Eight Rules for Punishment (and why we shouldn't use them)

Corinthian

espencer

I agree with Chuffy, my dog does not fear me or dislike me either (and i know other forum members who would tell you the same so it's not only my dog)

 

Since you guys introduced the human analogy, I'll mentioned that many abused people seem to like their abuser. The simple fact that my dog isn't scared is not enough of a reason to employ aversive methods.

Of course, a person or dog can "like" someone, yet still fear them.  Liking is not the issue.  The reason I don't believe my son is scared of me isn't because he "loves me", because the two are not mutually exclusive.  This was not a part of my argument

tenna

I agree. A lot of arguments I hear for punishment (and I am hearing them in this thread) is that "my dog still likes me, I don't think he's scared of me, he listens to me." And I all I want to say is "So what?" The fact of the matter is, I will never agree with unnecessarily causing your dog purposeful discomfort/pain/displeasure/fear/etc.

I have said this before and I will say it again - I try to avoid punishment too!  I hate using it!  I HAVE used it, and most times, afterwards, I have thought, "you know what, I could have avoided doing that if...."

That said, I don't believe this argument is helpful, and for two reasons.  One is because no one here believes they cause unnecessary pain or fear in their dog, and they resent your implication that they do.  It gets backs up.  You don't iintend that, but that is what happens.  You are, effectively, using P+ on people to get them to stop using P+, but it's not a "true" punisher" because it is frequently ineffective.  Therefore it falls under the category described in the article as nagging/abuse.

The other reason is that the small amount of pain/fear inflicted is not the crux of the issue.  Dogs are resilient and forgiving creatures.  The issue, to my mind, is that the use of punishment directly impacts the dog's ABILITY to learn.

espencer

I would have to disagree on the part of "The simple answer is that dogs are very good at corrections and we are not very good at it." I'm sure there are people out there (myself included) that follow these 8 rules almost to perfection. Those are the people spiritdogs will never see at her office

I find it hard to believe that you or anyone else has 'perfected' the act of purposefully causing unpleasantries to animals, but I'll believe it for the sake of the thread. And I'm sure spiritdogs and other positive reinforcement trainers see plenty of people who are excellent at delivering punishment, because the fact of the matter is, frequent punishment just isn't a nice thing to do to dogs, and regardless of their timing, people realize that and want a better option.

espencer

Too many "researches" and positive trainers base their opinion on that (or cleverly use that to sell their own services). On the people that over correct. They dont really get to study the other side of the spectrum, they can't study the people that just stayed home because they were able to do it correctly. The researches themselves probably did it wrong and based they research on that.

Hahahaha, no. I have yet to see you provide research on why punishment based training is more effective, other than Cesar Millan's 'observing dogs' at a grooming salon and in Mexico on his family's farm, before calling himself a dog rehailitator. People with Ph.D.s, that are certified animal behaviorists, vets, etc., don't just see "one side of the spectrum." They see everything, and they don't make crap up. Your accusations that they do just to sell their products appears to me to be you grasping at straws to discredit them.

espencer

Those techniques are not for everybody and are too complicated to follow for some. Just like some people can fix their own car, most of us will have to go to a mechanic to do so, the mechanic might think think that ALL people out there does not know how fix a car because he only sees the people that need his help (mechanic = dog trainer = researcher, etc.)

Mechanics aren't dumb, and they know some people can fix their cars themselves. They know some of the people who's cars they are servicing could probably have fixed their own car, but do not have the time to do it.

Chuffy

That said, I don't believe this argument is helpful, and for two reasons.  One is because no one here believes they cause unnecessary pain or fear in their dog, and they resent your implication that they do.  It gets backs up.  You don't iintend that, but that is what happens.  You are, effectively, using P+ on people to get them to stop using P+, but it's not a "true" punisher" because it is frequently ineffective.  Therefore it falls under the category described in the article as nagging/abuse.

How is me saying "I do not agree with unnecessarily causing my dog discomfort" an argument? I am merely expressing my opinion and how I feel. In that paragraph I'm not really arguing for anything, I'm voicing how I feel. The end.

And I've brought up the fact that I am also against punishment because it suppresses more behavior than just that being punished, and suppresses learning. Am I supposed to repeat myself every time I post?

Chuffy

I'll grant that using punishment is a risk, and should be used sparingly, but I don't think that correct use of punishment causes the dog or child to be scared of it's owner/parent, unless the punishment is quite severe. 

And one issue I have with punishment, is that in some cases, to suppress an otherwise highly rewarding behavior that's been repeated for a long time, it needs to be pretty severe (which could cause fear of the handler). In my experience, a lot of the problem behaviors I see people resorting to punishment for, are behaviors that have a long history of being heavily rewarded. Things like raiding the garbage, counter surfing, chewing, or even pulling on the leash. In some dogs, it's going to require a pretty hefty punishment to get a dog to avoid performing that behavior. And I agree, in cases like that, punishment should be avoided.

tenna

There is an obvious difference in behavior and body language between dogs trained with all positive, dogs trained with mostly positive and some corrections, and dogs trained with mostly corrections.

tenna

Now, I'm not going to argue too much with someone using occasional corrections (and has trained with mostly positive reinforcement) who's training a dog in SchH or herding, or whatever.... They obviously know the benefits of positive reinforcement (esp. if they use a clicker), and are making an educating decision to use a correction on occasion. And though I may disagree, I'll get over it.

I guess the difference is that in my scenarios and in the situations where I personally introduce aversives, it's not to replace any sort of positive training.  I'm not tryin to "stop" something from happening I'm trying to bring something out of the dog.  You cannot correctly bring out the fight drive in a mature dog without applying the correct amount of stress and pressure.  It is not something that you can instigate with a clicker training, food, a toy, it simply doesn't work that way.  As much as this may pain some people, there ARE some behaviors that you cannot free-shape.  There are a few people who try to claim they have SchH 3 dogs who have never experienced an aversive but that is a total lie.  It's possible to do this from the handler's perspective but that's an incomplete picture.  The helper is a huge part of the training, IMO even more significant than the handler (often when my dog does his protection work I am not touching him or vocalizing to him at all, I am only there to hold his harness until the helper says let him go).  The helper is the one with the experience and knows how and when to pressure a dog in order to bring the right balance of drives.  That is why we have dogs off all different breeds and temperaments.  Some things really boil down to genetics and how the dog's head works.  You have to know the genetics behind the dog and how his head works in order to use the correct formula of stress/pressure to bring out the drive and then encouraging and rewarding that drive so that the dog is actually growing in confidence, becoming more controlled while learning that he also has some control over things, and not becoming afraid of the handler or helper.  I know how my dog's mother and father work and take that into account every single time his protection harness goes on.  When starting a new behavior (like the bark and hold I was talking about earlier), I pretty much predicted and visualsed to a T how the dog was going to react the first time out, based on what we know from the genetics and what we know from already training the behaviors leading up to that point. 

That is why these threads are sort of half-arsed to some of us.  People try to generalize things across the board without taking into account ALL of the uses for dog training, all the various tools and methods and how they actually apply, not just training pets to walk on a leash or wait at the door.  My pet dogs are not trained with corrections unless it's a situation where there is some danger (like restraining a dog for his safety).  There is no need for corrections in their training because there is no need to create pressure and stress associated with the behaviors they will be asked to do.  Everything is neutral or positive.  However a dog being trained in protection needs to understand stress and learn how he can control and relieve it.  I know people who make part of their living on setting up simulations for police and military dog training.  The dog needs to be exposed to pressure and threats before he is out on the trial field or out on the street for real.  Obviously you start very, very small and stay pretty small until the dog is mature in the head, then slowly work up.

tenna

How is me saying "I do not agree with unnecessarily causing my dog discomfort" an argument?

Argue, as in "debate".  And if you are merely voicing an opinion and NOT trying to convince anyone..... well blow me if I am the only one who misunderstood the intention.

tenna

And I've brought up the fact that I am also against punishment because it suppresses more behavior than just that being punished, and suppresses learning.

You've repeated about pain, fear and unnecessary suffering often enough... and MY opinion is merely that this is less relevant (at least in this arena) than the fact that punishment suppresses learning.  When it comes to causing unnecessary pain and fear, you are preaching to the choir.  Most people who join here like dogs, at least a little bit, and usually quite a lot.

Of course, "punishment suppresses learning" is such a nice, safe argument, because it is hard to disprove.  No one can get in the Tardis, go back in time and re-train their trad trained dog WITHOUT punishment to see what a difference it makes to avoid P+ completely.

Liesje

There are definitely specific situations where if you are using a correction, aversive, physical punishment...whatever the heck you call it....it's because the dog needs to know who is controlling it.  An example would be introducing the bark and hold behaviors when the dog is being sent into the blind.  Often the helper is doing just as much line-handling as the handler.  The dog not only is learning and being rewarded for the correct behaviors, but he needs to learn to respect that person and the person's space.  Control is a major part of this type of work so the interactions between dog and handler, and dog and helper are crucial.

That's an old way of doing it that doesn't utilize our understanding of OC. There are many of us who can teach this to our dog and other dogs without any force. It simply takes proper planning and understanding of the individual dog. In the bark an hold the dog learns that barking without interfering with the helper will bring about the game. Whether you use a clicker or not, that's OC. We don't know if the dog "respects" the decoys space or not, nor do we have to.  All we have to do is teach the do to get close and bark without touching and he will get a reward.

Liesje

Another example which often goes hand-in-hand with training the bark and hold is working the dog's civil and fight drives.  A dog does not work in defense or fight just based on a trained behavior.  A person has to instigate those drives.

That's not entirely true either. I've seen some dog train on defense, even when the decoy was being a total wuss. I don't like those dog, but they are out there, and fully titled.

That's TARDIS  Time And Relative Dimensions In Space

 I don't find the need to use any aversive in the dog either - at least physical ones. By merely changing the level of the fight and the manner in which the decoy engages the dog, that is enough to get what you want.  For example, during ring, a leg bite can be a prey driven excessive until the decoy bends down and crowds and surrounds the dog at the same time increasing his arm movement and fight level.With some dogs this s enough to cause them to release.  Stress and pressure should not be conflated with punishment.  Stress can be something as simple as demanding a sit in a crowded environment, pressure can be added by something like adding noise.  Neither are punishments. It is also important to note that not all aversive are punishments.

Corinthian

In the bark an hold the dog learns that barking without interfering with the helper will bring about the game.

That's assuming the dog is being trained that it's a "game".  I don't have a prey or object oriented dog and don't want one either.  I want a dog who reacts to a threat with a balance of prey, defense, and fight.  But there again, every dog, person, trainer, and skill is a different formula.  One person might have a prey dog and focus more on making the behaviors clean and correct.  Another person might have a hard-*** beast of a dog that couldn't care less about a sleeve.

Corinthian

 I don't find the need to use any aversive in the dog either - at least physical ones. By merely changing the level of the fight and the manner in which the decoy engages the dog, that is enough to get what you want.  For example, during ring, a leg bite can be a prey driven excessive until the decoy bends down and crowds and surrounds the dog at the same time increasing his arm movement and fight level.With some dogs this s enough to cause them to release.  Stress and pressure should not be conflated with punishment.  Stress can be something as simple as demanding a sit in a crowded environment, pressure can be added by something like adding noise.  Neither are punishments. It is also important to note that not all aversive are punishments.

I guess I should have explained myself better.  In an earlier thread, a few members consistently defined ANY correction, aversive, or physical interaction with the dog under the umbrella of "punishment".  So, for the sake of participating in the debate, I've conceded to that definition, though I don't agree with it.  So the drives and stick hits would be a form of "punishing" the dog even though it's not a "correction" from the helper or the handler.

  Liesje, from what I can understand here, you aren't actually using punishment. It doesn't seem to me like you're decreasing a behavior. If we're going to have a debate, I think we should define these things correctly (and correctly to me means correctly according to the bible err... Applied Behavior Analysis,  Cooper, Heron & Heward). From what I understand, you are doing something before the dog does the behavior, and I think what you are doing might best be called a prompt," an added antecedent stimulus that brings about a specific behavior." (from Behaviorspeak, Newman et.al.) Maybe it's an aversive, by the defintion, "to evoke a behavior that has terminated it in the past," (Cooper, Heron & Heward). It seems to me though from what is being described, like it best fits under the definition of prompt. In that case, and I'm sure people won't like it, it's in the same category as a lure.

griffinej5

  Liesje, from what I can understand here, you aren't actually using punishment. It doesn't seem to me like you're decreasing a behavior. If we're going to have a debate, I think we should define these things correctly (and correctly to me means correctly according to the bible err... Applied Behavior Analysis,  Cooper, Heron & Heward). From what I understand, you are doing something before the dog does the behavior, and I think what you are doing might best be called a prompt," an added antecedent stimulus that brings about a specific behavior." (from Behaviorspeak, Newman et.al.) Maybe it's an aversive, by the defintion, "to evoke a behavior that has terminated it in the past," (Cooper, Heron & Heward). It seems to me though from what is being described, like it best fits under the definition of prompt. In that case, and I'm sure people won't like it, it's in the same category as a lure.

Makes perfect sense to me.  I was just trying to keep it simple, since it seems the majority here seem to lump ALL aversive actions into one.

And, depending on how one trains, there are times where it really is a correction (leash pop the dog that is getting dirty, etc).

Interesting that it is the same as a lure.  I agree though, because a lure has to be faded as well.  So someone like me that has a more "real" dog who doesn't get really into drive until he's worked up a bit in defense, well when he gets to trial this doesn't happen.  First thing out, he runs to the hot blind and the helper is standing there still.  There's no pumping up the dogs or anything like that allowed.  So the "lure" of the threat has to be faded, just like if I use a treat in my hand to lure a left finish.  I don't like to get too dependent on lures, but in many cases they are necessary and don't do any harm as long as you can quickly teach the dog and fade the lure.  But that's a whole different discussion I suppose...