ron2
Posted : 10/9/2007 8:26:23 PM
Well, as I mentioned, Dunbar believes in a deeper assessment of dog interaction before labelling an exchange as true dog-dog aggression. I certainly agree with that. But if Shadow and another dog are starting to froth at the mouth, I doubt that I'm going to let him loose so that they can "work it out." OTOH, sometimes dogs teach each other lessons and some aggression may be solved quickly as the dogs settle on terms of engagement. That is, they bluff, trade a few bites, and then get tired of the whole silly thing as they assess that each other may be defend if necessary but have no need, ala the non-linear dog theory, once they are assured that the other will hold back and not be an actual threat. Which is placing a lot of trust in the dogs.
And while I'm not big on corrections, I can understand the use of no reward markers or a well-phrased "excuse me" as a verbal call to stop. I often use "off", which means to disengage from whatever. I did train that with treats but use it as an incompatible behavior. Some might view it as a redirection, or even a soft-sided correction, in that, "I don't want you to do that anymore." But, as others might agree, part of science is direct observation. Which seems a large part of Clothier's style. Plus, she may seem more accessible because she speaks and understands as a layperson. Sometimes, a scientific explanation can be a bit heady.
Nothing is more simple and more profound than the phrase, "Dogs do what works" which was often spoken by a great trainer. That could be expanded to all species of creatures and still be true. Such a phrase would be a condensation of years of study, experience, research, and attention to not only how dogs understand, but how humans understand. And is not diminished by its brevity.
But I suppose we'll stick to published trainers.
One of my first books was by Steve Adamson, "The ABC's of dog training." But I violate a few of his rules, though maybe it's because I have a dog that doesn't seem to require those rules. Shadow sits on the couch, sleeps on the bed, and gets handed bits of meat from my plate (for exhibited obedience). But his approach was similar, imo, to that of Clothier. An understanding of dog social behavior but also a tendency to lead with positive motivation. Once again, not all rewards have to be food, though it is an easy and quick way to train if that is your method.
Some of my first training input came from some Sibe sites where the training was a mix of lure/reward and Koehler, i.e., scruff and lock eyes to show who's boss, etc.
Most of Shadow's training before was lure/reward and some corrections, including the scruff and body block, even a stern tone of voice, which would shut him down even harder than the scruff.
For me, it's been so much easier and more accurate to mark and reward what I want and allow what I don't want to extinguish. Especially with an independent breed. So, any of the authors that advocate that I am likely to follow.
As for a style that is "natural", it is often said that in the wild, there are no clickers and treat bags. True. There are also not that many corrections. Most corrections are issued by a parent or guardian to stop a behavior that is bad for group cohesion, such as playing too rough or grabbing someone else's stuff. The rest of the "fighting" is just social interaction where the drop and roll is initiated by the placating member. But isn't also natural, in the synbiotic relationship between man and domesticated dog, to introduce human understanding and knowledge to the training process? And also, dogs may act a certain way with each other, but humans have a different perspective, timing, and ability that we, with the best training, hope to translate. Most of what we want a dog to do is counter to their instincts. And it is a sign of the bond between man and dog that they will forgo the instincts in deference to us. And I appreciate authors that see that and clarfiy it and provide a way to communicate our desires in a way that a dog finds pleasing to do.
I guess I've rambled enough.