How Far Are You Willing to Go?

Well since each one of use have a different way to call things and think different about what each word really means then keep talking about it is useless [&:]

Good points Ron. 
 
I do see a common theme throughout this post.  Even the people who are firm believers in positive only do agree that aversion methods do work.  I have read repeatly the same statements of admission.  I have used it, I will use it, I only use it, or I had to use it "when nothing else worked" to get my dog to comply.  I don't think anyone would use these tools/methods if they were truely painful and hurting their pets.  Just an observation.
 
 
 
 

Ya know, I can't help but wonder at all of you who seem to always have some reason to correct your dogs.  If coercion training, and "no" and leash pops work so darn well, why aren't your dogs as well behaved as mine seem to be?  I completely don't get it.
some of you are opposed to using treats, yet I have the dogs with the perfect recalls.  You don't want to use clickers, but my dogs "stay" and yours don't (I can leave Sioux in a stay and leave the room, even if there are 200 people in that room and a microphone blaring).  You have to use leash pulls to redirect your dogs, but all I have to do is say "leave it" and my dogs do.  My assistant just took her two dogs to their first agility trials.  In two weekends, they both have their NA, and first places.  She uses the same methods I suggest in my posts here.  What's wrong with this picture?  Why aren't you more successful?
Not saying you have to do things my way, but obviously, if your dogs aren't pretty obedient by now, there could be something else you could try...If it works, maybe you don't fix it, but if you are having to correct a dog and he isn't "getting" that he must do the required behavior when you ask the first time, immediately, then why would you hold fast to your ideas of how to train that behavior?  I am positively (no pun intended) stupefied by that concept.

I feel that there are many good trainers and training methods. What works for one person, one dog , or one breed, may not work as well for someone else. A case in point was an Australian Cattle Dog puppy I sold years ago. He was enrolled in an obedience class as per my recomendation, but after 3 weeks the trainer advised  the owners to put the pup to sleep for aggression problems. It seeems that this puppy was trying to bite the other dogs in class when they were in front of him, and the class instructor was unwilling to use harsh corrections in her class. I advised the owners to tell the pup "NO" and mean it! Don't ask, tell him! I also advised a leash "pop" if needed. This pup graduated at the top of his class, and it only took a couple lessons to learn proper leash manners. What if they hadn't come back to me for advice? This very typical breed behavior might have gotten this darling puppy destroyed!

As I've said on this forum before, I am not opposed to using a correction in the case of a dog that is in grave danger, as your ACD pup might have been.  But, for the most part, with the average pet dog, (IMO, while I like them very much, ACD's aren't exactly the best dogs for novices) these corrections are not necessary to obtain the desired result.  In the hands of a novice owner, my own Aussie (stockdog type, not show type) might have been in a similar situation.  Thankfully, I had the skill to manage her with positive training.  And, most dogs can be managed that way.   I have ACD's in my classes that never need the correction you described, but if the occasional dog did, fine.  I just think that many more of the dogs on this forum could be managed well with positive training.  It seems that many people have a very skewed idea of what +R is - it's not lenient, it's not just shoving a bunch of food at the dog, and it doesn't produce unreliable dogs when executed properly.  Most owners simply haven't learned to do it properly.  It's like trying to ride a horse before you learn to cinch the saddle.

ORIGINAL: spiritdogs

As I've said on this forum before, I am not opposed to using a correction in the case of a dog that is in grave danger, as your ACD pup might have been.  But, for the most part, with the average pet dog, (IMO, while I like them very much, ACD's aren't exactly the best dogs for novices) these corrections are not necessary to obtain the desired result.

This is pretty much what I've been trying to say. I don't think anyone is denying that other things work, but I don't really know why you would use anything but positve reinforcement just for the hell of it. I said on another thread that spending long hours everyday trying to put wild breeding birds at ease so they will visit their nest in front of me has really impacted how I deal with domestic animals as well. Same with dealing with my pet hare. You just can't do anything remotely frightening to him or that'll be the end of the relationship. Really, not a great pet. [] So while I know from experience that force and corrections work, I've got in the habit of not using them and I think it's helped me better understand my animals and their motivations because I have to think about how to manipulate their behaviour instead of just forcing them somehow. I'm determined to do my utmost to teach my next dog with the bare minimum of corrections. I hope to get away with just a no reward marker. I will tie my hands behind my back if I have to in order to stop myself tugging on that leash. The leash will be there for emergencies. That's a decision I've come to based almost entirely on how I've learnt to handle wild animals. It's been such hard work convincing my hare that I'm to be trusted, but the relationship that has developed as a result of that hard work blows me away. I want to know what would happen if I took the same excruciating care with a dog. But more than that, I just don't like forcing myself and my rules on an animal when it will learn everything it needs to to be a great companion with rewards alone.

That's the way I will do it until I find a way that I like even better, if there ever is such a thing. I'll stick to it because that's the kind of person I am. If other people with other dogs with different needs want to do things other ways, I have no problem with that.

Unfortunately, Anne, ACDs make frequent first time dog owners pet dogs over here. And that's why they have a dreadful reputation for being dangerous and vicious. I heard a story just a few weeks ago about one that bit a little girl's fingers off through the fence of its yard. Before that, one of the owners broke into the yard of an akita breeder and set the dog on her breeding male. I've been charged by them and bitten by them and I know people who have lost pets to them. But they are so wonderfully loyal, courageous and smart in the right hands that inexperienced people just keep getting them. [:'(]

At the risk of being accused of being a treat dispensing butler/roommate again......
 
Over the weekend one of the dogs headed for the trash....DH bellowed "get out of the ***** trash"....no response.  While looking at HIM like he had two heads I uttered my "eh eh leave it", dog stopped cold, turned around and walked away.
 
It confounds DH that they will respond to two sylables(sorry, sp, not enough coffee yet)  from me, sometimes just one (as in achk).  HE uses too many words  Get out of the ***** trash tells the dog what he wants him to STOP doing.....but not what he should do, and it takes too long to say it all and for the dog to pick out the words he/she understands and react. Eh eh, is something that I have used with them consistently from the time they were tiny and leave it is such a useful tool to have installed.
 
I have six dogs in my house.  An occassional tiff is likely unavoidable, just as it would be with more than one human child.  However, I can stop a problem normally before it even gets started, or if I happen to miss the opening growl, the instant that it does start with "that will do".  Thats it.  All it ever takes.
 
I have to agree with Anne.  My dogs do as I ask, when I ask, so how is my method of training so danged wrong?  Yesterday Thor flushed a flock of pheasants when he got too close to where they were and the foolish things didn't take flight immediately....they ran or flew right over the weeds....within easy gsd grasp.  I had 3 off lead dogs in the field with a dozen big birds flapping around.....all I had to do was call out "leave it, lets go" and they were back at my side.  Now granted one or two looked back at those goofy birds, but they did as I asked.  No treats were involved either. 
 
I guess I'd rather be a treat dispensing butler/roommate who has dogs that comply with each and every request each and every time than have to constantly remind my dogs of who's the boss.....

corvus, I don't think we are all that far apart in our philosophy - my contention here has always been that correction is overused, is not necessary very often, and that folks who think that +R doesn't work usually have not learned how to train properly with a reward-based system.  I have never said that there aren't situations where I would use correction (humane, well timed, and brief).  But, I can't fathom why people still insist on popping a dog without having first learned to *motivate* him.  And, when it is apparent that others are having great results, they continue to pound away at them hoping they'll crack - ain't gonna happen.  My dogs today have rock solid recalls - that wasn't always the case when only traditional methods were used.

At the risk of mudding waters (again [])  Random thoughts on things read.

Actions on the part of humans that increase the likelihood of behavior happening again are positive reenforcement. 

Positive reenforcement methods result in organisms who will offer behavior to "get" those positive reenforcements.

Positive reenforcement are defined by the impact on behavior, not a person's value system.

Tools are available because there are a variety of situations in which they may be needed.  As an example...a prong color in the hands of an older woman with a lovely but bouncy aussie in class.  Woman has arthitis to the point of joint deformaties.  Cant control with a typical buckle or slip collar in a class situation.  Cant manage a head collar because the dog is too resistant.  Prong works to enable the team to work in class.

Use of punishment (correction based) training and positive training requires time, consistency, and good timing.  Yes, positive results do less "damage" but many people get so frustrated with bouncy, pushy out of control adolescents, they drop out of class. 

Access to good trainers who are also good TEACHERS is not as easy as it might appear on the internet.

If you make an honest effort to be fair and honest with your dog;  to set up an environment that keeps them safe and reduces the probability of the practice of undesired behavior, you have done a good thing.  If in the heat of the moment or the end of a very trying day, you make a mistake (I certainly have).  Accept the responsibility and look at the situation.  What did I do that set my dog up, and what will I do differently in the future.

The dogs are not the only ones who are works in progress.  I work really hard every day to get better with my own dogs and with my methods to help other people with their pets.

ORIGINAL: mrv

Actions on the part of humans that increase the likelihood of behavior happening again are positive reenforcement. 

Positive reenforcement methods result in organisms who will offer behavior to "get" those positive reenforcements.

Positive reenforcement are defined by the impact on behavior, not a person's value system.

I really hate jargon! If I had it beaten out of me so I didn't have to explain it every time I used it then why do people keep inventing more of it?

Okay, so can you clarify this craziness for me? Positive reinforcement can be a positive thing for the dog (e.g. treat) or a negative thing for the dog (e.g. smack on the rump) as long as it increases the likelihood of behaviour happening again? [sm=crazy.gif] I'm thinking in terms of the popping thing. If espencer says he performs a collar pop and his dog looks away, is that positive reinforcement? With the desired behaviour being looking away, assuming for a moment that espencer trained the behaviour of looking away with the aid of leash pops to reinforce it?

I think the whole thing is ridiculous if it doesn't incorporate our natural values for positive and negative, but I think the whole shebang of +R rubbishy jargon is silly already. *takes out a vendetta against all needless jargon*

*deep breath* Okay, it's all good. Everyone feel free to use all the confusing jargon you like and I will valiantly attempt to keep up with it all and know what it means.

OK  lets try this example (it may make it worse lol)

Dog is walking, sees a squirrel,,, starts pulling heavily on the collar.  Continues the bouncing, pulling, straining choking behavior.  Person drags dog by, dog eventually settles.  Cycle starts again with the next squirrel.  Dog's bouncing, pulling, straining, is being positively reenforced.

Dog is walking, sees a squirrel, pulls, hits then pressure point, stops and turns to look at handler.  Dog's bouncing, pulling straining has been punished (introduced something that immediately stopped the behavior)

Dog starts on a walk at the end of the lead pulling all the way, entire walk.  Dog has been positively reenforced because the pulling continues as they are walking.

Dog starts out on a walk, tension occurs, forward motion stops, tension is released, walking starts, dog has been negatively reenforced.  The behavior occurs again, a tight lead happens, forward motion stops,  tension released, move again.

Positive and negative reenforcment increase the chance the behavior will happen again.

Punishment stops the behavior in that situation close to immediately.

I personally dont use or care for the R+ R- P+ P- stuff,  just muddies the water to me.  I have three options to change or teach  behavior (reenforcement, punishment and extinction).   I use the first and third the most and try to leave punishment out of the equation as much as possible.

Hum.. but I have had success with training.  I can down stay my dog too and he dosen't get up without my release.  I tell people I could walk my dog the center of the mall and he would follow me happily, never tried it but I am confident he would becasue he loves to walk with me anywhere.  If the methods I chose to use didn't work I would never continue, and there were times I didn't.  I had to move from positive to aversion for some siuations when my dog was young and in training.  I don't need them now, he is trained.  A simple, leave it, eh-eh, drop it, stay, down etc all work wonderfully.
 
Are there really people on this board who are overusing these methods without results I guess there maybe.  What I see more of is my dog is jumping, my dog is showing aggression and these poor people are asking for help.  I don't see many posts that say, I keep correcting my dog and he is not compling - should I jerk him higher or hang him tighter?  This is what I mean about accusations being used towards one's choice or methods.  I agree we all should try to be positive when we can and I thing most people do try that.

ORIGINAL: spiritdogs

Ya know, I can't help but wonder at all of you who seem to always have some reason to correct your dogs.  If coercion training, and "no" and leash pops work so darn well, why aren't your dogs as well behaved as mine seem to be?  I completely don't get it.

And who told you my dog is not well behaved? i used leash pop at the beginning but i dont have to anymore so i guess the leash pop worked "darn well"

some of you are opposed to using treats, yet I have the dogs with the perfect recalls.  You don't want to use clickers, but my dogs "stay" and yours don't (I can leave Sioux in a stay and leave the room, even if there are 200 people in that room and a microphone blaring).  You have to use leash pulls to redirect your dogs, but all I have to do is say "leave it" and my dogs do.  My assistant just took her two dogs to their first agility trials.  In two weekends, they both have their NA, and first places.  She uses the same methods I suggest in my posts here.  What's wrong with this picture?  Why aren't you more successful?

Once again, who told you my dog (or other dogs from the people giving advice like mine) dont stay in place without even tell them to sit, mine can, no leash pops, doing it from far away, it does not matter, can we call that succesful?

Not saying you have to do things my way, but obviously, if your dogs aren't pretty obedient by now, there could be something else you could try...If it works, maybe you don't fix it, but if you are having to correct a dog and he isn't "getting" that he must do the required behavior when you ask the first time, immediately, then why would you hold fast to your ideas of how to train that behavior?  I am positively (no pun intended) stupefied by that concept.

I can say the same about your methods, why you have to give treats to make a dog behave, is clearly that is not working, i dont understand why you have to give treats to a dog to reward him because he stopped bad behavior, i dont know why you have to run away from the situation to make the dog pay attention to you (ie. a car passing that makes the dog crazy) if your dogs aren't pretty obedient by now, there could be something else you could try.

But of course just like me you did that at the beginning, now you dont have to because your dogs behave now, as you know not because you give advice of +R that means that by now YOU use it still (because that would mean that if you still have to then your method is not working and the dogs are not getting it) and is the same with us, we give advice but that does not mean we STILL use it since the dogs behave now and we dont have to anymore

ORIGINAL: corvus

Okay, so can you clarify this craziness for me? Positive reinforcement can be a positive thing for the dog (e.g. treat) or a negative thing for the dog (e.g. smack on the rump) as long as it increases the likelihood of behaviour happening again? .... If espencer says he performs a collar pop and his dog looks away, is that positive reinforcement? With the desired behaviour being looking away, assuming for a moment that espencer trained the behaviour of looking away with the aid of leash pops to reinforce it?

 
It is rather confusing, isn't it? This breakdown might help ( I hope)...
 
Postive and negative refers to the addition or removal of a stimulus/thing in the environment, whereas reinforcement/punishment refers to the effect it has on behaviour, with reinforcement increasing behaviour and punishment decreasing behaviour.
 
Therefore, positive reinforcement (+R) increases behaviour by introducing something (good) into the environment when that particular behaviour occurs, whereas negative reinforcement does it by removing something (bad).
Positive punishment (+P) decreases behaviour by introducing something (bad), and negative punishment (-P) does it by removing something (good).
 
In espencer's looking away/leash pop thing, I would think that it would depend on what behaviour is occuring when the leash pop happens. If he's popping the leash after the dog looks away (and looking away occurs more often)then it would be +R, if he's popping the leash after the dog's done something else (and then after that the dog looks away) then that's +P.
 
Is that clearer?
 
I really am just jumping in to echo what luvmyswissy and corvus (and maybe some other people) have said:
 
it seems to me that for the most part, people do agree (with espencer) that corrections such as "leash pops", and other methods other than "+R" do work, but would still prefer to use treats/rewards to reinforce good behaviour rather than correct bad behaviour because it's less detrimental if they get it wrong, it's a lot more pleasant, and a lot more effective (not necessarily in the long term, but certainly when the dog is still learning the behaviour).  [sm=2cents.gif]

mrv, vinia, thanks, that does make it a little clearer. I still think jargon is rubbish and a dreadful way to communicate, but unfortunately I can't contribute much to conversations about it if I don't understand it. [] I like your reinforcement, punishment, extinction approach better, mrv. That one actually makes sense without me having to race off and find a training terms dictionary.

I happen to enjoy telling my dog she's done the right thing, even though she's a good girl for the majority of the time and learnt to be that way many years ago. She doesn't need my rewards for her good behaviour to continue, but dammit, I like giving her rewards. I see nothing at all wrong with getting into the habit of murmuring "gooood girl" when I see her do something I like to see. I vary the intensity of the reward to match how hard I know the desired behaviour is for her to do in different situations. Although her behaviour is reliable and for the most part very good, I have been teaching her what different phrases mean for most of her life just by saying "good girl" when she responds appropriately. It makes it really easy for me to add things to her repertoire. I taught "leave it", "cross the road", "off the road", "this side", "stop", "wait", "go for a swim" and "shake" by telling her she was a good girl when she did them and moving on to putting them on cue. To me, that's a totally natural approach to training and I don't think I will ever run out of handy things to teach her. I expect I'll still be teaching her new things until the day she dies.

So I guess the point I'm trying to make is that training your dog is a lifelong pursuit, whether your dogs are well behaved now and don't really need more training or not.