Clicker Beware

I hate the idea of making the crate an unsafe or scary place for my dogs to be.  If I don't want them to cause a ruckus for a couple of hours, I just toss a marrow bone in with them.  They chew and chew and snore and snore.

I have used the pennies in a can thing with a previous dog, and from my observation, the point is to *scare* your dog while they are doing something you disapprove of. So that hopefully they will associate their action with fear and not do it again.
 
Doesn't really sound like a lovely training method after all.... [:'(]
 

Me neither.  I don't see myself 'bonking' my dog anytime soon.

Maybe when I see Great Danes pillow fighting. 

That gets my vote as the most absurd justification ever.

I can't imagine what it's like to be that clueless.

The great thing about clicker training (or training with a clicker) is that it encourages the dog to think, problem solve, get creative and offer novel behaviours..... and then you "bonk" it on the head when one of those behaviours is not the one you want?  Sounds like the "trainer" is completely ignorant as to the principals and purpose behind clicker training.  What an idiot.

How does he know that he shouldn't?

He's been told "off" in the past. Right now we have an imaginary line in the kitchen about 2 1/2 feet from the counter. Dogs that lay quietly behind the line get treats from sandwich making and dogs that don't follow the rule don't get treats. The goal was to keep them entirely away from the counter. There's positive memories with the counter as that's where the cat used to eat and there were a few rewarding surfs.

Obviously Wolfgang knew because he waited until my back was turned. But...I've never boobie trapped because we don't eat chocolate and he isn't interested enough to steal things like onions. It was more funny than anything. (he even got some calcium to balance)  I wouldn't bonk for something that wasn't dangerous.

We had a foster dog that truly wanted to kill all cats and though he went to a no cats ever home, he completely fixated to the point that he'd ignore huge treats, so in that circumstance....maybe. I wouldn't use pennies because of the other dogs and a spray bottle was totally ineffective. Not sure how one would boobie trap for a cat. He got better, but not very good at ignoring cats. Getting his head to turn slightly was progress. Not a foster dog a multi-species family should have but he was a stray and there didn't seem to be any other options.
 
ETA: An e-collar probably would have been an option, but I've never used one and think someone with a lot of experience should be showing the method. The out of pocket expenses for this dog were already high.

I wouldn't use the pennies thing for a dog who was already highly aroused. That sounds like a recipe for disaster right there.

The first time I saw the pennies thing employed it was many years ago, before I'd ever considered being a dog owner, and even way back then to me it seemed weird and counter-producitve. The dog in question was a rhodesian ridgeback who was highly, highly reactive, to pretty much everything. That was also the first time I ever saw a prong collar. Thinking back on it now I think what that dog really needed was a way lighter touch and caaaaaaallllmmmmm, not things that increased her already highly agitated, over-stimulated state.

For a normal, calm dog who you just want to interupt from doing something bad, what's wrong with just "ah ah!" and a redirect? The pennies in the can is just so incredibly loud. I have very sensitive ears, and just to me sounds of that type are terrifying and increase my heart rate noticeably, I can't even imagine how stimulating and arousing it must be for an animal who has hearing several times more sensitive than me. And for an anxious dog like Conrad, I think he'd probably wet his proverbial pants at such a loud, sharp noise.

I just 'bonked" my great dane on the head with a pillow and now we have feathers everywhere-- he grabbed it in delight and gave it a good "killing".
 
If you are going to use some type of correction, it's best to set it up so the dog doesn't know the correction came from you. If the dog thinks you are the source of the correction all you've taught him is to not-do-the-behavior while you're there. Plus might have destroyed trust in you.

I hadn't even thought of pennies in those terms. Thanks. They wouldn't work here because the loud noise would affect all of the dogs including those that are doing exactly what they should be doing and the fearful one, so I've never considered other ramifications.
 
I like Suzanne Clothier's method of teaching self control through sit, but it is definately a longer process.

I hate the idea of making the crate an unsafe or scary place for my dogs to be. If I don't want them to cause a ruckus for a couple of hours, I just toss a marrow bone in with them. They chew and chew and snore and snore.

 

I think the idea was not to assoicate the noise with the crate or to the human.  The idea of just swiftly walking by and giving it a quick hit was more about the dog relating his behavior to a sounden noise.

But then again, I didn't use it so I really can't comment on if it would have made him associate the noise with the crate.

Yes, there are all forms of clicker trainers in this world. I've seen trainers that use both clickers and positive punishments in the same session. I've seen trainers who use the clicker as a conditioned punisher (and call it clicker training to bring in clients thinking they're doing well for their dog!). And then there is the "lady" who claims to have invented the "e-clicker", which is realistically a shock collar used in a guise of "positive training" - again, to bring in more clients even though there's not a hint of "real" clicker usage there. Even in the world of clicker training you HAVE to ask questions and find out the training methods being used because the term "clicker" trainer simply isn't enough, especially when there are so many people out there trying to purposely mislead the public.
 
I've never been a fan of shake cans, or booby traps, or squirt guns. I've seen Gary Wilke's site many times and with great respect to him he is a trainer who uses both P+ and R+ in training, although he does at least emphasize proper use of P+ in his articles, and differentiates between P+ and abuse (ie corrections that don't result in a change of behaviour...aka manhandling).
 
My real beef with booby traps is that, even though they might not be directly associated back to the handler, they can form some very horrible, permanent associations for dogs. Some of the side effects of booby traps that I've seen are generalized fears - use of a water gun results in phobia of running water, baths, the hose, etc, use of shaker cans or items commonly used on counters results in a generalized fear of startling noises which can lead to a diverse range of other fears, use of mouse traps under newspapers can result in phobias of entire rooms in a house. And of course all of these things can and do generalize to totally new, unrelated problems in dogs - while not associated with the handler, it's unfortunately another form of fallout of using aversive conditioning.
 
And it's just not worth the risk for me to find out which dogs might handle it or might not handle it. You can never, ever guess which dogs might be permanently changed because of these methods, and once it happens, well, it's too late.
 
Another problem with this for me and my ideology of training and relationships is that once again, even though not associated directly with the handler, you are setting the dog up to fail, instead of taking a more proactive approach and setting the dog up to succeed (using management and training).
 
You always hear of the people who "test" their dogs by hiding out of sight and "waiting" for their dog to make the mistake, when in reality you rarely hear of the person who hides out of site and waits for the dog to DECIDE not to do a particular behaviour, and you rarely hear of the person who runs into the room and rewards that dog's decision.
 
Besides, for those who have multidog homes, things like noise sensors (the ones that go off at high-pitched sounds in response to motion), or shake cans, you have to consider what the effects are on the dogs who have done nothing wrong. Other dogs are in the area and I've seen cases where the dogs that were doing the RIGHT thing still developed generalized fears or phobias to different stimuli because of the booby trap intended for another dog. At the very least it resulted in a number of unhappy, anxious, or tense dogs who couldn't relax in their own home. So before jumping to booby trap the home, think about what you're doing and the effects it will also have on the OTHER dogs that live there as well.

There is a difference between being a "Positive Only" extremist, and trainers like Gary Wilkes and Bob Bailey who use this tool/method of positive reinforcement along with all three other quadants of operant conditioning. Assuming they punish a dog and then click and treat? Please...

Unfortunately "clicker training" has become synonmous with the "Positive Only" extremists, and this has turned off many people who would love to use it as the very valuable tool/method it is. I'm having a very hard time finding a clicker trainer in my area to send my clients to, who doesn't also shove a big mouthful of emotional "Positive Only" propaganda down their throats, along with method bashing of the other local trainers at the same time.

Also, direct communication from a leader to a dog, to physically redirect or correct a dog, is different from a remote "correction" which associates an aversive (disconnected from the handler) also has value.

Personally, I'm not in favor of shake cans or squirt bottles. E-collars and mousetraps have more exact and better uses in remote associations. IMO

Remember, "scientifically", there are still four quadrants of operant conditioning, which should all be used and acknowledged when working with most dogs, IMO.

If someone, for whatever personal, emotional, or materialistic reasons, chooses to dump one, two, or three of the quadrants...that is their choice. But, I have never seen a professional who excells in the use of operant conditioning, who does not use all of them, to some degree.

Clicker training is not the sole property of the "Positive Only" type trainers. Yet they are the first to complain if someone who is not "Positive Only", uses "their" method.

Ugh...

My real beef with booby traps is that, even though they might not be directly associated back to the handler, they can form some very horrible, permanent associations for dogs. Some of the side effects of booby traps that I've seen are generalized fears - use of a water gun results in phobia of running water, baths, the hose, etc, use of shaker cans or items commonly used on counters results in a generalized fear of startling noises which can lead to a diverse range of other fears, use of mouse traps under newspapers can result in phobias of entire rooms in a house. And of course all of these things can and do generalize to totally new, unrelated problems in dogs - while not associated with the handler, it's unfortunately another form of fallout of using aversive conditioning.

 
Excellent points!!
 
Just like my ole boy (who isn't with us anymore) who I brought to a 4th of July party when he was only 3 months old.  Ever day for the rest of his life, he was afraid of thunder.  Then he associated lightening, with thunder and therefore would freak out when the power would flicker and on. and on. and on.
 
I got pissed at my DH last summer for throwing firecrackers (a mat of them) behind my house while River was out, thankfully they didn't bother him at all but fortunately he is a much more "tuff" breed (or hard dog) for lack of words.
 

I can think of a bunch of very hardy dogs that can handle a booby trap and need the negative consequence for some self-reinforcing behaviors.

ORIGINAL: fisher6000

I can think of a bunch of very hardy dogs that can handle a booby trap and need the negative consequence for some self-reinforcing behaviors.

 
I agree.  My Greater Swiss is one of them.   My Gordon Setter was not. 

I guess it's all in the nature of negative consequence.
 
I prefer to call it an aversive, hopefully something that will re-direct away from the undesired consequence.
 
Shadow can perform obedience in response to certain english words I have used in conjuntion with the correct move but that doesn't mean he will understand abstract thoughts. I doubt he would get much benefit if I explained to him the sheaf of postulates governing topology, a branch of math that I like to call set theory on steroids, which is primarily used for its multi-dimensional capabilities in theoretical sub-atomic physics. He may look at me funny as I launch into the Lorentz Group which involves a hyperbolic trig treatment of the lorentzian transforms and how they relate or fail to relate to actual observed evidence from a supercollider experiment.
 
Or, as others, including myself, have said, dogs see the world in a doggy way. And so, with a better understanding of why some would compare training a dog with training a horse or dolphin, the operant conditioning principle of marker training should achieve the maximum efficiency regardless of species since most, if not all, species respond to it.
 
As Anne puts it, dogs do what works. Generalized, mammals do what works.