So, if it really is the training and not the shock...

One of the things that I've come to realize on this forum, over the years, is that are as many different definations of aversives, positive punishment, etc, etc, etc, as there are people!

glenmar

One of the things that I've come to realize on this forum, over the years, is that are as many different definations of aversives, positive punishment, etc, etc, etc, as there are people!

 There really shouldn't be though. An aversive/correction/punishment is something that will make the chance of a behavior happening again less likely. And what is an aversive to one dog may not be to the next - some dogs don't mind tugs on a collar, some are very voice sensitive, and some could get yelled at all day and not care. It all depends on if it makes the behavior less likely to happen in the future. Have you read Don't Shoot the Dog? It lays it all out in plain language and the benefit is then everyone can have a common language when it comes to discussing training methods.

No, I haven't.  And even if I had, that wouldn't mean that I'd agree with all the definations.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, and I normally stay the heck out of Dodge (training) because there tends to be a good deal of dissention.

Chuffy

Take the example o the anti-bark collar as I said above.... the collar might stop the barking, and maybe the owner is happy with that.... but I hope they would be worried about WHY the dog was barking and if they could address that first, the collar might not be needed.

(With a chorus of angels singing) Aaa-men!

tenna

glenmar

One of the things that I've come to realize on this forum, over the years, is that are as many different definations of aversives, positive punishment, etc, etc, etc, as there are people!

 

 There really shouldn't be though. An aversive/correction/punishment is something that will make the chance of a behavior happening again less likely.

I agree there shouldn't be, but I already disagree with what you are saying, by lumping them all together.  To me a correction and a punishment are basically the same thing...something (the correction/punishment) you apply to make a behavior STOP happening.  But I think the word "aversive" has a larger umbrella, which also includes negative reinforcement, which would be applying a negative stimulus to get the behavior to START happening.  I've used both -R and +P but I don't think they should automatically be lumped together because usually they aren't used that way.  In fact, all of my -R or +P is coupled with +R.  Both fencing types in this thread - shock or citronella - are positive punishment.  But many people use a shock collar without using positive punishment.

Chuffy

I think a lot of it is the skill and dedication of the trainer, regardless of the method used. 

Oh absolutely.  Any half-decent positive trainer is going to get better results than someone who slaps and e-collar on their dog and has no clue how to imprint one, let alone use it to train.  And I've seen some e-collar trainers who are quite harsh even for my tastes get far better results than someone trying positive methods but using very poor timing and a reward that doesn't motive their dog.  The most "checked out", stressed looking dog I've competed with/against was trained ALL positive.  That's nothing against that type of training (I'd say 90% of the training I do is positive), but just goes to show that whatever method you use, you have to know what you are doing and more importantly, understand what actually motivates your dog!

tenna

A correction can lower the chance a behavior will happen for awhile, but eventually it will come back if a.) performing that behavior may still get the dog "good" things or b.) an incompatible behavior hasn't been trained over it.

Excellent point! 

spiritdogs

I find it really amusing that each "camp" uses the same argument to further their pov.  But, if we are truly looking at things from the dog's point of view, doesn't it make sense that a dog, like a person, would like to be treated like a sentient being, respected, treated fairly, not punished unnecessarily?  I think Glenda's posts have been the most sensible.  There really is no substitute for good training, humanely implemented. 

A good trainer would never punish their dog unnecessarily, they use what works best for the dog and the situation.

If you have the exquisite timing necessary to use a shock collar, then, surprise, you don't need one!!!  Nor do you need the cit collar.  The point of all this is that you don't need either - they are just short cuts for people who are too lazy or unskilled to train a dog without the use of pain *or* distasteful odor.  I still maintain, however, that the odor, while noxious to dogs, is not as bad as taking a chance that a dog will sustain chafing, burns, or pain.  The first time you see a dog with burn damage to its throat, and it's your dog, will be the last time you use one.  Why not start now?

E-collars can be a great tool, that when used properly are not severe or cruel or mean that the person using them is abusing their dog. There are many reasons why someone might chose to use an e-collar and if they use it properly with a good training program there is nothing wrong with that. Some of the most skilled and experienced trainers out there successfully use e-collars, it is nothing short of insulting to infer that the only people who use them are the lazy or unskilled.

One thing I don't understand is why there has to be such an us vs them stance. Why is it that purely positive trainers assume that anyone who uses aversives only use "traditional" methods and don't utilise all four quadrants of dog training? Why does a trainer have to either be positive or traditional, can't they utilise a range of methods? IMO a good trainer doesn't restrict themselves to one method, they use a range of tools and methods depending on what will work best on the dog. I often find it funny the way that many so called purely positive trainers will slap a head collar on just about any dog but in the same breath will condemn other aversive tools. I'd rather have a trainer who has a good understanding of all aspects of dog training rather than restricting themselves to one method or aspect of dog training.

Saying that anyone who uses tools/methods you dislike are lazy or unskilled is just as insulting as someone saying that anyone who uses purely positive methods are weak, inexperienced trainers who could never handle a dog with serious problems. What do you get from insulting the other party, purely because of your own ignorance? 

As always (good thing we don't argue religion, politics or abortion on the NDR threads) we weill have to agree to disagree.  By the way, some of us who have gravitated toward the positive over the years ARE the good trainers who understand all methods, which is the reason we have chosen to discard some of them.  They are still in our toolboxes, but rusting away, because we have found we didn't need them.  Would I take an aversive one out if I really thought I needed it?  Sure.  Have I needed it?  Nope.  All the quadrants of operant conditioning work.  Therefore, I choose the one that is most useful to me, and least invasive or detrimental to the dog.  As always, this thread could go on forever because we will never agree just from hearing the same old arguments on either side of the question. 

And, BTW, the comment further up the thread is insulting on a personal level to GTF and IMO inappropriate.  She's a good trainer, with lots of satisfied students doing well in the ring.  I know people who trained with other trainers (who shall go nameless to avoid insulting them when it might not be their fault) who went on to positive training and did much better in the ring - so obviously, there are variables we cannot appreciate in each situation.   A skilled handler who employs positive training will do just as well as a skilled handler who does not.  The only question is how well the dog does in its relationship with the handler and how happily it works.  A dog does not have to be miserable in order to have the ability to be happier and more joyful in its work than it is.  And people should remember that food is not all that makes dogs happy, and is not all that positive trainers have in their repertoire.  What they do have is an appreciation that dogs can be willing partners, working happily toward a reward. If you like your job, you keep appearing to work with a smile on your face.  If you simply have to do your job because you have no choice, you would rather quit and go to work somewhere else, but that doesn't mean your boss will ever know that...

spiritdogs

A skilled handler who employs positive training will do just as well as a skilled handler who does not.  The only question is how well the dog does in its relationship with the handler and how happily it works.  A dog does not have to be miserable in order to have the ability to be happier and more joyful in its work than it is.  And people should remember that food is not all that makes dogs happy, and is not all that positive trainers have in their repertoire.  What they do have is an appreciation that dogs can be willing partners, working happily toward a reward. If you like your job, you keep appearing to work with a smile on your face.  If you simply have to do your job because you have no choice, you would rather quit and go to work somewhere else, but that doesn't mean your boss will ever know that...

This is what I was referring to. Why must it be that anyone who might use aversives in their training isn't considered a positive trainer? I don't understand why there has to be such a divide, or the implication that if someone isn't a strictly positive trainer that their dog is not happy or willingly working for them. My trainer might use prongs or e-collars for some dogs but for many clients (like myself) we don't utilise corrections in training past the removal of a reward or a no reward marker.

A skilled handler who uses aversives properly can still have an excellent dog, who is happy and willing to work for them...

 ETA:

 And, BTW, the comment further up the thread is insulting on a personal level to GTF and IMO inappropriate.

...so that means you're justified in using emotional, incorrect and judgmental insults to get your point across? 

spiritdogs

By the way, some of us who have gravitated toward the positive over the years ARE the good trainers who understand all methods

(emphasis added)

We will have to agree on disagree on that one

espencer

spiritdogs

By the way, some of us who have gravitated toward the positive over the years ARE the good trainers who understand all methods

 

(emphasis added)

We will have to agree on disagree on that one

*removed by moderator, baiting and insulting*

huski

E-collars can be a great tool, that when used properly are not severe or cruel or mean that the person using them is abusing their dog. There are many reasons why someone might chose to use an e-collar and if they use it properly with a good training program there is nothing wrong with that. Some of the most skilled and experienced trainers out there successfully use e-collars, it is nothing short of insulting to infer that the only people who use them are the lazy or unskilled.

+1, the same can be said about prong collars

espencer

huski

E-collars can be a great tool, that when used properly are not severe or cruel or mean that the person using them is abusing their dog. There are many reasons why someone might chose to use an e-collar and if they use it properly with a good training program there is nothing wrong with that. Some of the most skilled and experienced trainers out there successfully use e-collars, it is nothing short of insulting to infer that the only people who use them are the lazy or unskilled.

+1, the same can be said about prong collars

How many dogs have you used either piece of equipment on?