Can you tell me if I did the right thing?

[Kayota]

Oh my gosh I must see this movie...

 

[ihartgonzo]

Bribery isn't positive training. Anyone who thinks tossing a cookie off the bed will train the dog to get off the bed hasn't a clue about training in general. That will train the dog to get ON the bed so it can get a cookie for jumping off Behaviour chain anyone?

She said that she was TEACHING the dog "off"... implying that he did not understand the command. I like to associate actions with words to familiarize dogs with what you want and I would want to make getting off the bed rewarding rather than unpleasant or threatening. I had a foster dog who got growly and "stubborn" when you tried to move him off of furniture or beds. I could have simply not allowed him on furniture, but I don't feel that's really solving anything, and he probably would've progressed to being protective of dog beds or generally grumpy when being woken up. I made getting off the bed/couch fun and something he was eager to do. I'd be laying on the bed and toss a treat off or lure him off with a treat, being as non-confrontational and casual about it as possible. He soon became super eager and happy to get off, then I started working on him waiting to get invited up. I don't think of training in terms of bribery, I think of dogs as extremely intelligent animals who make quick associations and do what is rewarding. Simply. You could use a leash to force the dog off, but using force could result in even more resistance. I do have a clue about training in general, thanks! My idea with this is not to teach the off cue, it's to make the dog more willing and eager to get off. And it's a LOT less harmful and counterproductive than popping a dog on the nose.

I wasn't telling her to do that with her dog specifically, I was throwing it out there as a less confrontational option of teaching the action of "off" & making it rewarding rather than a struggle. She clearly has formed her own methods and opinions and is sticking to them.

 

[Beanie]

I mention this because my friend - who's a really good show dog handler but doesn't have much of a sense of humor - didn't realize it was a spoof until long after she watched it. She literally thought it was a poorly-done documentary. :rofl1:

OMG hahahahahahaha that is SO hilarious. Anybody "in dogs" definitely knows every single one of those people hahaha.

The Swans have some of my favourite quotes. Though I have been really annoying before and started going "PEAnut. CASHEW nut. MACADAMIA nut."

Seriously, one of my favourite movies of all time. I was watching Westminster or something one day and got bored, changed the channel, and Best in Show was on. And I was like "YES OMG OMG YES" and watched it the rest of the night. XD

 

[Greenmagick]

Netflix has it available on demand now

 

[Dekka]

She said that she was TEACHING the dog "off"... implying that he did not understand the command. I like to associate actions with words to familiarize dogs with what you want and I would want to make getting off the bed rewarding rather than unpleasant or threatening. I had a foster dog who got growly and "stubborn" when you tried to move him off of furniture or beds. I could have simply not allowed him on furniture, but I don't feel that's really solving anything, and he probably would've progressed to being protective of dog beds or generally grumpy when being woken up. I made getting off the bed/couch fun and something he was eager to do. I'd be laying on the bed and toss a treat off or lure him off with a treat, being as non-confrontational and casual about it as possible. He soon became super eager and happy to get off, then I started working on him waiting to get invited up. I don't think of training in terms of bribery, I think of dogs as extremely intelligent animals who make quick associations and do what is rewarding. Simply. You could use a leash to force the dog off, but using force could result in even more resistance. I do have a clue about training in general, thanks! My idea with this is not to teach the off cue, it's to make the dog more willing and eager to get off. And it's a LOT less harmful and counterproductive than popping a dog on the nose.

I wasn't telling her to do that with her dog specifically, I was throwing it out there as a less confrontational option of teaching the action of "off" & making it rewarding rather than a struggle. She clearly has formed her own methods and opinions and is sticking to them.

I wasn't responding to you, but to one of her posts. Yes in the case of a very aggressive/fearful dog I might toss a cookie once or twice to get the ball rolling, so to speak. But thats not the training part, the training part is marking and rewarding so the dog does it without the food being part of the cue.

 

[corgipower]

Positive reinforcement only did not work for me or for Malyk under me to help him understand undesired behaviors. Maybe someone else could have gotten him to do it, but unfortunately I don't have the money to shell out for a professional trainer and I'm quite confident enough in my ability to train my own dogs. Yes, positive reinforcement has and always will help Malyk understand desired behaviors, but it does not help him understand undesired ones, as I've said SEVERAL times.

It shouldn't. You don't positively reinforce unwanted behaviors.

The way it works is that using R+ to create strong desired and incompatible behaviors prevents the unwanted ones. For example, a dog who goes to a place of his own cannot get on the bed.

In the meantime, management is used to prevent access to the bed so he can't continue developing the habit of getting on.

And once again, you really have a lot to learn too if you think you can diagnose a fearful dog over the Internet. I told you we are not going to agree.

No, I can't diagnose fear over the internet. I can tell you that hitting creates fear. Period. I don't need to see the dog to know that.

As for me I don't really do refresher training. The commands I use with Yoshi are used so often there isn't enough time in between them for her to need me to go back over it with her. Especially one as common as 'get off'.

You're probably "refreshing" them without even realizing it.

And no, I do not prefer to hit my dog on the nose.

But yet you reject all advice on other ways to do train.

Nope. That’s the beauty of TRUE rewards based training where the dog has to figure it out. Once they get it, its locked in. Believe me, it is LOCKED in!

"TRUE rewards based training" doesn't require that the dog figure it out. That would be shaping that requires such a thing, but reward based training can be done without shaping.

Barbara, I agree with you on this


I use positive reinforcement/luring/shaping techniques when I am teaching something, for the most part. I think there are less than a handful of things I'll actually teach with a correction. But, I do use corrections to correct the dog. Not to teach, but to correct.

^I agree completely.^

It's a spoof of a dog show.

I mention this because my friend - who's a really good show dog handler but doesn't have much of a sense of humor - didn't realize it was a spoof until long after she watched it. She literally thought it was a poorly-done documentary. :rofl1:

Oh, I'm not sure how much of it is spoof...I've seen some pretty frightening things at dog shows.

I wasn't responding to you, but to one of her posts. Yes in the case of a very aggressive/fearful dog I might toss a cookie once or twice to get the ball rolling, so to speak. But thats not the training part, the training part is marking and rewarding so the dog does it without the food being part of the cue.

My take on it is that bribery may not be ideal, but there are far worse ways one could "train" a dog. If you end up needing to always use food as a cue, so be it...just make sure you have food when you need it.

 

[Danefied]

"TRUE rewards based training" doesn't require that the dog figure it out. That would be shaping that requires such a thing, but reward based training can be done without shaping.

Yeah, I didn’t word that very well did I?
Just wanting to point out that if you’re having to refresh a behavior every month or so, the behavior isn’t well learned let alone proofed.

My take on it is that bribery may not be ideal, but there are far worse ways one could "train" a dog. If you end up needing to always use food as a cue, so be it...just make sure you have food when you need it.

I see both sides. I mean, if you have to feed your dog to get a behavior what’s the big deal right? Its not like you’re never going to feed the dog anyway (as opposed to hitting).

But on the other side, this is where this kind of training gets a bad rap and where it ends up “failing†with dogs who aren’t motivated enough by food to be bribed. Its the anti PR crowd’s line - Sure, I’ll sit in this chair if you give me $10 bucks each time I do it, but if there’s a $100 bill on the ceiling, your $10 just lost its value.
Then of course there are those who will bribe the dog to do something the dog doesn’t want to do and very quickly you end up with a dog who not only won’t fall for the bribe, but may also end up refusing to take food from you period.
Our Lunar was like this, I’m sure related to him being caught with food. It took me nearly a year to teach him to work for food.
This is a great article about the dangers of this kind of this sort of thing (I’m sure a lot of you have seen it already.):
http://lifeasahuman.com/2011/pets/some-dogs-wont-work-for-food/

I think a lot of people don’t realize that PR training isn’t about the dog working for food so much as the dog working to figure out how to make the food happen. The more I work with my guys and watch others work with their dogs, the more it seems to me that dogs really enjoy figuring things out. I think its very closely related to the seeking/hunting behavior Temple Grandin talks about that activates a pleasure part of the brain.

Then eventually the value of figuring things out gets transferred to simply working with you because you represent that reward.

 

[Doberluv]

Yeah, I didn’t word that very well did I?
Just wanting to point out that if you’re having to refresh a behavior every month or so, the behavior isn’t well learned let alone proofed.


I see both sides. I mean, if you have to feed your dog to get a behavior what’s the big deal right? Its not like you’re never going to feed the dog anyway (as opposed to hitting).

But on the other side, this is where this kind of training gets a bad rap and where it ends up “failing†with dogs who aren’t motivated enough by food to be bribed. Its the anti PR crowd’s line - Sure, I’ll sit in this chair if you give me $10 bucks each time I do it, but if there’s a $100 bill on the ceiling, your $10 just lost its value.
Then of course there are those who will bribe the dog to do something the dog doesn’t want to do and very quickly you end up with a dog who not only won’t fall for the bribe, but may also end up refusing to take food from you period.
Our Lunar was like this, I’m sure related to him being caught with food. It took me nearly a year to teach him to work for food.
This is a great article about the dangers of this kind of this sort of thing (I’m sure a lot of you have seen it already.):
http://lifeasahuman.com/2011/pets/some-dogs-wont-work-for-food/

I think a lot of people don’t realize that PR training isn’t about the dog working for food so much as the dog working to figure out how to make the food happen. The more I work with my guys and watch others work with their dogs, the more it seems to me that dogs really enjoy figuring things out. I think its very closely related to the seeking/hunting behavior Temple Grandin talks about that activates a pleasure part of the brain.

Then eventually the value of figuring things out gets transferred to simply working with you because you represent that reward.

Yes! It's that limbic system again that I was talking about in another thread..well...something related anyhow. I think behaviors resulting via the cortex and behaviors the limbic system are responsible for are very different and they should be kept in mind as we work with dogs.

 

[ihartgonzo]

I wasn't responding to you, but to one of her posts. Yes in the case of a very aggressive/fearful dog I might toss a cookie once or twice to get the ball rolling, so to speak. But thats not the training part, the training part is marking and rewarding so the dog does it without the food being part of the cue.

OOPS! I do agree with you though. It's not training, per se, just starting with something very easy and simple to get the dog out of a state of resistance.

 

[yoko]

You're probably "refreshing" them without even realizing it.

You're right. I just thought it was more of a sit down and work on it thing. But I am refreshing her ever day when I have to say something like 'Yoshi get off me it's like 90 degrees' lol.

 

[lizzybeth727]

No, I can't diagnose fear over the internet. I can tell you that hitting creates fear. Period. I don't need to see the dog to know that.

Not exactly. Some dogs enjoy being hit, especially during play times.

Aversive punishment techniques create fear. Hurting a dog - physically, emotionally, etc. - in such a way that it teaches the dog to not do a behavior will probably create fear in the dog.

That said, after what, 13 pages? of this conversation, I'm increasingly convinced that this dog is not punished at all by being popped on the nose. At best the pop gets the dog's attention, at worst the dog just ignores it altogether.

Which would also explain why the owner has allegedly never seen any sort of adverse reactions to this technique. And also why the owner continues to "have" to use it to get the behavior she wants from the dog.

 

[Barbara!]

Not exactly. Some dogs enjoy being hit, especially during play times.

Aversive punishment techniques create fear. Hurting a dog - physically, emotionally, etc. - in such a way that it teaches the dog to not do a behavior will probably create fear in the dog.

That said, after what, 13 pages? of this conversation, I'm increasingly convinced that this dog is not punished at all by being popped on the nose. At best the pop gets the dog's attention, at worst the dog just ignores it altogether.

Which would also explain why the owner has allegedly never seen any sort of adverse reactions to this technique. And also why the owner continues to "have" to use it to get the behavior she wants from the dog.

Really really like this post.