Obviously I'm going to have to disaggree with that statement. As I haven't ever met a dog trained using NO aversives at all, ever, be truly reliable around high distractions. Knows how to respond in predictable enviroments?
I've never said I use NO aversives. Let's remember, a simple "AHAH", is an aversive after all.
I do not however, use physical aversives or harsh verbals.
Yes. Quite well. Taken out of that enviroment and out into a situation where there are tons of competing distractions...no.
What do you think proofing is if not training in different environments? Behaviors don't magically transfer...??
Was at a class with a friend with this past week who wanted me to come sit in with her. The trainer was demoing with her own dog, very PP, dog did great. We went outside, dog did fine untill the leash came off, and then he wandered off, sniffing the ground...totally oblivious to the owner calling his name. And this was a "trained" dog. The trainers own dog for heaven sake. If he's not able to perform reliably off leash and even a spec of grass gets more attention than his owner...what hope does the rest of the class have?
Dog was not "trained" , certainly not proofed but this type of scenario isn't comparable to what is expected with the dogs I train. I can give countless examples of dogs trained with positive punishment who would respond in the same way. It says nothing about the method itself, rather a reflection of poor training skills or at least incomplete proofing. To be fair, you're talking about a trainer that we know nothing about.
He was always allowed to choose. He chose the grass instead.
Grabbed him and Hauled him back inside..hmmmm, sounds like more to the story than just a poorly conditioned behavior, muttering about how this was a good example of how dogs can be unpredictable....I tried not to laugh.
Training using a combonation of rewards and fair aversives produces a more reliable dog. Long term as well.
And that is someone projecting their own feelings into the trainging rather than useing what works better for the dog.
You don't like using any aversives, so
you assume your dog wouldn't respond the way you want...your dog may not think the same way. Have you seen the way dogs interact with each toher? They're very physical. A quick leash pop or proper placement won't crush their spirit....but it may crush yours if it bothers you that much.
Comparing the way that dogs react to eachother to the way they react to humans is like comparing domestic canines to wolves...doesn't hold much water anymore. Again, we're not talking about MY dogs alone, how about the 1000's I've trained using both methods? I'm not sure why it's so hard to grasp that I don't use physical aversives because I find my success as a trainer much improved without them....
So I'd still like an answer to what is done when your reward is not better than the distraction. Surely you'll admit that there are dogs who have no interest in treats, or toys...or they do but not enough to rip their attention away from the other dog passing them...when you only have one tool in the tool box, you're not equipt to deal with those situations when they arise. And they do arise.
I have only one tool in the toolbox? Where did that come from? I use many tools, none of them involve pain or fear but I still have many tools (methods of training). You keep bringing up scenarios where desentizing must be done and obviously wasn't, it's the only way to target these problems. How is a yank (pop) going to teach him anything. It is well documented and proven (by me and many other trainers) that ripping their attention away solves nothing. Every dog has a price, it's up to us as trainers to find out what that is. If you find yourself in a situation while training a dog where he shuts down, you've gone to far too fast. Training never starts by hitting the trigger head on...
Desensitized a dog to enormous triggers is no easy task but it can be done, I do it all the time and sometimes it's a pretty big undertaking. It does take consistency and patience, but that's why it works. It's about changing the way the dog percieves the trigger, not adding stress in the presence of the trigger.
Control does not have to come in the form of physical correction either and in fact in the case of a dog passing, I would hope that a leash pop would be a trainers last choice as it would be the least appropriate. I find it strange that these dogs with no motivator in existance other than physical correction, keep popping up in your questions. When I work with these dogs, I don't set them up to fail but rather take my time with re conditioning BEFORE putting them in that position.
How in the world is placing a dog into a sit, teaching him not to think? If anything it is HELPING the dog to succeed. It's showing him exactly what you want and exactly how to get the reward.
Think of it this way, if you were deaf, and someone wanted you to sit in a chair, would you rather they force you to figure it out on your own, or would you be greatful if they simply lead you to the chair and pointed? Personally, I rather have someone show me.
We're not talking about deaf dogs and if we were (I have trained both deaf, blind and my own dog was blind and deaf), I would not use physical training either. Positive reinforcement training opens up so many other options and with a little creativity, proper timing, and patience.