The Other Side of "Extremist" Dog Training

I don't have a problem with some aversive techniques provided the dog doesn't either. What I mean by that is that the dog isn't fearful and does know the expectations, and other less aversive techniques have been tried. I don't think prong collars should be banned. I do think anyone using an e-collar for any reason, should have darned good professional help.
 
I don't feel that I have to live in a strict heirarchy (sp?). My dogs all have extremely low owner aggression and they get along with each other. After a while with little or no structure, Tasha & Wolfgang will start slipping a little. A little slower to respond, crowding my space a little, etc. A few days of a strict NILF resets things every time. I find myself having to go back to NILF if we are dog sitting or fostering.
 
With one exception, when I've worked with trainers, they really haven't solved any of the specific problems I hired them for. Problems have been resolved by trial and error, knowing my particular dogs, and thinking a little outside the box. I'm afraid that the use of aversive techniques may have misfired. With a non-aversive technique, no harm was done, and something else got tried.
 
For that reason, I think reading a variety of dog books and participating in forums can be very valuable. They are both things that have helped me to think of something else to try or to try something that worked for someone else.
 
I enjoy giving my dogs treats, but they certainly aren't required to maintain good behavior once learned. An example would be that Floyd didn't have the confidence to maintain a down/stay when I left the room. I know Floyd and he doesn't intentionally misbehave. I placed him in a down stay on a towel in the living room and gave him a nice bone. Within a week I could walk around the block with him having the bone on the towel. Within a month, he'd do it without the bone but inside the house, within two months he'd do it in other environments.

Extremists in any field are fanatics. The word relates to obsession and single-mindedness. Dog training is like interpersonal communication - you can't stick to your own agenda and pre-written methodology. Just like with people, you need to get to know the dog, it's personality, and even then, you can't predict its response to method X or Y; you have to be flexible and listen. Single-mindedness blocks our ability to listen other people or dogs. So, the question of extremism in attitude, *to me*, is not just specific to dogs...

It's not only this. Dogs need more than training alone (definately more then "positive only") when living within human families and becoming safe members of society. IMO

I agree with your statement but not your qualifier.

Dogs do need more than training.  They need socialization and structure and exercise.  I don't see how "positive only" would fit into the downside of training.  It's quite true that dogs will correct each other during play.  I won't list all the possibilities of dog-dog correction here, but I will say that humans are pretty inept at delivering those types of corrections in a way that the dog understands.  

I don't see why the methodology of training matters more than the product of the training.  A well behaved dog is a well behaved dog.  If that dog is well behaved because he was "clicked" to good behavior then so be it.  The dog is still well behaved.

My question would be: Why does the methodolgy matter if the finished products fit the behavior mold you are seeking through that particular method?

So, it is not what you do but what you say and believe in that makes one a  positive only extremist?  If so, I think I am getting it now.  I was thinking that is was something someone was doing....and from reading Kims post, it seems there can not be such a thing as a positive only extremist.

Anne has explained it a gazillion times also. And the term is still bandied about. So maybe it is a misunderstanding of the term.

ORIGINAL: Angelique



A "positive only" extremist will often say the pack theory is a "myth", and that dogs are not pack animals at all. Some believe that we do not need to be in the leadership (dominant) position with our dogs in order for training to be more productive, and living socially with our dogs to be more marmonious.

ORIGINAL: TinaK
you have to be flexible and listen.

[][][][][]

ORIGINAL: Xerxes

I don't see why the methodology of training matters more than the product of the training.  A well behaved dog is a well behaved dog.  If that dog is well behaved because he was "clicked" to good behavior then so be it.  The dog is still well behaved.

My question would be: Why does the methodolgy matter if the finished products fit the behavior mold you are seeking through that particular method?

Got the quote, lost the comment!

This is how I interpret the term 'extremist' as well. IMO there is nothing extreme about positive training, unless you are going through a whole bag of treats per session LOL. What is extreme (to me) is the unbending opinion that positive reinforcement is the only method one should use and that any form of correction/punishment is cruel. I use positive training 99% of the time. It works for my dog and it suits my personality and comfort level. However, I do not shudder nor am I offended when I see someone else pop a leash.

I think one of the problems on this forum is too often discussions on positive training get too confusing with all kinds of psychological terms and reference, scientific definitions etc. I'm sure many enjoy this kind of discussion, but I find them more confussing than helpful. It's like trying to understand how to do a task on a computer and someone starts explaining how computers work. My eyes just gloss over. I don't really care what quadrant of my dogs brain is reacting when I train. I do care how effective my training attempts are.

Since the "positive only"/ redirection/ environmental methods are incredibly effective I'm not sure why people constantly talk about them as if they were "extremist"-- more of a goal for people to aim towards. It IS a "failure" on the part of the trainer/owner to have to use aversives. If you taught leash walking properly from day one you simply wouldn't have to ever use a prong. If you'd managed your dog's environment properly and rewarded not-raiding-the-garbage from day one you wouldn't have to resort to aversives to stop him from raiding the garbage. If you'd exercised your dog more and watched him closer he wouldn't have gotten bored and found out how fun it is to dig giant craters in the backyard, and you wouldn't have to resort to aversives to correct the problem. 
 
Sometimes life happens and you have to resort to aversives. But it's not ideal, and it's not something that should be routinely advocated.

So, it is not what you do but what you say and believe in that makes one a positive only extremist?

 
I don't especially believe in pack theory. My dogs know I'm not a dog. They never look to each other to open gates or provide food. If providing stable leadership means that I don't accept certain behaviors and don't react with anger about inappropriate behavior, that's fine.
 
My feeling is that dogs with the most iffy temperments and backgrounds need the most training. My limited experience with such a dog is that the more he loves and trusts me the more he responds to training. (Yes, I believe there's some concept of love or at least like/dislike). I've found massage to be very useful in facilitating that trust. He also gets needed confidence from successful accomplishment.
 
A dog with a superb set of social skills and temperment is much more negotiable on training. He's not going to shut down or become fearful the first time a prong is used, because he expects good things in life. They also know there's no huge problem with disobedience and here's where I think some things get confused.
 
When I lived in AZ, Floyd & I took rattlesnake training. Because of Floyd's nature he was able to learn what a snake was and leave it with no futher correction necessary. I also kept a pan of cat food on the deck for some ferals, told him leave it, placed flour around it and found no dog prints. Floyd doesn't cheat.
 
Under the same circumstances, I wouldn't leave cat food where Tasha & Wolfgang could get it. Period. If they lived in the same area, I'd definately consider aversion training for rattlesnakes, but I'd sure be shopping for the right trainer.

the "positive only" extremists.

Live in glass houses.

I can't figure out who they are.  According to Kim and Anne, they do not, nor cannot exist.

According to some, it is belief or opinion....or lack of belief in something other than positive reinforcement, which leads directly back to it not being entirely possible to pull off.


So someone please explain the term to me, what do they do or not do (if anything) and who are they?

ORIGINAL: Awsomedog

the "positive only" extremists.

Live in glass houses.

I think Angelique gave a good definition of extremists in her first post, about the emotional manipulation and blackmailing, shutting down of discussions, skewing the facts, etc. I hope I get this right... it's not the method (because you can't be "postive only" -- that's a myth), but their attitude and way they push their beliefs.
 
Is it resorting to an aversive still considered a failure if the dog hasn't been responsive to other methods? What if the dog is just one of those dogs that needs more than a tap on the shoulder or an "uh-uh"? What about using a shock collar for proofing?

What are possible drawbacks and/or negative effects of being this kind of extreme? For now, I can only think of a few things. One (as is the case with being too extreme either way) is closing oneself off to other potentially valuable and useful methods. Two is assuming all dogs can be trained with a particular method. Three is considering it a "failure" on the part of a trainer or owner if s/he has to use a physical aversive or a training tool like a prong or an e-collar

 
I think one of the biggest draw backs--that I've personally experienced---is that if they do encounter one of those dogs that doesn't respond to their methods they then immediate jump to the dog should be put down. There was absolutely no other option, their way or death.  To me, that would of been a bigger failure than using an adversive--which I also never did. 

Okay.  I'm understanding.  It is not a training method.  I just needed someone to clarify that for me.  Thanks.

ORIGINAL: mondayblues

I think Angelique gave a good definition of extremists in her first post, about the emotional manipulation and blackmailing, shutting down of discussions, skewing the facts, etc. I hope I get this right... it's not the method (because you can't be "postive only" -- that's a myth), but their attitude and way they push their beliefs.

I think Angelique gave a good definition of extremists in her first post, about the emotional manipulation and blackmailing, shutting down of discussions, skewing the facts, etc. I hope I get this right... it's not the method (because you can't be "postive only" -- that's a myth), but their attitude and way they push their beliefs

 
I agree.  And, sometimes I've gotten the distinct impression that they go on about being "positive" but aren't capable of working with really tough dogs.  Those they want to put down because the methods they want to use don't work on those dogs.   But, they will try to give the impression that putting a choke collar on the same dog is really detrimental to the dog. More than being put to sleep??  And, they want to move on to the "easier" dogs that they can use their preferred methods with.