.

The article went beyond check chains and head halters into the WHY (doG forbid). Again, if I have to explain to you why this was necessary... well, perhaps in the future I will design a set of articles that deals clearly and definitively with only a single issue at a time. Preferable?

I am in no way saying that an article may only deal with one issue at a time. Once again you are putting words in my mouth. You specifically stated that your article was about choke chains vs. head halters and I was merely pointing out that it was not.

 

[Danefied]

In my city poison meat left out for dogs is an issue at least yearly. A command-free "leave it" is a necessity as far as I'm concerned. We only have a handful of off leash areas and they are not fenced. A reliable recall is not an option. Our neighbourhood is full of seniors who love to pet and cuddle the dogs. A single ill-timed jump, even one that merely startles, could cause a serious injury should that person fall. A jumping dog is not acceptable. In addition, a scratch is classified the same as a bite in our city and requires quarantine if reported.

I love the "the stakes are higher for me so I have to use corrections" argument.
One of my dogs is a therapy dog. He's about as food oriented as they come, and on any of his visits "food" left on the floor could easily be dropped medication that could kill him. He has a solid "leave it".
My great danes could seriously injure people jumping on them - senior or not. They don't jump.
Implying that those who choose PR methods don't have as much to lose if their training fails is an old (and poor) argument that has been debunked numerous times.

 

[DogsInTraining]

lizzybeth, I suggest you read a bit more about Mr. Bailey.

There's a great discussion between him and Ms. Garrett which I can't seem to find at the moment - regardless, it's obvious Ms. Garrett has great respect for Bob Bailey and his techniques - particularly his concerns about the clicker and its misuse.

Here's an interesting interview:

ClickerSolutions Interviews -- Bob Bailey

By all means, if you have a source that points to Bob Bailey using punishment based training techniques while training animals for the military, post away. You won't find one. You WILL find him stating that he uses corrections when he deems them necessary or if the alternative would be time restrictive. How is this any different from what we tell our clients?

Would you tell your client that their only choice is a long and potentially frustrating series of techniques if their alternative was getting rid of the dog? Or would you choose an alternative solution that perhaps involved a correction if appropriate?

In answer to your question, I do believe that pet dog trainers should teach novice clients these same methods. The problem is that your imagination is running wild with just what "these same methods" entail. The reality is that they entail 98% positive methods, yet manage to make room for appropriate corrections. Appropriate and properly delivered corrections do not automatically equal side effects.

Yet another example of a positive leaning balanced trainer being forever tarnished because he admitted to using positive punishment when required.

 

[lizzybeth727]

I love the "the stakes are higher for me so I have to use corrections" argument.
One of my dogs is a therapy dog. He's about as food oriented as they come, and on any of his visits "food" left on the floor could easily be dropped medication that could kill him. He has a solid "leave it".
My great danes could seriously injure people jumping on them - senior or not. They don't jump.
Implying that those who choose PR methods don't have as much to lose if their training fails is an old (and poor) argument that has been debunked numerous times.

Did I mention I train service dogs? Talk about high stakes.

 

[Danefied]

Did I mention I train service dogs? Talk about high stakes.

Yup, was going to mention service dogs and the work of Steve White with police K9's

 

[DogsInTraining]

I love the "the stakes are higher for me so I have to use corrections" argument.

Not what I said.

What I mentioned were a few of the circumstances in which I consider corrections perfectly acceptable. I did not say that I "had" to use corrections, although I do believe that my three ACD mixes are the better for it. They have a clear indication of what is accepted and what is not.

Lizzy, I think it's great that you train service dogs. I really do. I hope you're good at it.

I deal mostly with abuse/neglect/rescue cases, and specialize in the kind of dogs whose next stop is the end of a needle. My own dogs are high drive, working bred ACD/aussie mixes (except my oldest, who is a mellower ACD/Rott mix). All three dogs are an integral part of our training methods, and have to be reliable around even the most dangerous dogs.

I'm not arguing about who's stakes are higher - frankly, if the dog next door jumps up on the girl across the road and pushes her into traffic, suddenly such discussions seem pretty irrelevant.

It's clear that this has devolved from a discussion into a line-by-line dissection of my every word, so I'm moving on for now. I thought some clarification may be appreciated, but obviously I should have just surfed along.

I think it's great that you've all experienced such success with your chosen method(s). I have experienced great success with my own. Here's hoping that in the future this leads to actual discussions.



Thanks to everyone who participated in a constructive fashion.

 

[lizzybeth727]

it's obvious Ms. Garrett has great respect for Bob Bailey and his techniques - particularly his concerns about the clicker and its misuse.

I HAVE a lot of respect for Bob Bailey, I listed just a few of the things that I admire him for at the beginning of this discussion. He's definately a legend and has done a lot for the clicker training community. I simply said that he's not a *pure* positive reinforcement trainer.

By all means, if you have a source that points to Bob Bailey using punishment based training techniques while training animals for the military, post away.

He said it during a seminar. Unfortunately, I didn't record it.... because he didn't allow recording. Maybe he simply doesn't want people to know. :dunno:

Would you tell your client that their only choice is a long and potentially frustrating series of techniques if their alternative was getting rid of the dog? Or would you choose an alternative solution that perhaps involved a correction if appropriate?

If the training is frustrating for the dog, the client is probably not doing it right.

If the training is frustrating for the client, the trainer is not doing her job.

My job as a trainer is not only to teach the client how to train their dog, but to make it fun and interesting for the client AND the dog. If it's not fun, the client will not practice and do the homework I suggest. If it's not fun, the client will not hire me back. If the client doesn't get results, she will not hire me back.

If I don't think I'll be successful AND keep it fun for the client and dog, then no, I won't take on that client, I'll refer her to another trainer. I stay busy enough that I don't NEED every client who calls.

In answer to your question, I do believe that pet dog trainers should teach novice clients these same methods. The problem is that your imagination is running wild with just what "these same methods" entail. The reality is that they entail 98% positive methods, yet manage to make room for appropriate corrections. Appropriate and properly delivered corrections do not automatically equal side effects.

Sadly, it's not my imagination. I saw a blind guide-dog handler giving her dog multiple leash pops for not sitting, even though the dog WAS sitting, the handler just didn't know. I've seen service dog handlers leash pop their dogs for not toileting when commanded. I've seen COUNTLESS dogs on choke collars dragging their owners down the street, hacking and coughing the whole way. I've seen calm, mild-mannered dogs automatically turn into maniacs the second you clip a leash to their collar, because they've had so many leash corrections. I've seen dogs with excellent e-collar recalls, run away when the collar gets taken off. I've seen trainers instruct their students to pinch their dogs' toes until they yelp if they jump, and then wonder why it's impossible to clip their nails.

In each of these examples, the method WOULD work, if it were implemented correctly. And in each of these examples, a professional trainer taught the person the method, but the person still was clearly not able to implement it correctly.

Yet another example of a positive leaning balanced trainer being forever tarnished because he admitted to using positive punishment when required.

Again, I hope I'm not "tarnishing" Bob Bailey. He's an awesome trainer who we can all learn from.

And, though he may use punishment himself, I've NEVER seen or heard of him instructing one of his students to punish an animal.

 

[Linds]

I wish you would stick around, because I really like your posts and how you think. I train a lot like you. I also think, like you said, a lot of your posts are being dissected instead of an over all conversation going on. But alas, how things roll on forums.

There is a lot of good on this forum and I think you would bring more to it.

Yet another example of a positive leaning balanced trainer being forever tarnished because he admitted to using positive punishment when required.

Yeeeep, happens all the time.

I think for the most part almost all of us agree on most things but we all get caught up on the terminology and the 3% difference

 

[release the hounds]

Yup, was going to mention service dogs and the work of Steve White with police K9's

and steve himself has also said he has NEVER trained a partol dog without aversives.