Valid Question

[IliamnasQuest]

That was one of the reasons that a thread to educate the uses of an E collar was started. Im sorry you wont rise above whatever issue is holding you back from extrapolating on the issue.

For some reason you want to push this issue and offer a lot of blame toward me, as if I am avoiding the subject for some nefarious reason. It's not a matter of "rising above" (a term which holds a pretty negative insinuation for those who fail to do so). If you like, I will share with you the PM I received from 2little with her feelings on the subject. Will that help you understand? Or are you being butt-headed just to continue to create trouble?

Canis Lupus and Canis Familiaris are in the same family but not the same species.

Canis is the genus, but the dog is considered by most scientists to be canis lupus familiaris, which is a sub-species of canis lupus and therefore of the same basic species.

By refferring to Doc as 2Little seems a little backhanded, or is it passive agressive?

Many people shorten handles (as you have, by calling her "Doc"). Since I seriously doubt she's a doctor or has a PhD, so I don't see any reason to use "Dr" in referring to her in the shortened version. I guess I could just say "2l" instead. But that might be a tad bit confusing to people.

Some people end their posts with their names, which is really nice .. when people do that, I use their names instead of a shortened version of their handles.

Melanie and the gang in Alaska

 

[Buddy'sParents]

How about we all just agree to disagree?

Amen.

 

[blue]

Canis Lupus and Canis Familiaris are in the same family but not the same species.

Not sure Im gonna bother reading anything beyond my last post in this thread so I need to make a correction, sorry if its allready been made.

Lupus and Familiaris share the same genus along with the Latrans, and fall under the Canidae Family along with foxes, and jackals among many other sspecimens.

 

[Doberluv]

That's enough Melanie!

 

[IliamnasQuest]

However, they most certainly learn by operant and classical conditioning, the same way all mammals learn

I agree. But operant conditioning includes positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement, positive punishment and negative punishment. Operant conditioning is NOT just positive reinforcement even though people often tend to think of it that way. Classical conditioning does not automatically mean conditioning by positive reinforcement only. It's a way of associating one action to another.

Punishment takes a huge number of forms and what is punishing to one dog may not even be mildly irritating to another. Just because some people can use a simple "eht" or let their dog bounce off the end of the leash when they stop and it works for them and that particular dog, does NOT mean it will work for all dogs. That's the crux of this entire thread. Positive reinforcement, in and of itself, even properly used does NOT guarantee the same level of reliability in all dogs.

People making statements saying that all dogs can be taught the same way with the same success, claiming that anyone using aversives more harsh than they're willing to use is being cruel, making blatant insinuations about a person's lack of credibility and/or knowledge just because that person isn't using the same exact method they are .. well, these types of statements are going to be (and should be) continually challenged. They're designed to belittle other people's methods of training while expounding a person's own "I'm so good" attitude. There are a number of variations in training methods that are completely valid and it has NOTHING to do with "morals" (another word often used to insult others who make different choices).

I had an interesting talk with my sister today - she has a Master's degree in psychology and currently works with college kids - about the idealistic over-use of +R with no aversive consequences. She agrees entirely that operant conditioning is best when balanced with a touch of +P, -R or -P with the levels of each determined by the individual personalities. She has seen what I have done with my dogs and understands that what I used with Khana was NOT an overuse of -R or +P. And my sister would have no trouble telling me if she thought I was abusive. She is definitely outspoken .. *L*

While people all have the right to do what they want with their dogs, I want to say something to those silent readers who have found a need to use a small level of punishment with their dogs: you are NOT a bad person, you do NOT have a lack of morals, and please don't let anyone make you think so. If you're creating a high level of fear in your dog, have a dog that is yelping in pain or cringing when you reach for it or runs away from you peeing on the ground in fear, then you need to find a better way. But if you've used something that has changed a behavior without damaging your relationship or creating a huge fear in your dog, that's not necessarily a bad thing. And there's no need to let people guilt you into feeling bad.

Melanie and the gang in Alaska

 

[doberkim]

Happens on this board all the time.

I just got back from class now and it was a 30 minute long discussion about the trial this weekend, in Kingston I think. The woman who took HIT in the Novice class, literally knelt down and baited her dog into a down for the long sits and downs, as well as lifting his front legs and sliding them down. In the recall the dog had wandered around the whole ring before he came to her front.

The topics been brought up before by my trainer and others about how obedience matches USED to be. How you see things now that you never would've a decade or two ago. People in open with dogs that break sit/down stays, use huge sweeping arm motions for finishes etc.

It just came to mind when reading the posts about how seemingly leniant obedience has become with these seemingly un-obedient dogs! LOL

How on earth did that performance get HIGH IN TRIAL?
To me, that states more about the quality of all the training in the area if a dog that didn't even do the recall correctly got HIT.

 

[otch1]

That's what I thought too, Doberkim. This could not have been an AKC sanctioned event in a novice class. You're certainly not allowed to bait your dogs, force them into position or have a dog wander around the ring first on a recall and get a qualifying score let alone HIT. Granted, many people go in the ring before they or their dogs are ready (I did once, ha!) but they aren't passing the class.

 

[Roxy's CD]

It wasn't anyone from my school! LOL

The lady that was in our class that was in this woman's class spoke to the judge about it and he said that touching the dog was against the rules in OPEN not in novice. I don't know the right word for it, but the lady in our class also had to put in a complaint? The way it was explained, was if you have a problem with your score sheet from a judge, you lodge the complaint and deal with it there. My trainer's also looking into it seeing as the student in our class got docked for using a hand signal for a finish during the recall. She did use a verbal to call the dog, but after reading the CKC handbook, we're pretty sure that it doesn't mean the WHOLE excercise has to be done verbally just because you choose to do one part of it verbally. She got docked 4 points, her final score was a 196. Those 4 points would've given her a perfect score, so needless to say she's upset as well as my trainer.

She didn't have food in her hand, but baited as if she did have food. Does that make any sense?

Also from the sounds of it, many of the people in the her class specifically were disqualified for having dogs down on the sit stay.

I can assure you this was a CKC sanctioned match seeing as the woman in our class earned her first CD leg at this trial.

Maybe it was Pedawawa?? I'll be seeing her Tuesday again, I'll ask her where the trial was and the judge, but what happened at the trial won't change.