Dog Community

Isn't it all about balance?

mrv

Posted : 10/10/2006 6:27:20 AM

Many of the recent topics have been written by defenders of one approach over another. It appears the following things have some level of agreement.
Dogs have problems that are often created by the people who are in contact with them.
Training approaches can use positive methods (what happens after the behavior increases the chances the behavior will happen again in similiar circumstances) or aversive methods (some thing happens that stops the behavior from likely happening again in similar circumstances) or management (the environment prevents the behavior from being practiced).

Many are cross over trainers or trainers/owners who are constantly evaluating their methods and accepting and discarding tactics based on the level of success and personal comfort with the method.

Positive methods work, aversive methods work, management works. Aversive methods work faster (apparently; however they dont generalize well and dogs often work to avoid them which results in a whole new set of problems). Management takes time in the beginning and consistancy with modifications as the dog grows and learns. Positive methods work more slowly in many cases but tend to have more stable generalization of behaviors across environments in situations.

People for the most part really try to do their best by their dog. The balance between the strategies likely varies from day to day, even to event, behavior to behavior.

So, would it not be fair to say, that folks try to balance their approaches, make mistakes and attempt to correct them? That any idea or description or television program may offer an insight that will improve the quality of the relationship between any human canine group. That our emotional attachment to our own approaches and belief systems may interfere with our ability to discuss a topic and accept that variation is part of the big pictures, heck it is essentially genetic.

Balance in methods, balance in discussion, balance in everything.

glenmar

Posted : 10/10/2006 6:44:47 AM

My primary concern with any TV show is that often folks decide to use those methods at home with less than stellar results and often real damage to the dog. I don't care who's tv show it is....if it needs a disclaimer than perhaps it isn't the best idea?

It would also be rather nice if we could HAVE discussions without the name calling from those who don't agree with our methods.

mrv

Posted : 10/10/2006 6:49:38 AM

I have similar concerns about suggestions that are offered on this board. Suggestions that have worked in one situation could be problematic in another, just like a TV show.

Granted the power of the media is potentially greater than a web discussion board based on the numbers.

Just hoping for balance here that may spread to other places.

kennel_keeper

Posted : 10/10/2006 6:53:41 AM

Very well said, Mrv.

While reading these threads, I've come to realize that it's all very "political". It's almost like watching a Presidential (or other politically based) debate and while they are interesting (to say the least), don't feel that they are very constructive (for the most part).

I'm not a "trainer" or "behaviorist", but have found a balance that works for my dogs based on personal experience. I try to say out of giving advise on training or behavioral issues because I have little professional experience, but I can state what has worked for me. The methods I use for training my dogs in the field are NOT "politically correct" and have taken a bit of abuse for it, but no one knows my (or my dogs) situation better than I do. There's no guilt here [

]
Realizing that not all methods work for all situations and dogs, is the first step in finding that "balance" as you so eloquently put it.

Again, great post!

ron2

Posted : 10/10/2006 6:56:52 AM

Just hoping for balance here that may spread to other places

I agree. I also think it is possible to use a few different methods, depending on circumstance. To me, correction, even the most benign and gentle, is a boundary. As real a boundary as the chainlink fence around my yard. As real as the boundaries momma dog sets. And +R is a way to lead to the behavior you want, especially when they are paying attention to you.

glenmar

Posted : 10/10/2006 7:05:30 AM

Maybe I miss a lot of the threads because what I most often see suggested here is pretty mild and if a dog has real problems quite often the suggestion is to get to a trainer or behavioralist. And at least the +R suggestions that are often are not going to cause damage to the dog, the owner or the relationship. To me that's the beauty of +R.....it might not fix the situation immediately, or maybe even ever, but it won't make things worse, even if done incorrectly.

I often remind people that I am not a trainer and that I am NOT an expert on anything....just an old broad with a lot of dogs under my belt. I share what works for ME. Honestly, I'd rather not see someone screaming NO at a puppy for a mistake and scarring the pee out of them because that doesn't teach the desired behavior and I try to explain that as simply as I can. That's probably my ONE area of expertise [

] I sure have a LOT of house training experience!

And Ron, you're right. But dogs will pay attention for a number of reasons. I'd rather have MINE pay attention because I do use +R and they aren't afraid of me or what my next behavior might be.

Angelique

Posted : 10/10/2006 7:39:50 AM

Yes, a balance of methods and philosophies makes a lot of sense not only when dealing with an individual dog, but what you are trying to achieve with that dog. I can't see why someone wouldn't be primarily positive reinforcement based when it comes to training. Communicating boundaries and corrections also have their place.

There are extremists at both ends of the spectrum in the dog training world. There is a good article on the International Association of Canine Professionals' site on this very topic which makes some good points.

Deb

Posted : 10/10/2006 8:31:04 AM

The funny thing IMO about these latest conversations is how hands-off they get--spouting one methodology over another, even though every single minute you spend with your dog you are actively training it. I compel my dog to do things physically all the time. Traditional trainers use a lot of positive reinforcement techniques. We are all pretty much on the same team, and I am shocked at how political these discussions get (great observation, Kennelkeeper).

Just to throw in my two cents, I don't find +R more time consuming for most things. Exceptions would be classical counterconditioning for fear-based behaviors and (for many dogs) loose lead walking.

kennel_keeper

Posted : 10/10/2006 8:52:52 AM

Thanks Fisher, I have my moments. [

]

dogslyfe

Posted : 10/10/2006 9:04:27 AM

The methods I use for training my dogs in the field are NOT "politically correct"

Renee, I think many of us that train our dogs for their work face this type of thing. Many of the methods I might use training dogs on livestock (which granted I am fairly new to, and learning every day) are very different from typical +R. They DO involve a certain amount of aversives. Although they do involve reward, it's just... different. That being said, I try to use the lowest level of aversives as possible, as seldom as possible - and it pleases me that my dog is "right" most of the time.

mrv - I think you've hit on something very important. I think it IS about balance. Each person and each dog's balance may be different - but I know it's important for me and my dogs.

An aversive doesn't HAVE to be a fear inducing thing. When the puppy takes it upon himself to try to chew the couch cushion, I say, "Eh-EH!". He looks at me like, "What?" We then find something more acceptable - say chewing on his bone, and then he's a "Good BOY!!". In this situation this particular aversive isn't fear inducing - it basically gets his attention and makes him wonder, what??

Ron - I like what you say about boundaries. Good point.

kennel_keeper

Posted : 10/10/2006 9:58:17 AM

That being said, I try to use the lowest level of aversives as possible, as seldom as possible - and am pleased that my dog is "right" most of the time.

I totally agree.
Aversives can be a huge "plus" in the training tool box, but used incorrectly can do alot of damage. I know some "old timers" (beaglers) who would literally FRY their dogs a$$ if they did something wrong. Well, I totally disagree with THIS method and have seen dogs "shut down" from it. I've also heard of them being beaten, put into a small pen with grown buck deer, and hanged with a belt (completely off the ground). These methods are completely against my beliefs and I would NEVER resort to using such brutal force with ANY living being. Education is key BEFORE using any method, but especially using aversives. I did ALOT of research before I started using e-collars and based on this research, purchased a set of collars that have both tone and stimulation. The tone is a signal that stimulation is going to come if they behavior continues. Also the stimulation level is adjustable to allow for a dogs sensitivity level. I don't use a continuous stimulations, as I believe that a "pulse" is more than adequate for my purposes. Since my dogs are now reliably trained to avoid deer, I no longer need to use the e-collar in most situations.
Just to note, e-collar training is NOT the only method I use for training my dogs. They get plenty of +R in the way of praise, activity, and "treats". Just the act of letting them get out and "run a rabbit" is +R. They live for it and I couldn't imagine not being able to take them out in the field.

Deb

Posted : 10/10/2006 10:37:26 AM

Just the act of letting them get out and "run a rabbit" is +R. They live for it and I couldn't imagine not being able to take them out in the field.

This is an important aspect of +R that gets shut out of the discussion when things devolve. A reward is anything that motivates the dog. My first clicker trained dog was not food motivated at all, but had an off-the-charts prey drive. So I trained recall by getting her on a long lead and letting her chase pigeons every time she came when I called her.

One of the biggest complaints about +R is that the dog will only work when there is a treat being dangled in front of its face. Two great ways out of that are intermittently rewarding behavior (acting more like a slot machine and less like a vending machine) and varying the type of reward offered.

dogslyfe

Posted : 10/10/2006 10:41:30 AM

ORIGINAL: fisher6000

Just the act of letting them get out and "run a rabbit" is +R. They live for it and I couldn't imagine not being able to take them out in the field.

This is an important aspect of +R that gets shut out of the discussion when things devolve. A reward is anything that motivates the dog. My first clicker trained dog was not food motivated at all, but had an off-the-charts prey drive. So I trained recall by getting her on a long lead and letting her chase pigeons every time she came when I called her.

One of the biggest complaints about +R is that the dog will only work when there is a treat being dangled in front of its face. Two great ways out of that are intermittently rewarding behavior (acting more like a slot machine and less like a vending machine) and varying the type of reward offered.

Agreed, and agreed. With working livestock, the reward is the work. The dog is right, you let them have their sheep. The dog is wrong, you correct, and allow them the freedom to choose the right thing - which earns them the sheep. Well, not only that, but I think sometimes being right is a reward in itself.

houndlove

Posted : 10/10/2006 10:49:18 AM

I think more than specific methods used in whatever unique situations, it's the attitudes towards why our dogs work for us (or why they should) that is the major conflict in all these arguments.

Basically the two camps I see are the following:

*Dogs should work for humans because we're the human and they're the dog and we're the alpha and they're submissive, and dogs are hardwired to behave that way. We should not reward our dogs with anything except our approval, because our approval is what dogs crave most. Dogs refuse to work for us only when they do not respect us.

*Dogs should work for humans because dogs are hardwired to be selfish and will work if there's the possibility that they'll get something out of it that they like (could be approval, but probably something more tangible and understandable to a dog). A dog will decline to work if it has not been made clear why they should execute a particular behavior and what is in it for them.

I used to subscribe to the former belief. My attitudes have changed totally to the latter. But there are implicit messages about both the nature of dogs and humans and our relationships happening in both statements, and those implicit messages I think are what cause issues and make it personal. Both attitudes could encompass a wide range of training and behavior mod techniques given the unique situations our dogs are placed in. But the fundamental philosophies behind them will remain different and will continue to be at odds with one another. I don't think its methods that are being argued about at the core--though that's the form the argument usually takes. I think its a fundamental difference of opinion of what the nature of dog is.

spiritdogs

Posted : 10/10/2006 4:15:05 PM

mrv, I think it's admirable to be the peacemaker, but when you talk about methods having negative effects, I do think it's a given that, in the hands of novices, aversives are more dangerous to the well being of the dog, and the human, than positive methods tend to be. There are really serious drawbacks to aversives that accrue to dogs, especially those who are "one trial" learners, sufficient that I think it is irresponsible, unless you have an extremely good grasp of what those effects might be, to offer advice that supports their use.
I tend to agree with Glenda, that if you need a disclaimer, your philosophy might not be applicable to the masses. As to whether the professional trainers on the Board agree or disagree with a particular method, well, hopefully at least they could discuss it based on reasonable criteria, not just punish versus not to punish.

houndlove, you hit the nail right on the head.