The Owner's Equipment

it's like she gives up.

 
Seeing that in a dog makes me sad..........

I was not being sarcastic when I mentioned "learned helplessness". But, I put a wink on it to soften my comment.

Interesting term which I gave some thought to, and may apply to this discussion if we are talking about using a device which causes a dog to be miserable, uncomfortable, and feel like it is getting a constant corrective bite accross the muzzle no matter what they do until they finally "shut down" and become resigned to their fate.

A dog will let you know how they feel about it. Good to pay attention to their body language, facial expressions, and behavior.  IMO

Thinking back, I do remember seeing a dog once, who seemed downtrodden and resigned to her fate. She was owned by a violent alcoholic. I think it wasn't so much that he was just violent, it was that he was unpredictable. Nice as pie one minute, and violent the next. Poor dog never knew what was going to happen day to day or moment to moment.

ETA: I've also seen women who live with violent, unpredictable alcoholics who look downtrodden and resigned to their fate. Although these women are not dogs, they are both living beings living with violence and unpredicability.

I'll have to go back and read through the "learned helplessness" links again. Perhaps it was the unpredictability of the shocks the lab dogs received which added to this, and not just the shocks all by themselves. Hmmmm...

But I digress. [8D]

On topic:

I will not use any of these "facial devices" on any dog, ever. The article addresses most of my "issues" with them. The dogs have told me the rest.

But, they sure do "sound" friendly and nice. Halti, gentle leader...much better than choke, slip, prong, or pinch. []

I also don't personally use harnesses that are designed to put pressure on a dog to stop pulling. I prefer training a dog not to pull. But, that's just me.

I do prefer regular harnesses on smaller dogs though. These little guys are so delicate and we are so big. Just makes sense to me. IMOAE

These are personal preferences based on my own experiences, research, and the reading of a dog's body language.

Apparently, you have assumed that I would use this tool on every dog, or that I can't read a dog sufficiently to know when the GL is appropriate and when it isn't, which is not the case.  I merely suggested that a flat collar will not prevent a bite, and that a GL can close the dog's mouth.  Note that I did not, however, say to use a prong on an aggressive dog - that should not happen, for the reason fisher recounted.  Prongs are great for heavy pullers who are stable and pain-insensitive, and not so good for aggression or timidity.  But, as you say, better off in a section of the forum where valid debate is more acceptable.  Bye.

He wants to emphasize, that it's not the equipment but the *energy*. (Energy and timing.)
He does change it once in a while if a dog has developed negative associations it, or if he feels a dog just needs a more appropriate tool in order for the owners to be able to control it.

 


This is my conclusion too.  He believes it#%92s the leadership more than the equipment for the most part.

ORIGINAL: luvmyswissy

He wants to emphasize, that it's not the equipment but the *energy*. (Energy and timing.)
He does change it once in a while if a dog has developed negative associations it, or if he feels a dog just needs a more appropriate tool in order for the owners to be able to control it.

 


This is my conclusion too.  He believes it's the leadership more than the equipment for the most part.

If that's so true, then why is it that so many of the people here shun clicker training, which is all about leadership, communication, and not equipment? 

People don't see clicker training as a dog working for food.

They see it as a reward (maybe a bribe?) for doing commands.

When in truth, clicker dogs have to do so much more than sit/stay/ release, for their dinner.

Mine may have to work up to a 1/2 hour for his instead of the NILIF's two or so minutes.

It is all about perception.

If that's so true, then why is it that so many of the people here shun clicker training, which is all about leadership, communication, and not equipment?

Although I see your point, here is the argument you (and those who believe) face day after day.  Leadership has a conceptual scope.   When you say “clicker training” most don#%92t think leadership, they think “click and treat” - roll over, speak, sit, stay.  Many don#%92t see “get the hell out of the garbage!. - CLICK”    When you say, NILIF WE think leadership.  Its the permissiveness that is associated with +R (and I know that going to get you angry) but it is a fact.  And in dog training many believe that not being permissive is the key to training bad behaviors.  Not in teaching obedience, but in managing bad behaviors.   

ORIGINAL: luvmyswissy

He wants to emphasize, that it's not the equipment but the *energy*. (Energy and timing.)
He does change it once in a while if a dog has developed negative associations it, or if he feels a dog just needs a more appropriate tool in order for the owners to be able to control it.

 


This is my conclusion too.  He believes it's the leadership more than the equipment for the most part.

 
Suzanne Clothier also seems to agree with him on this in a big way, and makes this quite clear in the article found in the link I osted.

ORIGINAL: spiritdogs
If that's so true, then why is it that so many of the people here shun clicker training, which is all about leadership, communication, and not equipment?

Hehe hehehe hahaha Bahahahahaha! Bahahahahaha! I'm sorry, wait for it, Bahahahahaha. Wow! That, is priceless. "clicker training"/not equipment?" One more time, "clicker training"/not equipment?". Bahahahahaha. I'm sorry, then why use one? And before anyone gets the wrong idea, I'm not saying you can't use clicker training, I'm not saying it doesn't work. I'm pointing out something that's sending me to bed with a good laugh, "clicker training"/not equipment?". It's got a certain ring to it. Bahahahaha

Night

Although I see your point, here is the argument you (and those who believe) face day after day.  Leadership has a conceptual scope.   When you say “clicker training” most don#%92t think leadership, they think “click and treat” - roll over, speak, sit, stay.  Many don#%92t see “get the hell out of the garbage!. - CLICK”    When you say, NILIF WE think leadership.  Its the permissiveness that is associated with +R (and I know that going to get you angry) but it is a fact.  And in dog training many believe that not being permissive is the key to training bad behaviors.  Not in teaching obedience, but in managing bad behaviors. 

Permissiveness is a fact? That hasn't been my experience. Successful PR training involves being much less permissive than many folks are, because one of the goals is to manage a dog's environment and introduce things only after he's learned what to do with them... like ignore the garbage can. To take your example, because my dog is still quite young, I would never let him get an unsupervised chance at the garbage in the first place... so it's ironic, I guess. I see letting the dog get a chance to explore the garbage... well... permissive.

Here is how I learned positive reinforcement training:

1. Control access to every single one of your dog's desires.
2. Often exchange something your dog desires for good behavior (standing close to the garbage without nosing at it = attention or a treat), but not always.

This reads as leadership to me. Can you help me understand the difference between what you see and what I see, luv?

ORIGINAL: snownose

it's like she gives up.

Seeing that in a dog makes me sad..........

Me too.  But, as was stated above, some dogs do really well in a GL. Those that don't, perhaps do better in an Easy Walk, or even a prong.  But, that appearance of "shutting down" or "learned helplessness" can be very subtle.  Dogs that don't acclimate (sometimes because the owner didn't do the preliminaries) to the GL often show very obvious signs.  It isn't so easy to see in some dogs.  I have noticed the same aspect of behavior in dogs that were force trained, yet because they are so obedient, and don't make obvious mistakes, and because their owners don't often hang out in places where positively trained dogs are in the majority, they don't notice.
If you look hard enough, you can learn to discern the more subtle changes in demeanor that will tell you if a dog is working in happy mode or not.
Example -BF and I watched a recent episode of a popular show on APL.  First contestant, military looking guy, had his Belgian Malinois walk up a series of 4x4 posts, having to perch all four on one post as she went up.  Dog was shaking with fear, but did the exercise well.
Next dog- happy, smiling owner, happy dog.  That one walked up a ladder, across a tightrope, grabbed a stuffie, walked down a ramp, deposited the stuffie in baby carriage, and pushed the carriage offstage.  Which dog won?  You guessed it - military shaking dog. [:'(]
My BF nearly came off his chair he was so angry.  Why?  Because even he noticed how the first dog was only doing the exercise because she had to, and he also noticed how happily the second dog worked at a more complex series of behaviors.  He was shouting at me -"I bet she was clicker trained!!!!  Wasn't she????"  Well, I don't know if she was or not - you can train the same behaviors with other positive methods, but it certainly seemed that her handler had taken the time to insure that the dog was confident and happy in her work.  The Mal seemed happy to get down once the exercise was over, and her tail was not a happy tail when she approached her handler.  Deferential, yes, happy no.  The little dog that did the other exercise was a Rat Terrier type, so docked, but the whole demeanor of the dog was "Hey dad, I did it - didn't I do good?'  The dog should have won, and the handler should have been congratulated on producing such an enthusiastic and talented canine partner.

ORIGINAL: Awsomedog

ORIGINAL: spiritdogs
If that's so true, then why is it that so many of the people here shun clicker training, which is all about leadership, communication, and not equipment?

Hehe hehehe hahaha Bahahahahaha! Bahahahahaha! I'm sorry, wait for it, Bahahahahaha. Wow! That, is priceless. "clicker training"/not equipment?" One more time, "clicker training"/not equipment?". Bahahahahaha. I'm sorry, then why use one? And before anyone gets the wrong idea, I'm not saying you can't use clicker training, I'm not saying it doesn't work. I'm pointing out something that's sending me to bed with a good laugh, "clicker training"/not equipment?". It's got a certain ring to it. Bahahahaha

Night

This does not contribute anything to the discussion except pure derision for another forum member and thus lowers the tone of an otherwise intelligent and civil thread. 

To clarify for anyone who does not understand the principal of clicker training, well IMO "clicker training" is a misnomer, because it doesn't matter what  the secondary reinforcer is - be it clicker, whistle, flashlight, your voice (Yes!/Bingo!)  whatever.  Someone on another thread suggested a snapple lid for a dog that was put off by the loud click of a regular clicker.  The equipment you use doesn't matter, abandoning equipment and just using your voice is fine, lots of people just choose to use an external "gadget" instead of voice/hand signal because it's guaranteed to stay the same no matter who uses it or what mood they are in.  It's about communication (I loved houndloves analogy on another thread where she and others communicated in Chinese, it wasn't anyones 1st language but it was one they all understood.  Sorry houndlove.) It's about leadership (being n control of resources etc), and it's also timing, determination, flexibility and spontaneity.

The whole positive=permissive thing is starting to get on my nerves.  My experience is that if you try to train using positive methods but you are permissive with the dog you'll end up with a confused and badly trained dog.  To train successfully using positive methods you have to be very pro active and strict.  For instance, when I have said to some people:  Don't let your dog soil his crate, or Don't let the dog chew things that don't belong to him.  They reply with, I don't let him - I tell him off when he does it!!  Sigh.  You let him do it and then you corrected him.  Don't let him.  IME, some of the trainers who use more corrections etc. are more permissive than the wishy washy "Positive Only" crowd because the "Positive Onlies" worth their salt would have made darned sure the dog didn't do X in the first place.
 
 

Well he can jump up and yell,"that dog was clicker trained!" all he wants, and you can believe that because the other guy "had a military look" (cause we all know the beat their dogs to train them.[]) that he must have been a mean trainer. But here's another way of looking at it. Both of you honestly have no clue as to how either where trained and that's a simple fact. Your not the master of reading all dogs body language, and as far as any knows, you may have just seen a calm dog perform compared to just a excited dog. Perhaps the judges saw that too. They are the judges after all, not you. 

Chuffy

If it's not about the equipment. I'll repeat.
I'm sorry, then why use one? And before anyone gets the wrong idea, I'm not saying you can't use clicker training, I'm not saying it doesn't work. I'm saying it's silly to say "clicker training, which is all about leadership, communication, and not equipment?"

ORIGINAL: Chuffy

IMO "clicker training" is a misnomer, because it doesn't matter what  the secondary reinforcer is - be it clicker, whistle, flashlight, your voice (Yes!/Bingo!)  whatever.  Someone on another thread suggested a snapple lid for a dog that was put off by the loud click of a regular clicker.  The equipment you use doesn't matter, abandoning equipment and just using your voice is fine, lots of people just choose to use an external "gadget" instead of voice/hand signal because it's guaranteed to stay the same no matter who uses it or what mood they are in. 

Does that help?

WRT last sentence - as a trainer, have you ever told a client that consistency is very important?  The more consistent you are, the clearer the message to the dog, the faster he will learn etc?  If you are not consistent he will get confused?  Some people choose to use a "marker" that always sounds the same to enable them to be more consistent - the sound is always the same and it is empowers us to be much mcuh much more precise with timing.

On the whole I don't have much patience with clickers or other gadgetry but sometimes if a dog appears to be "stubborn" or his learning rate particularly slow, I have found that it is often due to confusion, not stubbornness or a low IQ.  Bringing the clicker in enable me to take a lot of that confusion away.  The dog becomes more motivated and learns faster. 
 
ETA - he gets smarter too.