Great videos on behavior by Dunbar, Donaldson and others

EDIT: Moved to the new thread!

Not a problem Ron...there's always a couple spillovers after Mod requests LOL!

spiritdogs

the likelihood is that their dog might have been one of the millions of dogs that would be absolutely thrilled to learn via operant conditioning, without ever needing the +P quadrant. 

As my case turned out to be. Most physical corrections I could give him aren't hard enough because he is used to rough play. Aside from that, He responds to the other quadrants so well that corrections haven't been necessary. And that's what I mean about him being a soft dog, which may be a different definition than Mick (?) had for evaluating police dog candidates. Also, I find that by leading positively, some behaviors he could choose simply fall by the wayside. In analogy, I have 7 flights of stairs and an elevator. I'm taking the elevator. Stairs? What stairs?

There's a front ring on his harness and I once clipped to it, ala Easy Walk. He didn't like it a bit and it didn't work for us. But someone helped me find a way that was even easier.

The rest of your post, of course, is on the money, as usual.

I also agree with Kim's post, too.

And while I didn't like the way Jean did her thing and I would have done it differently, I can say this. It was mentioned that it was only a 3 minute video. See what she accomplished in 3 minutes? Not from -R or even +P alone, but including +R. And I do believe her aim was to lead to +R and it would seem that she was successful, in a heck of a hurry. Would she have done it that way if she had a month to do it? I doubt it. It would have been a lot more gradual, with stages of exposure and a gradual change of attention thorugh rewards from "who's that other dog and I must challenge them to keep them away" to "what does Jean think?"

ron2

It was mentioned that it was only a 3 minute video. See what she accomplished in 3 minutes? Not from -R or even +P alone, but including +R. And I do believe her aim was to lead to +R and it would seem that she was successful, in a heck of a hurry.

 That is uncertain. Since it is video we cannot know for certain how much time elapsed during her actual session.

dgriego

That is uncertain. Since it is video we cannot know for certain how much time elapsed during her actual session.

Fair enough. Any video can be edited for time format, content, story continuity. And since it is among other videos that highlight the use of the GL, it is easy to think it is akin to a commercial ad. Does Jean own the company that makes GL? I don't think so, nor is the video including references to a line of DVDs to buy, though that would not be bad, either. They could have put a leader at the bottom of the screen showing elapsed time. Would you believe that, then? Even if it showed 20 minutes. Even though I didn't like the strong tactics, she did not flood. Her actions, even the midair spin, were to lead the dog away from the stimulus, as opposed to if she were to scruff, pin, and roll her and hold her down in the presence of the other dogs. In fact, her point is to have the dog turn butt, as a leader dog would do, which could help her gain confidence.

So, if the video is indeed elapsed time, rather than real time, then it certainly wouldn't be correction after correction. I would like to think there were moments of rest between encounters to let the dog get out of that mindset, even for a moment.

First of all, I will say that I just finished Donaldson's "Culture Clash" and it is FANTASTIC.  So I appreciate Donaldson. 

But ... I am greatly amused to see video of the GL being used like a prong.    A prong collar, like a GL, cause uncomfortable restriction when a dog pulls.  Dunbar could have just easily tried a prong on Claude.  Ivan was a terrible puller, and the prong collar made a huge difference. 

I would personally rather use a properly fitted prong collar than a GL, because I feel it is more effective and less dangerous.  

And I agree that the novice pet owner should NOT be yanking a dog around by the GL, or allowing the dog to yank itself.  Not safe for the dog.  

Last but not least, those aren't dog training videos.  They're GL commercials.  And encouragements to shop at ABRI's website: http://animalbehaviorproducts.net/home.shtml

 The reason people are encouraged to shop there is that it costs money to keep a website - you must pay the domain registry, the ISP, and the folks who maintain the content.  These people are not in the game for free any more than CM is - this is how they make their living!  Would you expect an athlete to turn down sneaker endorsements, or would you consider them any less able at their craft???

As to the GL being more dangerous than the prong collar, I would say that any piece of equipment used improperly can injure a dog, but your assessment that it was being used as a prong was inaccurate.  The GL certainly does cause pressure, but the prong causes pain.  That slight difference makes all the difference to me.  So, all things remaining the same, and with proper use of both items, I much prefer the GL.  

No one was yanking the dog in the video - what I saw was steady pressure upward to close the dog's mouth and get the sit (done artificially, but similarly to when we lure with food, the principle is that when the head goes up, the butt goes down).  The dog was not given a whole lot of leash to go running off and yanking itself either.  The one thing that many people missed is that pain often causes the reactive dog to think that it is the object of its fear that causes it, in this case the other dog.  So, pressure is better than pain when dealing with these dogs, if you don't have time to desensitize the dog as an owner or long term trainer might. 

spiritdogs

No one was yanking the dog in the video

We must have been watching a different set of videos then.....

spiritdogs

No one was yanking the dog in the video - what I saw was steady pressure upward to close the dog's mouth and get the sit (done artificially, but similarly to when we lure with food, the principle is that when the head goes up, the butt goes down).  The dog was not given a whole lot of leash to go running off and yanking itself either.  The one thing that many people missed is that pain often causes the reactive dog to think that it is the object of its fear that causes it, in this case the other dog.  So, pressure is better than pain when dealing with these dogs, if you don't have time to desensitize the dog as an owner or long term trainer might. 

And yet I was criticized for training a deaf dog by shaping the behavior and using gentle pressure to get results.  Funny?  No?

There was yanking in the video, no doubt about it.  And when JD was describing how to properly fit the for-profit commercial product (which is so overpriced), she talked about effectively applying the pressure to the snout as a punishment.  The first thing that came to mind was that there must be aweful lot of bloodied lips created.

DPU

And yet I was criticized for training a deaf dog by shaping the behavior and using gentle pressure to get results.  Funny?  No?

I suppose that would depend on the timeframe you had to work with.

DPU

So, pressure is better than pain when dealing with these dogs, if you don't have time to desensitize the dog as an owner or long term trainer might. 

I can't comment further on that because 1. it's OT and 2. I was not involved in the discussion you refer to.

DPU

There was yanking in the video

I think so too, but I THINK (and this is JUST my perspective) that it was when the dog caught the trainer by surprise... I don't think yanking is really part of the technique.  Perhaps it would have been better not to show that in the clip.. perhaps not.... or perhaps to acknowledge that that was a mistake and an example of how it should not be done....?? Maybe we can contact someone on the site and ask?

DPU

she talked about effectively applying the pressure to the snout as a punishment.  The first thing that came to mind was that there must be aweful lot of bloodied lips created.

I recall her talking about it as negative reinforcement.  Nowhere does she suggest that this must cause injury or pain to the dog and if you look up negative reinforcement you will find there is nothing about injury, pain or blood in the definition either.  So I am not sure where you are going with that one. 

The feel of pressure round a dog's muzzle is unpleasant for them.  Close your hand around your dog's muzzle and chances are, it wont hurt him, but he does not like it.  This aversive is applied when the dog behaves in a way which is undesirable and removed the moment the dog gives the desirable behaviour.  That is a classic example of negative reinforcement.... to put it another way; something which is nice when it stops happening (as opposed to positive reinforcement, which is nice when it happens).  This is not really effective as a punishment IMO... for example I would not recommend puppy owners holding a pups muzzle as punishment when the pup bites because you've really got to to it AS the pup bites and release when he stops.... otherwise you are punishing him for the correct behaviour, rather than the "bad" behaviour.... but I digress.  Sorry.

Chuffy, the 2nd quote is not mine.

I always play "got your nose" with my dogs but that is probably not the same.  Tonight, I will watch the video again but as I recall in the collar fitting direction, my impression was a quick snap of the collar and instant pressure being applied would clamp the dog's mouth shut and if the dog's tongue or lip was in the way, you would have blood.  If the mouth does not clamp shut when you leash pop the dog, then yes, you would not get a bloodied tongue or bloodied lip.  I have the product so I will try this at home but the hard decision will be which dog do I risk injury. 

DPU

Chuffy, the 2nd quote is not mine.

I know, it is spiritdogs.  It was from the quote at the top of your post.  Sorry for the confusion.  You were saying you were criticised for using pressure on a deaf dog and I was highlighting the point spiritdogs made about timeframes.

DPU

my impression was a quick snap of the collar and instant pressure being applied would clamp the dog's mouth shut and if the dog's tongue or lip was in the way, you would have blood

now i understand you.  To me, that would not be a good way to use that tool... yanking and snapping... these are failures on the part of the trainer IMO and not indicative of how the thing should be used.  But I could be wrong.

 In one of the videos, there is one instance where the dog took off quickly after the other dog and the trainer pulled the dog back around.  This was not a pleasant part to watch, but what I see is the trainer taken by surprise at the exact time she is admonishing vigilance.  So she let hers lapse.  The rest of the instances are controlled turns, not yanks.  She does not use her arms to quickly pull back on the collar, but rather slowly pulls back while backing up.  This is a controlled turn and I do not see any evidence of the dog being yanked in those, just that one.

She is not leash-popping the dog or yanking, simply turning the dog around to redirect. 

Chuffy

I suppose that would depend on the timeframe you had to work with.

  Timeframe has never been acceptable when discussing CM.

I have stated that I have no problem with what i saw in the video just like I also have no problem with how CM handles a leash reactive dog. I do think that timeframe has a lot to do with anything. if I am adopting a dog forever then time is not problem, if I am trying to get a foster ready to be adopted them maybe I will not have the luxury of time.

DPU

my impression was a quick snap of the collar and instant pressure being applied would clamp the dog's mouth shut and if the dog's tongue or lip was in the way, you would have blood.  If the mouth does not clamp shut when you leash pop the dog, then yes, you would not get a bloodied tongue or bloodied lip.

Very good point