One Method Training

Status
Not open for further replies.

Rosefern

New Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2007
Messages
669
Likes
0
Points
0
Location
Midwest
#1
Before I start, I'd like to say that I had no single person on Chaz in mind when I wrote this, and I'm not lashing out at anybody in particular...

I've noticed that some people (both on Chaz and in RL) seem to think that there is only one correct way to train a dog...and that this must never be varied from.

Tell me (I know we have a few teachers on here), is there only one correct way to teach a class full of thirty students? Let's say you have a math problem. Now, there might be three different ways to get this problem done, but chances are, if you only teach one of those ways, only a third of the class is actually going to get it...you have to adjust each teaching method to each student...

And, you're never going to know which way works best until you try them all.

Just like there is no one right way to train a dog...you must adjust each training method to the dog.

And many people think that the only "right" way to train a dog is through 100% positive reinforcement training only.

I disagree.

With the dogs that I have raised from puppyhood, I have used 99% positive reinforcement training. When I laid my hand on the dog it was something positive, never negative. I never scruffed those dogs, or physically restrained them in any way. They never learned what negative behavior was, therefore, physically correcting them when they were bad would do no good...they didn't know that what they did was wrong.

Now, with the adult rescued dogs that I have had, and the dogs that are in our rescue program, it's different. They have had years of reinforcing of negative behavior, and they must be taught what good behavior is (sitting, walking well on a leash, staying off of people, etc.), as well as what bad behavior is (pulling on lead, jumping, mouthing, etc.). Simply rewarding the good behavior and ignoring the bad behavior doesn't always work.

I never, ever, physically hurt the dog. I do nothing that would cause them harm. However, when teaching leash walking skills to a 2 year old, 80lb shepherd that has never had leash training, I see nothing wrong with, when the dog pulls, to stop, and give a light jerk on the leash to communicate that pulling is wrong...

Now, back to the one method training...I know of many people that use many different methods of training...and all of those people's dogs are extremeley well trained and well behaved.

-Rosefern
 

Brattina88

Active Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2004
Messages
12,958
Likes
6
Points
38
Location
OH
#2
I think you've misunderstood many people's posts... No one here has ever said there's only one right way to train a dog. Everyone knows all dogs are individuals, and some need to be taught different ways.
Secondly, its personal preference. Some people don't mind yanking and cranking on their dogs. Of course I do, and so do many others, on and off this forum...

I never, ever, physically hurt the dog. I do nothing that would cause them harm. However, when teaching leash walking skills to a 2 year old, 80lb shepherd that has never had leash training, I see nothing wrong with, when the dog pulls, to stop, and give a light jerk on the leash to communicate that pulling is wrong...
The dog has been on this earth for two years. Two years, that's not very old and I think many people expect too much too soon. I've fostered adult dogs countless times, large ones too. Have I trained one of them by jerking the leash? No. Can it be done without jerking the leash? Of course it can.
I think it depends on how much the person is willing to work on it. I'm not saying this is you (I don't even know you :)) but I know a lot of owners who do it out of sheer laziness. They want the quick fix.
There are no quick fixes to real, reliable training ;)
That's fine if you see nothing wrong with it. Again, some people don't. I do, and that's my preference.

Another thing I wanted to mention is advice on the forum -- I think we need to be real careful on the advice we're giving on positive punishment when it comes to training. Especially when it comes to electric shock collars, "popping" the leash, etc (all of which I never advise anyway :p). There's not way to demonstrate it, or make sure that its being done "correctly". People can interpret text any way they choose... Here's my lil example (lol)
I was in a training class when a fellow classmate said she was having problems with her dog. The dog would go absolutly nuts when he saw a cat, dragged the owner and has injured cats in the past. The dog couldn't concentrate on "watch me" or "leave it" when it came to cats. The owner was working to desensitize the dog, and they were making good progress, and she was keeping his envoirnment control. However, we can not control stray or other people's loose cats and everytime one crossed their path and she could not keep his attention, it would set their training back considerably. The trainer suggested that she take a spray bottle, that she could use to spray the dogs muzzle, to interupt the behavior and give her a second to gather herself and the dogs attention. Sounded like a good suggestion, end of that.
About a month or so after 'graduating' I saw the lady and her dog at the park. We would meet up occasionally and walk together. One time a stray cat crossed our path, and I witnessed the out of control behavior. The dog lost control, and the owner soaked the dog in the face with a spray bottle - set to mist, which didn't effect the dog at all. She practically used all of the water in the bottle, and the only time the dog hesitated was when it got water up its nose. The whole time she was spraying she didn't even issue a single command, and she was being dragged. I stepped up and gave a Loud "eh-eh!" and then "Bailey!" Wow... amazing... the dog stopped.

The owner wondered why her correction didn't work :rolleyes: ...
(I later showed her to switch it to stream, and talked to her about it just in case anyone was wondering lol)
 

jess2416

Who woulda thought
Joined
Jan 26, 2006
Messages
22,560
Likes
0
Points
36
Age
45
Location
NC
#3
We've had this discussion over and over and over, and it never turns into anything productive....
 
Joined
Jul 17, 2005
Messages
5,634
Likes
0
Points
0
Age
35
Location
Ontario, Canada
#5
I deffinately do not agree that one method will work on every dog. Some dogs respond great to purely positive and never need more than the slightest "Ah!" to stop a behaviour. On the other hand, there are some dogs that wouldn't even flick an ear to a soft "Ah!" This is not breed specific! Every dog is an individual and so much goes into determining what it takes to get through to the dog. Everything from genetics, to environment, to the temperment of the bitch that welped him and raised him to the time he was sold as well as how the breeder interacted with him during his short time with him/her.

Heck there is even a difference between my training method with OC and my training method with Ronan. OC is completely food motivated whereas Ronan is only motivated by working. Right there there already is a split between how I train them. Actually, a trainer who only focuses on one method and refuses to ever even consider exploring another method is not a trainer I would take any of my dogs to. In order to be a successful trainer one must have an open mind and be willing to try new things with different dogs.
 
Joined
Apr 19, 2006
Messages
7,402
Likes
0
Points
0
#6
Great post Brattina88 -

I have to say Rose that this arguement always starts the same way. Generally calling positive method(s) - one method. I use SO MANY different things to teach a dog but just because none of them involve physical punishment DOESN'T mean I use only one method.

You use the analogy of a classroom of 30 students. How many of those 30 do you think would learn faster/better with a slap, a yank on their hair or spray in their face?.......thought so.:rolleyes:

Positive training does not mean permissive simply because it's void of pain.
 

RD

Are you dead yet?
Joined
Aug 1, 2004
Messages
15,572
Likes
0
Points
0
Age
34
Location
Ohio
#7
Not hurting a dog is not a method. That's all positive training is to me - free of devices and actions that inflict pain on the animal. You can get into different "methods" but there are hundreds of different methods to teach everything from sitting on command to service dog behaviors.

No one method works for every dog, but training without pain and fear DOES.
 

ToscasMom

Harumph™©®
Joined
Sep 15, 2006
Messages
6,211
Likes
0
Points
0
Location
Mother Ship
#8
Using a classroom of 30 human students is not a good analogy because of the different cognitive functions and learning preferences of humans vs. dogs' level of cognitive function. People learn in different ways because they have different types of reasoning abilities. for example, some people learn by watching, others learn by doing, still others learn by reading, while others learn by writing things down. This is not the case with dogs, so that analogy really has to be discarded.
 

Doberluv

Active Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2004
Messages
22,038
Likes
2
Points
38
Location
western Wa
#9
Good points Toscasmom. (as usual) I also agree that when people say that no one method works on every dog, they seem to mean that "method" means pain, fear, coercion (collar jerks, scruffs, sprays, electric shock, screaming, hitting) and that is one method... and the lack thereof is another method. All mammals, all animals with a brain stem learn by operant and classical conditioning. Motivators and drives can vary, the number of repititions it takes to learn can vary, some degree of reasoning can vary and so forth and so on. But harsh physical aversives is not a method. It's just abuse. There are behavioral laws, just as there are laws of physics and they dictate how dogs learn. To learn and utilize these laws is my goal and my method for any and all dogs.
 

Doberluv

Active Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2004
Messages
22,038
Likes
2
Points
38
Location
western Wa
#10
We've had many, many discussions which have been discussed many, many times before. We do not lock threads because a topic has been discussed before. If that were the case, the forum wouldn't exist. I don't know how many potty training, recall training, leash pulling, puppy nipping/jumping threads I've responded to over the years. If we locked every thread that is a near repeat of another thread, the forum would become extinct. LOL. If any thread causes anyone anxiety, you can always go read another thread. There are lots of new ones too, where topics have never been discussed or maybe it's been a long time since they were.
 

IliamnasQuest

Loves off-leash training!
Joined
Feb 28, 2006
Messages
1,083
Likes
0
Points
0
#11
Rosefern, a good trainer has myriad methods to draw upon.

I understand completely what you mean about this forum. There is a group of very prolific people here who make it sound like a person is going to h*ll if they dare do anything other than positive reinforcement. I do believe highly in using positive reinforcement but there is a time and place for all the aspects of operant conditioning - and that includes negative reinforcement, negative punishment and even positive punishment.

When people teach their dogs to walk on a leash, they will say "oh, I NEVER yank on the leash" and yet they have no problem with the dog running to the end of the leash while they stop - and the result is that their dogs DO get quite a pop on the leash when they hit the end. This is POSITIVE PUNISHMENT. But since they didn't actively yank the leash, they don't see it that way. The dog gets the correction to the neck, it serves to make the dog not want to do the behavior again - voila, the definition of positive punishment! Something added (hitting the end of the leash, neck getting yanked) to decrease the likelihood of the unwanted behavior (pulling on the leash).

Dogs are becoming more and more permissive and it's due to people's unwillingness to use aversives overall. Properly done, an aversive is only as harsh as necessary for that particular dog. It shouldn't create a huge reaction - yelping, cowering, etc. A "NO!" said to a sensitive dog is a harsher aversive than a pop on a prong collar might be to a tough dog. It all depends on the dog and the dog's level of "toughness".

I have three very tough chows. They are stoic and independent. A face full of porcupine quills meant very little to the two who tried to kill a porcupine. And for the two weeks after having them to the vet's for sedation and quill removal, they continued to shed the occasional quill that I would then pull with a pair of pliers. Not ONCE did either chow make a single sound. But my shepherd - who had been smacked with the porcupine tail - screamed her head off every time I pulled a quill.

There's a reason why you don't see many chows in competition performance, because they aren't the type of dog who lives to please their people. Their level of respect depends in part on knowing that people are tougher than they are. They demand a high level of leadership. Done correctly, you have a loving, bonded, well-mannered and respectful dog. Done wrong, and you have a dog that runs the household and bites the vet. And those "done wrong" chows are almost always ones that are not disciplined properly.

Unless you LIVE with dogs like these, you can't truly assess their nature. Having one in dog class or doing a few lessons that appear to be going well is not "training a chow". Chows are deep creatures, not superficial like so many breeds. And I have no doubt that an occasional correction for stepping over boundary lines, paired with a high level of positive reinforcement, adds to their respect.

The methods for each dog should be based on the dog's personality. I'd say I'm 95% positive reinforcement. If I only had easy breeds then I might get away with 99% +R. My shepherd has needed VERY little correction and a "NO!" to her is harsh enough. But to my chows, "NO!" is only effective if they know that it can be followed by something more aversive if they don't comply. And living with three of them means I better have some instant compliance so that there are no fights or disagreements.

Melanie and the gang in Alaska
 

Dekka

Just try me..
Joined
May 14, 2007
Messages
19,779
Likes
3
Points
38
Age
48
Location
Ontario
#12
for those of you who say you need to use P+ have you read the the scientific literature? This is not meant as a 'jab' just curious. I know lots of trainers who dis ppl who chose not to risk P+ because there are so many..'oh but I could never deny my precious baby anything, and would never hurt snookums etc" but that is not positive training. (its just nauseating :D) I wonder how many have seen properly done R+ training? Its very very effective. Incredible things have been done with it, with many species less condusive to training than dogs.

It was the science of it that got me to switch from a 'balanced' perspective to a 98% positive one. I raise train and show Jack Russells- not a breed know for their 'ease' of training. I show to a high level of obed (working utility with one) and have achieved 3 HITs with different dogs. I have friends who aren't positive, so its not like I think ppl will go to 'h*ll'. I just cringe though when I see the stress in thier dogs.

And there are some things you can't train with aversives.

lol

And for me its a personal thing, if I have to hurt my dog to get something, do I really need it? As a personal story..When Kaiden (my stud) was 1 he kept lagging when heeling. The instructor told me to give him little leash pops to 'tell him that lagging isn't good' so I did. The lagging stayed the same, maybe got a little worse. We lost marks for lagging. I had started playing with the clicker. I dropped the leash pops. And just clicked for being in heel. Within 2 sessions the lag was gone!
 
W

whatszmatter

Guest
#14
I really wish some of you would get off the "scientific literature" blabs all the time. In fact, YES, some of us have and have gotten far more in depth than most of you apparently. There is a TON, and absolute TON of stuff out there that it is quite obvious some of you have never even touched on.
 
Joined
May 13, 2005
Messages
1,736
Likes
0
Points
0
Location
Pidjun Haller, with ma uncle Palmer
#15
Using a classroom of 30 human students is not a good analogy because of the different cognitive functions and learning preferences of humans vs. dogs' level of cognitive function. People learn in different ways because they have different types of reasoning abilities. for example, some people learn by watching, others learn by doing, still others learn by reading, while others learn by writing things down. This is not the case with dogs
That's a sweeping statement. Apart from the whole angle of breed influence on how dogs learn, individual personality means all dogs learn things differently. Of course, no dog learns by reading or writing, but they do have different styles of taking in and understanding instructions. That, of course, is just a personal feeling based on experience on my part. Logically, though, it makes little sense to say that individual humans vary widely in reasoning ability but dogs don't. Why would the members of one species be varied and members of another identical?
 
Joined
Jul 17, 2005
Messages
5,634
Likes
0
Points
0
Age
35
Location
Ontario, Canada
#16
IQ, excellent post!!!! I agree with your views completely!!!! When I train your average willing-to-please Golden Retriever, very rarely do I need more than a "No!" because they tend to be very sensitive to displeasure and are very dependent on their owners for guidance anyways. But when it comes to breeds like your Chows who are strong willed and independent, merely showing displeasure isnt enough in some cases because they simply don't care, to put it simply LOL Its when you show them that you being displeased leads to consequences that you will earn their respect. Does it mean you have to beat them opver the head with a 2X4? Of course not!!!! For some reason though, a lot purely positive reinforcement trainers seemt o think that anyone that uses aversives are automatically beating their dog.
 
Joined
Apr 19, 2006
Messages
7,402
Likes
0
Points
0
#17
Again, who ever said that postitive reinforcement means permissive? I'm certainly not a one trick pony. I have many DIFFERENT methods, none of them include pain.
I've never thought that those who use physical aversives ONLY have one method yet it seems to be the mental block that everyone falls back on when someone choose not to use +P:confused: :confused: :confused: Where's the confusion?
 

Dekka

Just try me..
Joined
May 14, 2007
Messages
19,779
Likes
3
Points
38
Age
48
Location
Ontario
#18
I really wish some of you would get off the "scientific literature" blabs all the time. In fact, YES, some of us have and have gotten far more in depth than most of you apparently. There is a TON, and absolute TON of stuff out there that it is quite obvious some of you have never even touched on.
Hi
Can you please explain this post..as you can see by the number of my posts I can't be on it all the time ;) Also I asked a question, I am curious. Do those who use aversive do so because it is what has worked for them in the past, and don't care to learn something new (the it worked for my grandfather so its good enough for me..) or have they read the science and disagree, don't care etc.

To me its kinda like meeting ppl who say the earth is still flat or that dinosaurs never walked the earth. To me its pretty obvious, but to others its not. No judgement call, just trying to figure out where ppl are coming from.
 

Doberluv

Active Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2004
Messages
22,038
Likes
2
Points
38
Location
western Wa
#19
Jean Donaldson has Chows or a Chow and she doesn't use aversives. But she really knows behavior and has lots of tricks up her sleeve, something that most people who depend on a lot of "corrections" haven't learned because they're too stuck on the belief that you have to get stern and tough with dogs to "make" them behave. The idea is that you don't MAKE them. You "brainwash" them into WANTING to. LOL. There are ways to "brainwash" without the dog even knowing it.
 
A

Angel Chicken

Guest
#20
Hi
Also I asked a question, I am curious. Do those who use aversive do so because it is what has worked for them in the past, and don't care to learn something new (the it worked for my grandfather so its good enough for me..) or have they read the science and disagree, don't care etc.

For me, it was something like that.

Except, I didn't know there was other ways of training a dog before Kona. I thought that there was only the way my parents did!

But, before getting Kona, I began to read up.

All the dogs we have had, except for one, have been chained up outside, with little human contact. Knowing I was probably getting a dog, I knew that there had to be other ways. I wasn't going to have a chained up, human aggressive, dog aggressive, anything aggressive dog. I wanted a dog that was happy and knew that s/he would always have a warm place to sleep, good natured, loveable.

So, I decided to change my ways. And I did.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

No members online now.
Top