Valid Question

[Doberluv]

Can all dogs be trained to the same level of off leash reliability by using all positive training?

The same level of reliability as what? As eachother? As training using a shock collar?

I probably misinterpreted the question. No, not all dogs are the same in reliability about everything and everywhere. They're not machines. I wouldn't trust my dog in close quarters with other dogs except in classes. (he's fine there) I haven't worked with him enough either around other dogs in relation to all his skills. He has come however, when in mid chase of a dog that came onto my property, as well as deer and squirrels. I am not saying that any dog can be 100% reliable with a recall anyhow. There's always that 1% chance or more that they won't come. They're animals. However, can a good, solid recall in general, be procured from all dogs without using harsh aversives? Yes. You try not to put your dog off leash into situations where they're likely to come into danger to themselves or others. You try to work with them, not against them. There are ways to manage certain situations. If a dog can not be trained by using humane training methods, then it is my opinion that he's better off skipping that particular skill and having it be managed for him. They're animals (I think people forget that sometimes and want them to be mirrors) and should not be treated disrespectfully or harshly.

 

[dr2little]

Really great posts so far!!!:hail:

I just have to add, sorry if I missed this in anyones posts - (I know O've repeated some pieces of other posts...sorry )

To most trainers who are being called "purely positive only" by others on this board, I think that some clarification is required as those terms have been purposly and unfairly skewed and are now understandably misunderstood by many.

I don't believe that any good trainer would tell you that one size fits all. There are other methods that DO NOT include fear, pain, or intimidation and ALL effective trainers will include some sort of mild aversive (verbal direction cues eheh..try again, NRM's, negative reward..etc..
What we won't use and find no need for is the harsh aversives (shock collars, pinch/choke collars, yanking, poking, hitting, yelling).


By mild aversive, I mean anything that will let the dog know that they're headed in the wrong direction. NRM's for example are considered an aversive, negative reward...an aversive. Like Doberluv, RD and other I'm sure have said...THESE ARE AVERSIVES and I , nor anyone else here has said that we use NO aversives.

These mild aversives are very effective and like any method must be employed properly in order to be successful. Proofing (as AussieRed said) must be done safely, with patience, and at a proper rate and level of distraction depending on where the dog is at in response/compliance level.

Also important to clarify - treats are NOT the only motivators that positive trainers use. There are many different motivators as there are different types of dog personalities/characters/breed types. High drive dogs often need to be motivated differently than very foody or lower drive dogs etc, and the proofing MUST fit the lifestyle.

I live on the edge of a provincial park. There are two enclosed baseball diamonds just inside the park that are surrounded by wooded areas. Almost everytime I visit that park with my dogs and my clients dogs, we encounter deer, geese/ducks, snakes, prairie dogs and of course other dogs off leash. The bow river runs directly through the park and is visible from where we go....another huge draw for many dogs.

Would I proof an emergency recall off leash in the wooded area, next to a high current river full of ducks????....OF COURSE NOT. Once an appropriate motivator has been established for a given dog, the training begins in the home - no distraction. When the response has been conditioned there, it's taken into different areas of the home, yard, neighborhood....then the baseball diamonds and FINALLY to the park - BUT ONLY ONCE IT HAS BEEN PROOFED. A long line is used for a good long time at the park to ensure that sufficient time, distraction level and many different scenarios have been properly tested and proven.

I was asked in another thread and I'll say again..this method does work WITHOUT HARSH AVERSIVES. I have never lost a dog to a competing motivator yet...

 

[otch1]

Ahhh.. sounds like I should have read the previous thread about e-collars. This is about the use of adversives, not "all dogs being reliable off-leash, using same training method", ect. My mistake and I agree with your statement Doberluv, "they're animals". I believe the level of responsiveness one obtains from a normal, healthy, sound animal in training, is directly proportionate to the time and energy (positive) the human puts into the training proccess. Can the same results be obtained when using a prong, e-collar, ... yep! Been there, done that, back in the day. But when we're talking about a normal, healthy dog, why use this type equipment? Most trainers who stuck with it for a living, having originally learned "old school" methods, have modified their programs over the years. There's something to be said for a dog that's been conditioned to respond because he "wants to", verses "has to" and I see it in the ring all of the time. It is a different picture when you watch those dogs, quite often, if you know what to look for.

 

[otch1]

Posting at same time you were Doc. Agree 100%!!

 

[dr2little]

Posting at same time you were Doc. Agree 100%!!

I take so long to formulate a post that often times there are 3 or 4 more there by the time I hit reply......many of them making mine seem redundant..

 

[sam]

My answer to the original question: Obviously not. Though I think it depends as much on the skill of the handler as well as the willingness to do the work and manage the situation during the training phase as it does the breed of dog. Certainly some things are far easier to accomplish with certain breeds of dogs than others.

Different breeds were bred to do and be good at different things-- obviously it's far easier to put a reliable recall on my border collie than it is my neighbors beagle, husky or terrier. It goes without saying that some breeds of dogs are more "biddable' or are naturally better at working with a handler.

Keep in mind the woman who wrote "Really reliable recall" owned afghan hounds !

A better question to me is : Does owning a less biddable breed of dog justify the use of harsh aversives live shock collars?

Not for me.

I would prefer to carefully select a dog who fits with my lifestyle. ie if you want a dog that can be trained to be 99.99% reliable off leash choose a dog who will be good at that and then TRAIN for it. (So many problems with and for dogs could be prevented if people would just choose their breed and dog wisely)

I would prefer to manage a situation I can't train for (long lines, having the dog only off leash in a safe confined space etc) than resort to aversives.

I also think that a tremendous amount can be accomplished by the smart and creative use of Premack and other techniques. I think people resort to things like shock collars more because they think it is the quicker, easier way out. Problem with that is, typically the people making that choice don't use them very skillfully and can cause more problems than they fix. I posted some points from Steve's talk on "the problems with punishment" or something to that effect. It's actually not easy to effectively use punishment.

I think it was Steve White who said something to the effect of people who know enough about dog training to use aversives well don't tend to need them because they have better ways to solve their training problems.

I don't think there's justification for using aversives to train for the things we do with our pet dogs wether it's for companion dog skills like recall or to perfect competition behaviors.-- loosely quoting Bob Bailey

I have seen tremendous things trained without the use of force with species far less trainable than domesticated dogs. What's been accomplished in the zoo and marine animal training world is testament to that. I have seen wild jackals trained to hold their necks pressed against wire cages to have blood drawn without the use of any force or any aversives. Captive dolphins trained to swim for hours in open water to accomplish a task. etc etcThere are thousands of examples. So why then would we consider using pain, startle or any other aversive on our dogs?

I hope that I will always choose to seek out the advice of other trainers to help me problem solve before I will resort to the use of something like a shock collar.

Side note I don't think "drive" has anything to do with it. You won't find a much more high "drive" dog in the world than my incredibly intense aussie's drive to herd sheep. She is so aroused in the presence of sheep and there is an incredibly strong instinct to chase them and yet I (and a billion other herding dog handlers) have successfully trained their dogs without any aversives to stop mid chase, turn on a dime and walk away form those sheep. Plenty of people have also resorted to aversives in training herding dogs-- but that doesn't make it necessary. It also isn't faster nor does it result in a better trained dog.

 

[otch1]

Just a thought... why is it termed "positive punishment" verses "positive correction". When I think of teaching my son how to do laundry and he's bringing out the bleach bottle for a load of colors, I don't first yank his hair, then say "Stop, this is how you do it." I simply stop the direction he's going in and show him the "correct" method of doing a load of colors. There is no punishment for not knowing the right answer. There is simply a correct response and an incorrect response and it's my job to show him which is which. Guaranteed, if I "punished" him by yanking his hair first, then showed him the proper method, he wouldn't be willing to do laundry for me again. I know we shouldn't equate this to humans verse dogs, but I think there's a difference in punishment verses correction and when you're dealing with an animal it's often takes the same patience and understanding as if you were dealing with a young child! Lol.

 

[otch1]

Sam, I'm glad you brought up Steve White!! He is a perfect example of trainers learning a "better way". When I knew him, he was training using methods common to the Bellevue police dept. back then. When he came to my training center and left a GSD for several months, it was clear what methods were used. I have a very scarey story about that dog, that would not be appropriate for the internet. But over time, he has obviously changed his methods and has become very successful at teaching others to bring out the best in their dogs, as well. It can be done!!

 

[Doberluv]

Obviously not.

Different breeds were bred to do and be good at different things-- obviously it's far easier to put a reliable recall on my border collie than it is my neighbors beagle, husky or terrier. It goes without saying that some breeds of dogs are more "biddable' or are naturally better at working with a handler.

A better question to me is : Does owning a less biddable breed of dog justify the use of harsh aversives live shock collars?

Not for me.

I would prefer to carefully select a dog who fits with my lifestyle. ie if you want a dog that can be trained to be 99.99% reliable off leash choose a dog who will be good at that and then TRAIN for it. (So many problems with and for dogs could be prevented if people would just choose their breed and dog wisely)

I would prefer to manage a situation I can't train for (long lines, having the dog only off leash in a safe confined space etc) than resort to aversives.

I also think that a tremendous amount can be accomplished by the smart and creative use of Premack and other techniques. I think people resort to things like shock collars more because they think it is the quicker, easier way out. Problem with that is, typically the people making that choice don't use them very skillfully and can cause more problems than they fix. I posted some points from Steve's talk on "the problems with punishment" or something to that effect. It's actually not easy to effectively use punishment.

I think it was Steve White who said something to the effect of people who know enough about dog training to use aversives well don't tend to need them because they have better ways to solve their training problems.

I don't think there's justification for using aversives to train for the things we do with our pet dogs wether it's for companion dog skills like recall or to perfect competition behaviors.-- loosely quoting Bob Bailey

I have seen tremendous things trained without the use of force with species far less trainable than domesticated dogs. What's been accomplished in the zoo and marine animal training world is testament to that. I have seen wild jackals trained to hold their necks pressed against wire cages to have blood drawn without the use of any force or any aversives. Captive dolphins trained to swim for hours in open water to accomplish a task. etc etcThere are thousands of examples. So why then would we consider using pain, startle or any other aversive on our dogs?

I hope that I will always choose to seek out the advice of other trainers to help me problem solve before I will resort to the use of something like a shock collar.

Side note I don't think "drive" has anything to do with it. You won't find a much more high "drive" dog in the world than my incredibly intense aussie's drive to herd sheep. She is so aroused in the presence of sheep and there is an incredibly strong instinct to chase them and yet I (and a billion other herding dog handlers) have successfully trained their dogs without any aversives to stop mid chase, turn on a dime and walk away form those sheep. Plenty of people have also resorted to aversives in training herding dogs-- but that doesn't make it necessary. It also isn't faster nor does it result in a better trained dog.
__________________

Great post Sam. Adjustments need to be made to suit the differences in dogs, that's all.

Otch, good analogy. Kids and dogs aren't the same species, but learning behavior in general is quite across the board between mammals.

 

[sam]

Sam, I'm glad you brought up Steve White!! He is a perfect example of trainers learning a "better way". When I knew him, he was training using methods common to the Bellevue police dept. back then. When he came to my training center and left a GSD for several months, it was clear what methods were used. I have a very scarey story about that dog, that would not be appropriate for the internet. But over time, he has obviously changed his methods and has become very successful at teaching others to bring out the best in their dogs, as well. It can be done!!

Oh yes, he has seen it first hand from both sides, both from training dogs in the military and for police work. His stories and descriptions of the methods used were so disturbing I almost felt like asking him to stop, that we got the idea.
I think that's much of what makes him such an interesting speaker - he didn't set out to look for an alternative because he was a big bleeding heart who couldn't stomach using aversives or had any moral problem with hurting man's best friend :lol-sign: . He found a BETTER way, a way to better and more quickly train dogs to a higher level of reliability. In my books Steve has a ton of "street cred". He has trained a LOT of dogs through both methods and continues to train a LOT of dogs.

 

[otch1]

Absolutely... he speaks from experience and I believe the turning point for him was around the time of the Shepard I mentioned. I have a $700.00 e-collar sitting in my closet, haven't used it in 11 years. It's one thing to train using an e-collar because you don't know any other method, or lack the confidence in dealing with a miriad of dogs and situations, but once you do... there you go.

 

[Doberluv]

Steve White IS a very good example and tribute to the statements made about "positive" training methods.

 

[MafiaPrincess]

Not to jack this thread.. Wasn't till recently I'd ever seen more things listed as motivators for dogs...

Food, toys, praise are ALWAYS the ones brought up, especially in classes.. I've thought of prey before, I was wondering if anyone could list more off the top of their head?

 

[Doberluv]

Motivators are things the dog wants and loves. They can change from instance to instance. Opening the door can be a reinforcer for a dog who wants to go outside badly. Jumping into a car (for a dog who loves to go for car rides) can be a reinforcer for sitting nicely and waiting for a release word. Jumping out of the car (for a dog who can hardly wait to see what the next adventure is) is a motivator. Waiting for a release word before jumping out can be reinforced by providing the motivator of jumping out after the dog waits politely. Every day things, all day long can be possible motivators and reinforcers. You can use your imagination. What does the dog want right now? What might he like? How can I use that to my advantage? Those types of rewards are coined, "life rewards." Every day stuff.

Every living thing is constantly trying to get the good things and trying to avoid bad things. Make the good things work for you. Avoiding bad things works for you too. But the bad things should not be harsh aversives because they're connected to you and the dog can lose his trust and a myrid of other problems.

 

[MafiaPrincess]

I guess it's harder for people who aren't trainers to identify motivators since they aren't static...
I'm trying to wean off our ecollar. Haven't touched it in two weeks, but we've been off leash 8 or so times.
Cider wanted to see a dog off leash in the park, she came when called and I released her, it was a motivator, I just never really saw anything except the basic three as motivators on the same level before.

 

[IliamnasQuest]

Interesting responses. I don't disagree 100% with anyone's post. Honestly .. *L*

I didn't mention shock training, that's been brought into this thread by others. My original question was:

"Can all dogs be trained to the same level of off-leash reliability by using all positive training?"

And, of course, the answer is no. Dogs are individuals, each is going to respond to motivators and punishments in their own way. Some dogs respond beautifully to an all positive method, some require more boundaries (i.e. corrections). A good trainer will balance these specifically for each particular dog.

My Trick is a good example of a dog who needed very little in the way of corrections. A verbal correction was plenty for her, and she has never been trained with the use of corrective collars. She is as close to 100% reliable off-leash as you can hope a dog will be. I can have her heel next to me, off-leash, in a busy parking lot. She does a stay outside the store while I put the cart away. If I drive in and there's a moose in the driveway, I can let her out of the van off-leash and tell her "stay with me" and she does. She can be outside with Khana and Khana can run off, but Trick prefers to stay with me. This is in huge part to the type of dog she is .. the training just solidified the personality she already had.

I put a LOT more time into Khana's recall than I ever have into Trick's. I did everything that people are saying should be done. I've studied her extensively, used a large arsenal of motivators, started doing recalls with her when she was all of nine weeks old, and she's been HIGHLY reinforced. I'm not some beginning trainer .. I'm experienced, knowledgeable, have traveled extensively for training, have studied for many years, and have practiced what I've studied. Hundreds and hundreds of dogs have gone through my training programs and done very well. Many have gone on to earn performance titles (as have mine - more than 30 titles now). I'm not a novice. I still have things to learn, but I have a good deal of knowledge now.

And one of the valuable lessons I've learned is that IF you're going to be successful with all dogs, you have to be flexible and you have to understand that providing a consequence for an unwanted (and especially a potentially dangerous) behavior is not necessarily a BAD thing. Now, I could have said "I'm only going to use this ONE method, and we will only train to the extent that this ONE method will be successful" .. and yes, I could say I was successful within that method, even if my dog was never reliable off-leash. But I'm not a trainer that is going to allow the boundaries of a particular method hold back the training of a dog, if there's another way to work through a problem that will work but not be devastating for the dog.

If you want to teach off-leash reliability to all dogs, you're not going to get it with just positive training. That should certainly be where you start - and it should be used to the greatest extent possible. Yes, you will succeed with that method with a large number of dogs. Yes, you have to be imaginative and observant and you have to know your dog well so as to use the best motivators possible. Treats and praise and toys are not the only motivators by far. I've used everything from a car ride to getting to pee on a bush to rabbit skins as motivators. And if teaching Khana to respond to a recall command could have been done with ONLY motivators, it would have happened.

No one can tell me truthfully that they could have trained my dog to a reliable recall with positive training only (or even with mild corrections like "no" - which is pretty useless when your dog is running off .. *L*). Up until the age of about 20 months, she NEVER offered the running behavior. I have no doubt she understood (and still understands) what the recall is. It was her choice to run off, and what motivated her to do so was something far stronger than anything any person could have offered in exchange.

I will reiterate that positive training is absolutely the place to start in ALL training. Khana does beautifully in controlled situations, such as a competition recall. I can work her in the front yard, off-leash, leave her on a stay and call her and she comes racing full blast, bouncing to a sit in front of me with her ears forward and this look of expectation on her face (when IS that treat going to fall from my mouth?? *L*). It's only during playtime that we ran into a problem. And like I said, I could have kept her on a longline for the rest of her life. And that would have been really sad for this particular dog.

I spend 24 hours a day with my dogs. I can read their expressions, their attitudes, what they're thinking when they look at me. If I had any .. ANY .. indications that what I've used with Khana had created a lack of trust, a fear of me, a reluctance to interact with me in even the slightest of ways, I would have never continued with my course of action. But that's not happened. To say that I'm a terrible person/trainer because of my choice would be the same as calling every parent who's ever given a swat on the butt of their misbehaving child a child abuser. And that's just not logical.

So say what you will about me. I'll continue training as I always have, my dogs will continue to be happy and enthusiastic, and my students will continue to do well in my classes as they have for more than a decade and a half.

Melanie and the gang in Alaska

 

[~Tucker&Me~]

No one can tell me truthfully that they could have trained my dog to a reliable recall with positive training only (or even with mild corrections like "no" - which is pretty useless when your dog is running off .. *L*). Up until the age of about 20 months, she NEVER offered the running behavior. I have no doubt she understood (and still understands) what the recall is. It was her choice to run off, and what motivated her to do so was something far stronger than anything any person could have offered in exchange.

I will reiterate that positive training is absolutely the place to start in ALL training. Khana does beautifully in controlled situations, such as a competition recall. I can work her in the front yard, off-leash, leave her on a stay and call her and she comes racing full blast, bouncing to a sit in front of me with her ears forward and this look of expectation on her face (when IS that treat going to fall from my mouth?? *L*). It's only during playtime that we ran into a problem. And like I said, I could have kept her on a longline for the rest of her life. And that would have been really sad for this particular dog.

That's very interesting.

Tucker has started running off (he is now about 3 1/2) and I hav done lots of positive training practive. In controlled situations, he is great. However, if he gets a whif of a squirrel, he could care LESS what I am doing, and will take off. I would hate to put him on a longline for the rest of his life as well. If you don't mind me asking, what did you do with Khana?

~Tucker

 

[Doberluv]

Why do you people give your dog an opportunity to run way off in the first place until they are trained? That pretty much says it all. There are ways but that is the first mistake right there. The dog gets reinforced for running off. Prevention is the best medicine. Baby steps.

To say that I'm a terrible person/trainer because of my choice would be the same as calling every parent who's ever given a swat on the butt of their misbehaving child a child abuser. And that's just not logical.

So say what you will about me.

Huh? Where did someone say that? I haven't seen anyone be personal or mention names here. Did I miss a post? I am too lazy to go back through them all.

 

[dr2little]

You didn't miss anything Carrie. No one on this thread has made any personal attacks at all.

 

[mrose_s]

i personally don't think all dogs can be trained using ONLY positive reinforcement.

Harry for example. he is a pretty full on dog. once he decided he wanted to go a guy on a pushbike. he charged at him. he got a short sharp "NO HARRY" and yes, he got smack. and guess what, never did it again. he doesn't even go near bicycles now. it worked well, it didn't make him hate them. it just made him never want to go them again. meaning it stopped him from ever having ben in the situation where he might bite someone while usuing the positive reinforcment method.

howveer i do believe that the vast majority of dogs respond better and faster to positive reinforvcemtn. Bsuter has learnt so much more since i stopped loosing my temper with him.

Harry is very smart though, he isn't a dog that you would ever need to flog to get a point across (no dog needs that EVER) but i smack when he's doen something REALLY bad means he'lll never do it again.