Is there conflict in balance?

    • Gold Top Dog

    I agree with that (re. the public), but don't really let it affect how I train.  I often train or track at nearby churches and parks, and people do stop to ask what I am doing and how I am training.  There is one couple that routinely stops to watch and jokes about me training their dog.  I am intentionally very vague about what I am doing and why because maybe they did see me give a correction and think my dog behaves the way he does and has achieved what he has based on that type of training, which is not true.  I have been asked if I "train dogs" (as in, a dog trainer) and while I am flattered I say no, I train my own dogs and I advocate for people to train their own dogs and will recommend my favorite local trainers if they are interested.  Even though I stand by the methods I use, I am not comfortable with someone watching me for 5 minutes and going home to try it on their own, even the way I reward my dog (as I'm sure you've seen, people can screw up the timing of a reward just as bad as the timing of a correction).  I will not change how I feel about punishment or how I train based on public perception, nor do I feel I owe them any explanation.  Our working dog club openly invites anyone genuinely interested to come watch us train and get the "101" lesson from our training director on why we are doing what we are doing (and anyone attending would see that every dog out there is being trained differently, which to me is the mark of a great club and a great trainer).

    Yes, the general public does far less harm by sticking to positive methods, but is that because of the theory behind the method or because they were using the methods incorrectly?  That is basically my point.  I know I am lucky because I don't have any stake in training other than training my own dogs, since I am not a dog trainer.  I tell my (positive only) trainer all the time I could never do her job!

    • Gold Top Dog

    I agree with Liesje in that I don't so much think that using both punishments (sorry, I refuse to use the word correction) and reinforers leads to a generally confused dog, I do think what leads to a confused dog is not knowing what to expect, and how to make those reinforcers happen or how to avoid those punishers. I say that because the science works both ways, unfortunately. As long as the dog has a clear understanding as to what is expected, and what the consequences of different behaviours are, then the dog is not confused, per se.

    I see the same level of confusion in a dog that is learning how to sit using either using a clicker for the first time, or using a choke chain for the first time. In the beginning, the level of confusion is the same. With a clicker, the dog doesn't know what it did to make the cookie happen. And with the choker, the dog doesn't know what it did to make the pressure from the chain happen. It takes a few repetitions for understanding to take effect. I think the same level of confusion is there, however I do think the stress levels will have very different outcomes, at least in the beginning.

    I live with the philosophy that every dog needs to be treated as an individual, and learns in its own way with certain types of training better than others. I say that because I've trained a lot of dogs, and have learned easily that it's not a "one-size-fits-all" approach. What is good for one dog, may not at all be humane (or even effective) for another! The hardest dog by far I've had to teach is my current youngest, Shimmer, because you cannot use any real sort of punishment on her whatsoever.

    Most know that I use very, very few intentional punishments with dogs, as I simply do not need to, nor does it fit into the type of relationship I wish to have with my animals. However, I don't deny when certain things I do are punishers. I can halt certain behaviours in Gaci with a simple "Hey" or "Eh".....and you can see clearly that you get a sort of "Oh, sorry momma, I forgotz my manners!!!". No harsh feelings or relationship strain is occurring there. And it's not in any way "affecting" the use of reinforcers or our bond. However, if I raise my voice at all to Shimmer, or even step into her space in a certain way, she will lay down and roll herself over in appeasement and become highly upset. I cannot use a raised voice to even stop behaviours, as it does impact her relationship with me, even if for a short period of time.

    I have some very frustrating moments with Shimmer because she is very intrapersonal.....what I mean is she very much cares what "I" think of her, and she is very sensitive to my reaction in her behaviours. Not only with mild punishers....even in shaping if I cannot microshape her she will sometimes get upset at getting it "wrong", so I have to make shaping very easy for her, with a high level of reward, or find another way to get the behaviour (capturing, or luring). It was very hard for me to teach Shimmer some things, because I truly had to become almost "all-positive" with her....heck, even how I talk to other dogs influences her own reactions. However, through learning and experience she has made me an even better trainer, because I can take what I've learned with her and apply it to my other dogs.

    Everything really does come down to "know thy dog, and what it needs in order to become the best it can be". I do think that every person should strive to start with no or as few punishers as possible, because most people will find that they can get what they want without it. But I also am not training a Schutzhund dog, so I don't begin to express that I know what is required and what is "wrong" or "right" when it comes to training those behaviours. I am not training a herding dog, so I don't begin to know anything about it or say "you don't need punishers!!!!!". But I know what I need for my dogs, and through experience in terms of pet dogs learning life skills, I could come up with an adequate and likely pretty accurate generalized list of what is or is not required to get those behaviours with minimal or no aversives such that if I were teaching a class, I would know how to help students get the best out of their dogs. We do have to keep in mind the perspectives, though, of those we talk with.

    I don't mean to pick on Liesje, but she gives a good example of the differences between working with "pet dogs" and working with "performance dogs" (I hope that doesn't offend, but I do qualify Schutzhund as a sport rather than "working" as a real police dog) and I love reading her posts discussing the differences as well as how she brings it all together to make it work for her home. Working with performance dogs in another venue I do understand that sometimes things change in terms of how you get behaviour, and consequences for behaviour, especially when you are doing very technical or potentially dangerous work. But I love that she can then acknowledge that she does not use those same techniques on her "pet" dogs just because she can....because she doesn't need to, and because it could be detrimental.

    Such as how Liesje explained that what she does with Nikon would be downright inhumane with her other dogs. That to me is a sign of a person with a true understanding of working with what the dog is, rather than what you want it to be. I say that because I experience it with my own dogs daily. They all get the same overall treatment, the same respect, and the same trust, but you sometimes get there through different means, and what's right for one dog may not be the best thing for another.  That's what we all should strive to do, I think, rather than looking at any particular punisher or reinforcer and judging it on its own merit.

    • Gold Top Dog

    Thanks Kim, I think we are on the same page, so pick on me all you want, lol! 

    As an aside, I agree about the work/performance distinction, however it is common lingo in SchH to refer to the dogs as "working" dogs (mainly to distinguish the three "lines" of GSDs and to set the dogs apart from the "show" dogs, so training is commonly referred to as "working" the dog and we belong to "working dog clubs";).  To me personally, a working dog is a dog that someone's livelihood depends on (like a service dog, police K9, or herding dog tending a flock of 1000 sheep).

    My intent is not to compare various reasons for training or types of performance; I do not necessarily think SchH is harder or more important than other dog sports.  However there *is* a difference in the level of drive, arousal, however you want to phrase it that sets it apart from household training, CGC-type training, even AKC obedience training.  Not only do I train all my dogs differently based on how they respond, but I train the same dog differently based on his level of arousal and drive.  Everyone is probably more familiar with agility.  Ever been to a trial where a really good dog is running really fast and it sounds like the handler is barking orders at the dog?  Using a tone of voice that would make my dogs cower if I were to walk up to them right now and say "NIKON, SIT!!!!"  But it doesn't have that effect on the dog during the agility trial because of the dog's heightened arousal doing that activity.  The same is true for rewards and punishments I think.  Giving my dog a piece of kibble for doing a sit right now would be an appropriate reward, but after an amazing run on the agility course the dog would probably not even notice a single bit of kibble, he wants something that matches his arousal like a good game of tug on his leash or reward toy (or, on the other hand a dog like Kenya that runs agility but very lacking in speed and drive probably would be satisfied with a few bits of treat after a run).  The other distinction is that the reality of doing SchH is that there is a safety/liability factor involved so sometimes there are more harsh physical punishments but these are not usually part of training any certain skill (for example, my TD's dog wears an e-collar during training and one time as he was running blinds he mistook someone standing near a grove of trees as a helper in a blind...not the dog's fault but the owner needs to ensure that he can stop and recall the dog in a situation like this where someone could be hurt).  Bottom line is, if your dog is not a hard, drivey, courageous dog then he should not even be in the sport of SchH to begin with.  The "punishments" given by those who use e-collars and prong collars are not what is going to break the dog and destroy his trust, it is the conflict that is built into the sport in order to push the limits of the breed and weed out those who are not sound enough to work.  For example, when you see dogs who will not engage, either run off or come off the sleeve, most times this is before the helper is even "driving" the dog (driving is once they grip and the helper does the stick hits and pushes into the dog), the dogs fail to engage just seeing the helper screaming and waving the stick.  That is why for someone like me, it *is* crucial to understand the inherent temperament of the dog, to know what can be developed and what will not change.

    • Gold Top Dog

    Thanks for the interesting discussion, everyone.

    Liesje

    corvus

    You will never know if you have lost your dog's trust. At least, not until you raise a dog without punishment.

     

    Sorry, but I'm not sure we can every know anything about our dog's 100% because they cannot speak and do not communicate like us or have the same motivations as us. 

    Well, I think you are right and I didn't make my point very clear. What I meant was you probably won't know you have lost your dog's trust, but if you reduce the punishments with a dog from scratch there is, IME, a difference between the way that dog interacts with you and the way a dog you routinely punished interacts with you. There will always be a level of ambiguity because you can't know for certain how much of that difference is in the temperament, but I believe there is a difference that will at least give you a hint. It was the only thing that told me I'd gone wrong with Penny.

    I was talking about inner conflict. Like, can you look for things to punish and things to reward at the same time? Is that sustainable? Do you end up pairing them all the time so you get punishment then reward? Do you find you can easily switch from finding things to punish to finding things to reward or vice versa?

    I don't think I've ever met any trainer that goes out *looking* for things to punish.  To me, looking for things to reward is a no brainer.  Looking for things to punish sounds just plain ignorant and grossly unfair for the dog.

     

    I don't think they consciously look for things to punish. I know I never did. But whenever I did decide I was going to use punishments, it was inevitable that my thinking shifted into "What don't I want" so I could catch them the moment they started doing the wrong thing. I find that now my thinking is "What do I want" so I can reward them the moment they start doing the right thing. When I was doing both, "What don't I want" always drove the process, because if the dog was doing something I did want I was happy to toss them a "good dog" and a rub and leave it at that. 

    I'm not sure that the process being driven by something you don't want is bad. It still is much of the time, because that's often what compels you to train at all. I guess the difference is that the behaviour I don't want kind of fades into the background in importance now because I'm so focused on catching that moment they are doing what I do want to reward it. I have changed from a reactive trainer to a proactive trainer. I don't really know if has had much of an effect on my dogs, but I get more enjoyment out of being with them when I'm being proactive, and that can only have a positive effect on the relationship.

    I wouldn't presume to make a call on someone's relationship with their dog at all. If they say they have a great relationship I can only believe them. But the thing that gets me is that I had a great relationship with Penny. She adored me and no one that saw us together ever would have said that what we had wasn't something special. It was, but I KNOW it could have been so much more. I know it. And I know that it was leaning on punishments that limited how good our relationship could be. I know that I did it wrong sometimes, but I also know that it's human nature to do it wrong. You just want to react. Dog is doing something you don't like, punish it. Deciding not to punish has forced me to go from reacting and consequently misjudging and making mistakes to putting my brain into gear and thinking how I'm going to stop this without punishing. So there has been a shift in my thinking and I do think that I am communicating more clearly to my dogs as a result. I'm still not sure if there was inner conflict when I was doing both, but that was my idea, not Stafford's.