Ian Dunbar

interesting. My experience in training off-leash recalls under distractions found that using purely rewards I could, on average, only get close to 80% to 90% reliability, depending on the dog and the level of distractions. Add a bit of enforcement to that ALREADY HIGHLY TRAINED DOG and you can bump it up to very close to 100%.
I don't like advocating "balanced' training because most people mis-interpret it to mean they should go freely correct their undertrained dogs. You'll get people spending five sessions rewarding their puppy for coming in the house, then they'll go to the park and the pup won't pay attention to them and he'll get corrected. That's not balanced training, that's undertraining. That's simply unfair to the puppy, and not effective-- he had no idea why was being corrected, how could he? Might be afraid of strange things for the next few weeks and be extra-clingy to his owner, or might decide next time he's at the park he'd better run as fast as can away from that maniac who goes around correcting him in parks.

Wow!
...is all I can say...


Jean Donaldson, director of dog training at the SFSPCA and author of "Culture Clash," a book about the human-dog relationship, views the history of dog training in pre- and post-Dunbar eras. "Ian is the man," she says. "He revolutionized the field." She, too, thinks Millan is tapping into something deeper in the current culture -- and his machismo is only part of it. "It's a backlash against political correctness," she says. "People are angry and life is frustrating and [when] someone tells them it's all about dominating something smaller and weaker? They'll go for that."

I don't think anyone has ever accused Jean Donaldson of not calling it as she sees it!

It puts a lot of people off, but I actually like that about her.

ORIGINAL: mudpuppy
My experience in training off-leash recalls under distractions found that using purely rewards I could, on average, only get close to 80% to 90% reliability, depending on the dog and the level of distractions. Add a bit of enforcement to that ALREADY HIGHLY TRAINED DOG and you can bump it up to very close to 100%.

Thanks for being straightforward, mudpuppy! What you just said (and what Houndlove said in response to jen's "am I doing it right" thread, is the exact sticking point that's been getting argued so hard lately. [] Your candor is much appreciated!

ORIGINAL: mudpuppy
I don't like advocating "balanced' training because most people mis-interpret it to mean they should go freely correct their undertrained dogs.

Thanks for explaining your reason, too. I appreciate your desire to arm people with only soft, kind, and generous tools.

I see it differently. I like to see people recieve a full set of tools that are designed to be most beautiful, efficient and respectful. If people are given partial toolsets, then they can only do a partial job. When they fail, they throw up their hands, they get frustrated and do worse (slap, yell, drag, euthanize, rehome) in a swirl of emotional response.

I read about people who are doing desensitization, who are dragging their dogs away from "the scary thing" by a flat collar or head harness and it makes me so sad for the dogs. This is what happens with an incomplete toolset, though.

Many people don't seek help till they're in crisis with their dogs, often adult rescues. They generally need a lot of tools, really fast - they generally need short, medium and long term solutions.

So, we see things differently - good on us! We make the world go 'round [] The cool part is that underneath it, we just want to advocate for happy dogs (ok, maybe people, too []).

I don't think anyone has ever accused Jean Donaldson of not calling it as she sees it!

It puts a lot of people off, but I actually like that about her.

 
Same here, I find her writings fascinating. [] And very humorous. It's not necessarily how I would write, but it's what makes her who she is!

I have yet to see an article that talks about his work with aggressive dogs.

[linkhttp://www.ttlntl.co.uk/2/ChatHist/Ian%20Dunbar.htm]http://www.ttlntl.co.uk/2/ChatHist/Ian%20Dunbar.htm[/link]

Here's an interview with Dunbar. About halfway through it, you will see how he proposes to stop a dog from being aggressive or growly. You will recognize a method mentioned by JM and myself.

BTW, I didn't have this in my collection of links. I googled it a few days ago, I googled again, this time. I google freely. Google, google, google ....

This thread seems to have become about the need for corrections, as well as the training of aggressive dogs.

I tend to agree with Mudpuppy:

interesting. My experience in training off-leash recalls under distractions found that using purely rewards I could, on average, only get close to 80% to 90% reliability, depending on the dog and the level of distractions. Add a bit of enforcement to that ALREADY HIGHLY TRAINED DOG and you can bump it up to very close to 100%.

and and like MP, I have no specific aversion to well-used +P. It's important to keep in mind that some dogs are going to need +P because some habits are very self-rewarding (barking, countersurfing...).

But in general, -P works just as well for me. I work with my dog, so he needs a really reliable recall. So I call him to me many times a day. If he comes, he gets praise or a treat or both, and he gets Continued Freedom. If he doesn't Come, right away, I go and get him and put him on a leash for awhile.

Boy, he has a very solid recall. I can't remember the last time I had to go and get him. Taking away his freedom is a serious punishment (-P).

I would add that in my experience -P works much better with aggressive/reactive dogs. My last dog had a serious aggression problem, and her aggression escalated BIG TIME when I addressed it with corrections (+P). But she made amazing, amazing progress with a very strict "positive reinforcement" regimen that was mostly -P, not just +R.

I think it's a real red herring to accuse clicker training or positive reinforcement of being "unbalanced." It's mostly about -P-- about withholding access to what the dog wants until it is exchanged for desired behavior. I don't understand why this is becoming so polemical. Being proactive about what your dog wants and asking for something in return just seems like an easier way to be in control of your dog. +P works for soft dogs, but can easily turn into a battle of the wills if your dog is truly hard or mean or intense or drivey.

This thread seems to have become about the need for corrections, as well as the training of aggressive dogs

 
That wasn't my intention. As stated before, the intention of this thread was to state that Ian Dunbar, considered a landmark in the world of positive operant conditioning, has in fact, dealt with aggressive and problematic dogs. I posted it as a rebuttal to the notion in another thread that the "positive people" euthanize any problem dog. Again, I have believed in euthanasia for problem dogs that are beyond help and I believed in that before I got involved in clicker training. I believed it back in my scruffing days. Maybe I'm just bad for thinking that, with limited resources, time and effort should be spent on dogs who are simply homeless, rather than dogs that can't be handled by the normal person. For example, Glenda is a petite woman with a bad shoulder. It would be problematic for her to go around wrestling 90+ lb GSDs, even if she wanted to.
 
I posted this thread here so that it wouldn't seem contentious or argumentative in that other thread. In one vein, I'm bribing my dog. If that doesn't work because I take pride in "bribing," then I'm too controlling because the positively rewarded obedience doesn't allow my dog to think. So I guess I'll have to assume that label, too. I'm a domineering treat-giver.[]  Does that sound like an oxymoron?[]

ORIGINAL: DPU

ORIGINAL: ron2

The purpose of the link was to show that Dunbar hs dealt with aggressive or challenging dogs.

 

My commentary is on the link.  The link does make the statement that says Dunbar effectively has dealt with biting dogs and so have I.  Maybe our methods are different, I don't know because there was no specifics in the link. 

 
I am still waiting for the substantiation made in the link.  How does Ian do it?
 
 

Thanks for this thread!  I got a book by Karen Pryor and I was hoping to learn more about Dunbar as well.

I'm finally coming to terms on where I stand amongst the spectrum of these schools of thought and I believe my personal philosophy is that I prefer positive reinforcement, but I don't not use corrections.  I do not train using corrections, I train using positive reinforcement.  I use corrections to simply redirect the dog's focus, like saying "hey!" to get a friend to notice you, but the corrections are not what trains the dog.  I use rewards and praise to train the dog and shape the behavior.  I do not believe that lure-reward and corrections are mutually exclusive.  I just believe there is a spectrum and each person falls in a different spot.  Or, even better, each person falls in a different spot with different dogs, depending on the temperament of the dog and the severity of the behaviors.

Honestly, I guess I care a lot less than some about who has done what with truly aggressive dogs.  I think very aggressive dogs are far more rare than regular pet dogs with a problem like fear aggression, reactivity, resource guarding, etc.  To judge people based only on what they've done with one or two very aggressive cases would be like picking a psychiatrist or counsellor based on whether or not they've successfully rehabilitated a serial killer.  I'm not saying aggressive dogs are not a problem or that they should just be PTS, I'd just rather judge behaviorist and trainers based on the majority of dogs they've worked with, not a select few with a very extreme problem.

[linkhttp://forum.dog.com/asp/m.asp?m=365396&mpage=2&key]http://forum.dog.com/asp/m.asp?m=365396&mpage=2&key[/link]=

This is a link to my reponse to Ixa's Girl in this thread. The link therein didn't make it in when I replied so I got it in on the edit.

It is an interview with Ian Dunbar. About halfway down the page you will see how he suggests handing a seemingly aggressive dog, though he is sometimes of the opinion that not all aggression is true aggression.

Here's another link for aggression evaluation.
[linkhttp://www.k9events.com/C.L.E.A.R/Dunbar%20notes%20Dec%2002.pdf]http://www.k9events.com/C.L.E.A.R/Dunbar%20notes%20Dec%2002.pdf[/link]
 
So, far I'm not finding videos or reports from 2 or 3 decades ago, when he started working with problem dogs. And, as others have pointed out, he can't seem to get the press that CM does because his methods don't make for dramatic t.v. like scruffing and pinning a dog does. And no, I'm not slamming CM. It's the media. People don't watch "Cops" to see people driving sensibly. They watch it to see the drunk guy fight the cops and get pinned and hog-tied into the back of a cruiser. So, you might have a really long wait before I can dig something on a Dunbar report similar to Pryor's scientific paper on + operant conditioning. That is, I don't have a website yet with video segments where he shows what to do, though it can be found by reading any of his material.
 

In one vein, I'm bribing my dog. If that doesn't work because I take pride in "bribing," then I'm too controlling because the positively rewarded obedience doesn't allow my dog to think. So I guess I'll have to assume that label, too. I'm a domineering treat-giver. Does that sound like an oxymoron?

Yeah, this gets right down to it. It's about arguing to argue. Clicker training as the new Gay Marriage, the new Abortion. I think this is why it always comes down to the aggressive, "Red Zone" dog that very few people have actually experienced. It's such a great polarizer! It's titilating to talk about aggressive dogs, it's "proof" that one trainer or method is better than another. And because truly dangerous dogs are pretty rare, but fear-biters and dogs with other kinds of aggression/reactivity issues are pretty common, it's such an easy crutch!

It's also really easy to say that clicker trainers want to kill aggressive dogs and that all dogs should be saved when you haven't had a dog that has mauled two dogs and seriously bitten three people.

The level of this "debate" is getting really appalling. Ron, I've got to hand it to you, continuing to attempt a rational discussion.

Dragging...as opposed to forcing the dog into a down? The most vulnerable position of all?

Here is your technique given to a new poster about how you handle your dog during leash reactivity.

"If she starts flipping out, I keep moving, but I lean over and begin pulling my leash hand down toward the ground. When we are past the other dog, my dog is basically in a down, and we stop. Then I lay my hands on her gently, and let her calm down for a few seconds."

I read about people who are doing desensitization, who are dragging their dogs away from "the scary thing" by a flat collar or head harness and it makes me so sad for the dogs. This is what happens with an incomplete toolset, though.

Hi JM,

I responded to you here:http://forum.dog.com/asp/tm.asp?m=365965&mpage=1&key=񙖍

I'm sorry for my part in diverting the topic. Dunbar's an interesting and important figure. My intention was to thank mudpuppy, while happily acknowledging both our similar intentions and the differences in the techniques we use to get there.

Thank you Ron2,  sorry for the duplicate effort on your part and I do admit there are time gaps when I visit this thread.  I found the interview link better than the note taking link.  In the interview link Ian says (I paraphrase) to ignore and wait for the bad behavior to stop and then when good behavior begins, reward, reward, reward.  He then later says if the problem is more serious then it is up to the owner to have control of the dog. 
 
I see a gap here.  If I have a biting, snappy, and lunging dog and Essie was this way - I am to wait until this behavior stops?  If I use my subjective observation and gauge the behavior is serious, I am to get control of the dog?  How? 
 
To me the slightest biting, snappy, and lunging is serious because of the damage it could lead to.  I will observe the dog and detect the moment the behavior begins and I will act.  That act could be a furrowed forehead or a stern NO.  Depends on my timing.  I then do agree with Ian that once I see the good behavior begin, I reward with praise.  I see no difference in this approach and the clicker training that you promote and that I am attempting to learn for a specific dog.