Valid Question

But who are YOU to make that judgement about someone else's dog? You have a dog that is sensitive enough to be trained with little correction. Should only dogs that are soft enough to be trained that way be allowed the freedom of exercise sans leash? Can you not see that freedom is worth a price to some other dogs? You don't know my dog and yet you freely make assumptions about her based on your experience with your dog.

In all honesty I am not at all sure that all those positive trainers don't use more compulsion than is readily known. Promotion of positive training is well and good, but I've seen what goes on behind the scenes with many "positive" trainers (not specifically the ones you've mentioned, but some that are assumed to be highly positive) and it has included more correction than people realize.

I've been to clicker-training seminars where the well-known clinician described how she's had to occasionally use a shock collar in order to produce fully reliable recalls. There are mostly positive trainers who acknowledge the occasional need for prong collars (such as Suzanne Clothier). Just because a trainer understands that physical aversives are sometimes completely acceptable in training, it doesn't make them a bad trainer nor does it mean their advice or experience isn't valuable and valid.

This has been an interesting discussion and has strengthened my belief in my training methods. I don't want to sound like some of the people who have posted here. I've become more aware of how I've sounded in the past and why people have reacted the way they have .. and believe me, I have NO desire to sound like that again .. *LOL*. It's kind of eye-opening to realize how judgemental and arrogant you once sounded. Hopefully I will be able to avoid that mistake from now on.

Melanie and the gang in Alaska

Wouldn't that be a problem with the trainer not knowing how to properly us a reward based method, rushing into something unprepared.

I find it sad that this is the kind of example that is used in order to discredit a method while in the text before you quote about judgement.

Surely you can see that the technique that you described is an example of poor skills, not an ineffective method.

I am a bit confused, post # 61 by savethebullybreeds and post # 97 by Doberluv were both edited by Dr2little.
How can this be, can someone explain?

Lynn

A moderator can edit any post, Lynn

To a dog properly trained to respond to the consequence of a low level stimulation, yes. It's a structured training, not a huge ZAP designed to create a large level of pain. It's not haphazard any more than positive reinforcement should be haphazard.

I won't get into the details of training this because I know it would only upset you and I would be accused of encouraging people to use a shock collar again. Yes, the shock collar is a physical aversive. Yes, it's based on a desire to avoid the aversive. No, I don't advocate people running out and buying a shock collar. Yes, I understand why people consider it and if they DO decide to go with it, I would prefer that they get some proper instruction on the use of low level stimulation instead of just zapping their dogs as a means of providing a huge correction. And no, I would never encourage anyone to use a shock collar if they haven't already tried (properly) to use positive-based methods to teach the behavior. In fact, I have NEVER encouraged anyone to use a shock collar. I've related my experiences with it, but I'm all for training without corrections whenever possible.

Melanie and the gang in Alaska

Ok thanks, I figured it was something like that.
Thanks again
Lynn

Do you honestly not see why I posed the question? Low level "stimulation" would no more stop a high prey drive dog than a conditioned reinforcer that CAN ALSO FAIL. They're dogs...not robots, just as you pointed out.

To compare the two, assuming both to be conditioned sufficiently, is exactly my point..

For savethebullybreeds, I edited when I meant to quote so no change was made and for Doberluv...I corrected a typo, chicks do that for eachother

Like telling a girlfriend she has spinach in her teeth, but in this case I just picked it out for her....ewwww.

Nice...... I think you should take a better look at your last comment then.
If that isn't arrogant, then I don't know what is.

Back handed insults are just as nasty Melanie, even less respected.

I don't intend to come off as sarcastic and rude in my post. The statement you picked out was truly befuddlement on my part, I just don't get it; and by morals I was certainly not implying that people who use punishment are horrible wicked sinners, just that there are some people who are less comfortable with it than others. Does that make sense or am I just being completely spacey? Btw, I wanted to apologize for being edgy in my previous ones. It's been a rough week and it's easy to take out frustrations on people I can't see face to face. Sorry.

As for the sighthounds that I worked with, one was a Whippet with rather low prey drive and she was very easy to train. The others had moderate/high prey drive and one was turned in to the shelter for chasing a ground squirrel right into traffic - and not even noticing the cars. The dog had done that before and was hit by a car, had surgery to correct a broken leg and the owner decided that rather than fence her front yard, she'd dump the dog. Anyway...

I didn't have my own rabbits available to throw for him, but I just started out with the dog on a long line and would stomp around in that field until rabbits appeared. No, multiple rabbits were not jumping out from his feet. It was usually one or two, and they'd freeze until the dog initiated the chase. The dog would take off and I would stand on the line (positive punishment if he continued to lunge at the end of the line.) until he looked back at me. Once he looked back I would release him (mind you this was a massive flat field in the middle of nowhere, I would NEVER do this where the dog could encounter vehicles or disappear behind hills). Once he was looking at me reliably I'd start calling him. If he even came a few steps towards me I'd praise and release him. The dog was able to run around the field and hunt for rabbits or chase the rabbit-skin toy I planted there, rigged to a long-line on a reel. With that particular dog it took him about 2 weeks to have a solid recall under rabbit distraction with the long line dragging untouched, but once the line came off his performance didn't change. In fact, the rabbit became the cue for him to run to me and tense up, waiting to be released. He wouldn't stay there forever but he did stay long enough to have a leash clipped to him if I wasn't going to release him. The only punishment he recieved during training was the sudden stop when he'd hit the end of the long line, and the no-reward markers (leading up to the grabbing of his line and walking him away) I used when he wouldn't come all the way to me, or tried to break too soon.

Honestly though, as much as I'd like to say that I can override nature with my mad training skillz , this dog was one that I still would probably never let offlead anywhere but in a large, remote field like the one we trained in, or in a fenced area. He did have extremely high prey drive and I don't know that anything (including pain - this dog ran across BOILING hot sand the first day he came in, badly burning the skin between his toes and wearing his pads virtually down to nothing. Most dogs would've stopped and found shade when their feet started bleeding profusely.) could have called him off if he had the chance to actually take off and get into the chase. I was able to stop him beforehand and he was reliable as long as I was pro-active... but I still wouldn't trust him 100%. I don't trust any dog 100%, because nature can always take over.

ETA I am curious to know how training a dog to respond to a low level stimulation will get you better attention than proofing the same behavior using positive reinforcement. You can PM if you dont want to post it here.. I don't plan on using the method, I'm just curious.

I've used a choke collar. When my dog was a pup, fourteen years ago, choke collars were what they recommended (or, at least, what the books in my library recommended), so that was what I used.

I didn't use it for teaching sit, down, etc. I used it for walks.

Sad to say, most people who use choke collars do not understand how to use them correctly. They are not supposed to actually choke the dog!! They're supposed to be loose 99% of the time and only taut if you're delivering a brief "pop". And it SHOULD be brief . . . the idea is that the collar pops, the dog slows down, and then as the leash goes slack, you praise like crazy. Also, choke chains must be put on so that they hang like the letter "P" as you face the dog head-on (assuming the dog will be on your left side.) Otherwise they won't release properly when you try to get slack and can harm your dog! And you should never, ever let the dog just surge ahead so that the collar is continuously taut.

Anyway, luckily my dog was very smart and willing and quickly learned not to pull, so after a short time I no longer had to use the choke chain. She continued wearing it for walks, though, because I liked the fact that I could communicate what I wanted her to do based on the "zzzzzip" sound of the chain. (I didn't pull it taut, just pulled enough for the sound.)

I don't know if choke chains are painful. Obviously I didn't think so at the time or I wouldn't have used one on my dog. I never tried it around my neck, but I did try it around my wrist and even when I yanked as hard as I could, it didn't hurt. But the wrist is not the same as the neck, of course. I have heard some trainers say that the sound, not the tightness, startles the dog into slowing and that you can use a marginal (sp?) flat collar with chain bits on the end that connects to the leash (not actually around the dog's neck) with the same effect.

Edit: I vaguely recall the training books at the time saying that choke collars with tiny links were painful compared to the ones with big links.

I have never been a fan of choke chains. I imagine if used properly they would be ok, but everytime I have seen one being used there is a dog gagging at the end of it. Not real pretty and it can be very dangerous.

I agree dr2little that it was an ineffective method 100%, there's no doubt about that

What I'm trying to say is, I hate this cliche, purely positive is being pushed a lot, not a bad thing, but in the wrong hands it can be extremely ineffective. If someone is using a tool properly and with restraint that IS effective, (obviously not abusing their dog) which is worse?

Someone who is using a harsh horrible aversive and getting results? (once again, not abusing their dog, or to our human knowledge and perception causing pain, discomfort of fear)

Or someone inappropriately using the positive methods and seeing no results?

ETA- I've used one of those horrible, harsh aversives with Roxy, whether I was wrong or not only time will tell. Although she has been in a number of circumstances where it would be likely if I caused damage it would've been clear. A few weeks ago a lady approached us, caught me totally off guard and reached her hand out and patted Roxy smack dab on the top of the head, where she absolute DESPISES to be touched by strangers, commenting on her beautiful winter jacket. Don't you think that would've been the prime time for a fearful, pain-induced, uncomfortable dog to react? And she didn't and she got heavily rewarded. Mind you I try my best to avoid those situations, but it happened, crap happens and everything was okay. I can't say that what I did "worked". As I said only time will tell, but as of now I've seen no negative from using a "harsh" aversive to correct a problem that many disagree with when it comes to the use of aversives.

I can guarentee, and would bet my life, that if one year ago, the same above situation happened, Roxy would've bit her. How hard, or how much damage, I don't know, but she would've bit her, no doubt in my mind. Maybe the months and months of the positive I did was why she didn't bite, I don't know, I'm not a trainer. But according to all of you, she should've bit because of *my* use of the aversive.

RCD, i don't understand why it's an aversive if the device is not causing pain, discomfort or fear. Are you honestly saying that things lke prong collars don't hurt the dogs?

I know I'm not Dr2 but I think using anything inappropriately will end badly. You cannot compare a savvy person using a training collar correctly to a newbie fudging things up with a clicker. Likewise, you cannot compare the effots of a skilled clicker trainer to those of someone drastically misusing aversives.

That being said, I would rather see someone use positive methods incorrectly than see someone use aversives incorrectly. If someone messes up with clicker training, it's not going to put the dog in a lot of unnecessary pain/discomfort/fear.

IMO, this is the reason choke chains are associated with neck injuries. Almost everyone I ever saw with a choke chain had a dog gasping for breath at the end of the leash.

I finally caught up with the posts between pages 9 to the end and I'm befuddled by the people who got bruises from choke chains. Maybe mine was a different design or something . . . I was literally yanking as hard as I could at my wrist and felt practically nothing. Certainly didn't leave bruising . . .

RD, the end part of your post, this:

I'd thought of myself while typing out the response. When it comes to some situations though, where the dog or others are in danger, getting NO response, or making no head way can be more dangerous than a leash correction or an e-collar "zap". (I'm thinking specifically of Roxy, or a dog that could get hit by a car)

Clearly, like discussed another thread, our definition of aversive is different

To me, aversive means ANYTHING that the dog is willing to work for, to avoid. Could be as mild as someone ignoring a dog that jumps on them,(as in the dog is avoiding the person ignoring them by working/sitting/downing etc) or harsh like a collar zap.(pretty obvious this one is, lol, willing to work to avoid a zap)

Personally, I've never used a prong collar. I've seen some dogs yelping and screeching on the street with them on etc. I've heard of people burning their dogs as well with e-collars. I can't say whether a prong collar causes IMMENSE pain, I'm sure it must be uncomfortable, can't say for sure though.

As for the e-collar, Roxy didn't seem the least bothered by it. Some dogs will twitch their whole heads, ROxy just had a slight ear twitch. No yelping, she didn't even lick her lips. I just immediately got the reaction I was looking for, which is why I think it's the collar that changed her tune, not the months of positive work because I never saw improvement I guess. As I've said before, I'm not trying to portray myself as a dog trainer/behaviourist, so I can't say if it was one or the other that worked.

I wasn't specifically speaking of the e-collar in my quote, I should've clarified.

I just meant in general, someone using some type of "harsh aversive" like a prong (which many people on this board use, and I'm sure did so without harming their dog), leash corrections, choke etc. and seeing a result.

As compared to someone using a method in which they saw no result.

Sorry I didn't make myself clear

ETA- In my personal experience with the collar, quite honestly, I think, or have come to the conclusion, that Roxy obviously did feel the zap. Now this is open to interpretation of course, whether she responded out of fear or knowledge of what I expected. I think she responded because this aversive was new, it's quick, (as in I can immediately catch the behaviour, in which case I did so as I saw her brain wheels turning) and it did probably catch her off guard, as in, she was NOT expecting it. Whether it made her uncomfortable, once again I can't say for sure, but she certainly did not appear uncomfortable.

You edit post it in the Education Thread.

*The edit is in bold.*

I was speaking of my OWN BEHAVIOR, if you'll go back and re-read. I am entitled to offer self-insults .. *L* .. I WAS arrogant and judgemental before, and may be again - but I will try not to be. How can calling yourself names be construed as an insult to others? Isn't that being just a tad bit over-defensive?

And I think that you talking about back-handed insults is pretty hypocritical, 2little. Your insinuations were why I started into the topic of shock collar usage at all.

Melanie and the gang in Alaska

Actually, no, I didn't. I have posted very little in that thread. I did post an explanation of my use of the e-collar in another thread, but my intent here was not to reiterate that so as not to cause 2little to get upset as she did the last time.

Melanie and the gang in Alaska

Well, since you want to get into it, I will explain more. If it "sways" people to use the shock collar, just remember that YOU encouraged me to go on with this.

Yes, the low level stimulation will work to stop a high prey dog because the stimulation is PRESENT with the dog AT the time of the reaction to the rabbits.

Let's say you've got a dog you've trained with all positives and you're walking out in a field. The dog is running and playing and having a good time and is some 30' away from you. Suddenly rabbits burst out under the dog's feet and it takes off after them. Your reinforcements are on your body, not with the dog. You give your command, the dog's prey drive is so high that the command does not have any affect.

With a dog that has been trained to a low level stimulation, you have gone through the steps to train the dog that when they feel the stimulation they can stop it with a certain reaction. Since the collar goes WITH the dog when it takes off after the rabbits, the stimulation is WITH the dog and when the dog feels it, it has a much higher likelihood of response to that than a person who is now 50' or more away, calling the dog and holding a piece of cheese that doesn't have nearly the motivating effect that chasing the rabbit has.

As I've previously described, I have actually used the low level stimulation training. I've seen what it can do. I've balanced it with positive reinforcement. I've only used the actual stimulation a minimal number of times. In the past 8 months since I've moved into the city limits, I've probably actually pressed the button a total of three times. These shocks are all at a level I have tried on myself AND on my eighty year old mother.

I think it's really hard for people who haven't actually done this type of training or even observed it to really understand how minimally invasive it is. I understand people's concerns over encouraging others to use a shock collar. This is not a "push the button and make the dog scream" type of training. The level of response to the stimulation is carefully determined and the training is carefully structured.

I took Trick and Khana for a walk in the woods the other day. Khana wore her collar. She raced ahead of me, leaping over logs and body-slamming Trick. She was happy, enthusiastic, and thrilled to be able to run without the restraint of a leash. If a moose had appeared, I am 99% sure I could have called her back. We had a good walk, she got to play and run and poop off-leash (which she MUCH prefers) and I didn't have to touch the button once. When I said "Khana, HERE!" she turned and raced to me every time, and I gave her the treats I carried with me. I do use the +R as much as I can with her, and the collar training has only been a means to back up the positive reinforcement training so that I can be comfortable in knowing she won't run off.

Melanie and the gang in Alaska