Spin-off: what makes a positive trainer a positive trainer?

 

I would agree with your definition. I would think off the top of my head that I am most likely about 95% positive 5% corrections (even 5% might be high) with Gunnar and 85%-15% with Hektor. I would never consider holding their heads under water nor would I consider beating, kicking or choking them into submission. Corrections to me are quick fast leash pops (I would not label them as harsh) and the occasional poke and assistance off and object.

 I use rewards which are food, toys, praise, play and anything else I can think of that will motivate them. I do not use corrections ever if I am uncertain as to whether the dog undesrstands my request. I think that is the most important rule about corrections is the dog must have an idea of what it is he is being corrected for.

 I also would not label a prong extreme although it can be used that way in the wrong hands. Pretty much any tool can be misused.

Interesting topic. Lets hope it stays civil as I know training methods can invoke lots of strong opinions and can often lead to arguments and hurt feelings. The punishment only training method I do not agree with. I will say that I am not 100% positive only. I do not use clickers, or the "ignore the bad" methods, primarily because they just do not work well with a hound. I use chokes and prongs because when use correctly, I have found them to do the least amount of damage and work best of all collars. Halters are made to teach them to pull, buckle collars put all the pressure directly on the front of the throat, head halters can do severe neck and back damage. Yes, the choke can cause trachea damage, but I feel that pulling on a buckle could do worse, esp since the choke gives even pressure all the way around. Now, if I had a Beagle that worked best with those methods I would certainly use them for that dog, but most of the hounds are thick headed and cunning enough to work around that.
Most hounds are too smart for their own good. If they do not want to do something, they wont. If they want something, they will do what they can to get to it. You must give them guidelines and a basic list of rules. Ignoring them or only praising them when they are good just does not work with them.
I start my puppies out on lots of cookies and lots of praise. It does not take them long to understand that when I ask for certain things, they get rewarded. Once I start them into training classes, I train them onto a choke. They get slight pops when they move out of the heel position, lots of praise while they move in the proper position. I use lures and slight force to train sit, down, stay and tension on the choke. As they get better and better at it and obviously learn it more and more, the corrections do get stronger, but only slightly. When the dog totally understands what I ask them and they chose not to do it, I will give a good pop on the choke. I never string them up, swing them around, choke to the point of cutting off air, etc. Not cool in my book, but I am not at all against giving collar corrections. Just be sure that you know how to do it properly and how much tension to give and how sharp a pop. Not something that most first time pet owners have the ability to do. It takes time to learn it. I only use food rewards in the beginning classes and when teaching a seasoned obedience dog new exercises. I wean my dogs off of food as soon as we move into the competition obedience classes. They get good treats prior to the class and good treats after. I try to not feed them any food rewards during class. These methods have worked wonderfully for me and I have been lucky that I have good working dogs and a great relationship with them. I do not feel that I am a punishment trainer, but I do not feel that I am a complete positive trainer. I feel that I am in between and I think a nice balance of the two gives off the most success.

Just another thought, I have experience with several of the graduates of Jean Donaldson's training Academy. They are very decent trainers, great for puppies, but I did notice that many of their dogs used VERY selective hearing with them, could rarely be trusted off leash, and overall were not very obedient. Not sure if it is something with those particular trainers or the methods that Donaldson teaches, but I was not overly impressed with the training that their personal dogs seemed to have. As someone that uses training classes on a regular basis, I would not of used any of them for any training other than puppy socials. Has anyone else seen this/noticed this/have any insight?

Nope, Cassidy's trainer was a graduate of the SF SPCA Dog Training Academy and an APDT certified trainer, and she was EXCELLENT! Prior to starting her own dog training business Lisa worked at the Marin Humane Society where she was mentored by Trish King, who runs the Behavior and Training Department there. Lisa specialized in aggressive dogs, and owned a rottie and a rescued pit bill that had been surrendered because he had bit a child. Every dog in the class, not just her own, listened and obeyed Lisa like she was god himself.

I've also taken numerous training classes at MHS, not sure if the various trainers we had graduated from the Academy, but they do use the same training techniques and concepts, and I thought they all did a great job. I took their Agility Basics classes with both dogs, Keefer took Family Dog 2, and Dena took 3 agility classes. Both dogs also went through the Sirius Puppy program, founded by Dr. Ian Dunbar, who also founded the Association of Pet Dog Trainers. Keefer took Puppy 1, and Dena took Puppy 1 and Puppy 2. It was a lot of fun and a terrific program.

I adore Trish King. I have attended her seminars years and years ago. I don't even know if she is still at MHS? I was always very impressed with her knowledge and the way she did things, even though I did not always agree with her training methods. I am working if it was just this batch of trainers that I knew. It is also possible that they never really took the time to train their dogs, which would explain why their dogs often acted like they had never been to any sort of training class, but again, I want to see results from my trainers and the way their dogs are trained is a great example of how competent they are as a trainer.

i would say that a "positive trainer" uses the least amount of aversives necessary. trains mainly with rewards, and mostly uses withholding treats, toys, attention and verbal corrections as the aversives. there is no such thing as 100% positive, and aversives only work if your dog views them as something negative. some "positive trainers" use squirt bottles to spray the dog with water, some use gentle leaders.

the trainers who mainly use corrective methods are usually called "traditional trainers", and the ones i have seen have done it very fairly with dogs that are just as happy and eager as the dogs trained with positive motivation. the trainers that are more 50-50 using both reward based methods and corrections are "balanced trainers."

anyone who "holds the dog's head underwater", or hits, kicks, hangs, and various other extremes is abusive. (not to say that those who have occasionally swatted their dog when they couldn't do anything else are abusive, but those who routinely use hitting as a training method.)

in my opinion, a lot of it comes down to the trainers personal philosophies. if you don't believe that a certain method will work, then it probably won't. there is no way to take a dog who was trained with corrections and know whether or not the same results could have been achieved with positive motivation based training.

I believe that what makes me a positive trainer is that I use principles of motivation and learning that are based on scientific principles, and I try extremely hard to use the least invasive and most minimally aversive techniques that I can with every dog I come into contact with, regardless of breed, gender, size, prior history, etc.  I try not to categorize dogs by breed as not being candidates for this kind of training.  In fact, recent research shows that most breeds are of similar intelligence and ability to learn. The differences are mainly in what we trainers refer to as "biddability", or the dog's inherent desire to work closely with humans.  Some breeds are more biddable, some more independent.  That suggests that trainers need to increase motivation, and be more patient, when training an independent dog.  It does not mean that you cannot clicker train, or train by lure/reward. if you have such a dog.  As a long time hound owner, I can attest to the fact that my hound learned with positive training all the skills that eluded him when his other family tried to train with correction.  He is a Foxhound/Coonhound mix, and came to me as an unneutered 2 year old who knew two things - his name (which I changed), and "sit".  He has blossomed into a wonderful dog - earned his CGC and is a registered therapy dog.  His "vocabulary" consists of sit, lie, wait/stay, leave it, come, spin, paw, high five, wave, weave through my legs, and a bunch of other stuff.  His recall is exemplary (not easy with hounds, right?).  The only thing that clicker training can't take credit for is his good looks - he was born with those LOL.
 

a lot of it comes down to the trainers personal philosophies. if you don't believe that a certain method will work, then it probably won't. there is no way to take a dog who was trained with corrections and know whether or not the same results could have been achieved with positive motivation based training.

I agree with this wholeheartedly.  If you want to try positive training, you have to do so in the right spirit.  If you are convinced that you need correction, you will quit before you ever get started, because you won't have the patience to wait through the dog's trial and error.  But, once you see a clicker puppy in action - and by that I mean a dog that has never been corrected, and only clicker trained, it's hard to imagine that dogs can "get" things so fast.  The crossover dog (one that was first trained by correction, then the handler tries the clicker) is not as quick to offer new behaviors, since he is wary of doing the wrong thing.  That happens whether your corrections were "appropriate" or not, since the definition of a punishment is something that stops behavior.  Clicker trainers want their dogs to offer behavior.  What the dog offers gets clicked if the handler likes it, not clicked if the handler doesn't.  Whatever isn't getting clicked the dog stops doing (because it didn't work), and begins repeating what did get clicked.  Positive trainers realize that the reward following the click can be any reinforcer, not necessarily food.  They seek to motivate the dog based on what the dog wants (since he is likeliest to work for that), and not worry about what they would rather have the dog want to work for (praise, without food, in the case of many corrective trainers).  Positive trainers also understand their A,B,C's (antecedent, behavior, consequence) and do not offer food as a bribe, although they may certainly use it briefly as a lure (and copiously as a reward).

I disagree. I have two clicker trained dog (my shih tzu and my Brittany), one Beagle that was started on a clicker, and 3 correction/reward trained dogs (my 3 Beagles). My Beagles learn what is wanted about 50% faster than the other two and are 100% more consistent on doing it right every time. Since I compete with my Beagles, I need 100% consistency. The hound people that compete with me have also found more success in using a 50/50 method, than purely positive. Does not mean that all hounds must be trained this way, but the hard headed and independence of the breeds make them less likely to want to work with you. My trainer does use clickers for some dogs and for some things, but for her Ridgeback's competition training, she does give corrections.

I also TRULY believe that it depends on the dog and as puppies, I can often tell who needs reward and who might need corrections. I will not correct a soft tempermented dog and I never use leash corrections on puppies and dogs that do not know or understand what I am asking. I find the corrections bring the consistency that is needed when the dog KNOWS what I want and chooses not to do it. I find luring and showing them or making them do it is the best way to train my dogs new things, than waiting for them to "offer" it. Show the dog what you want. Case in point;
I train my Beagle bitch in agility. When she was learning the weave poles she choose to leave them after about three in. The trainer I used, who is a positive only/clicker trainer, wanted me to ignore her when she did that. That is not teaching her that leaving the weaves early is wrong. My training method is when she leaves, I take her right back through and make her do it again. When she did it right, she was rewarded. When she did it wrong, she had to do it again. For whatever reason, this trainer felt it would "break her spirit". It didn't (of course, nothing can break this bitch's spirit) and she learned the weaves by the 3rd correction (correction being making her do it again).

Many people have told me that by using collar corrections and "force" will make my dogs less likely to work for me, shy, fearful, unwilling to learn new things, and poor performance dogs. I have yet to see this. My dogs LOVE to train, love to learn new things, and love the competition. The scores that we get prove this. Not everyone wants to compete with their dogs and in the case of household pets and family dogs, I think positive only is fine, but people do have to understand that some dogs just don't work with it. Its their learning style.

What I do and my experience is different from some and the same as others. What is nice about the various methods is you almost always have something to match the personality and training style of the dog, you just have to be open minded.

lcbryson

I adore Trish King. I have attended her seminars years and years ago. I don't even know if she is still at MHS?

 

Oh yes, she's definitely still there. I had two consultations with her for Cassidy (highly leash reactive) back in 2001 and we took her Difficult Dog class, which was when I first met Trish I think she's terrific too. I don't know how many classes she teaches anymore, but she's the director of Behavior and Training at MHS, and I'd see her around the facility all the time when I've been there for classes.

lcbryson

When she was learning the weave poles she choose to leave them after about three in. The trainer I used, who is a positive only/clicker trainer, wanted me to ignore her when she did that. That is not teaching her that leaving the weaves early is wrong. My training method is when she leaves, I take her right back through and make her do it again. When she did it right, she was rewarded. When she did it wrong, she had to do it again. For whatever reason, this trainer felt it would "break her spirit". It didn't (of course, nothing can break this bitch's spirit) and she learned the weaves by the 3rd correction (correction being making her do it again).

 

I personally wouldn't characterize that as a correction, and I don't think your method is inconsistent with the principles of positive training. She wasn't actually punished for not doing it correctly the first time, she was calmly led back to the beginning and given another chance to get it right. When she did, she was rewarded. So basically, there was no negative consequence for failure. Well, unless she hated agility and didn't want to try again, which it certainly doesn't sound like.

Well and thats where the split gets tough. This particular trainer felt ANY type of negativity was wrong and would affect the dog, vs showing them what was expected. But there are some people who use positive training that do not view it that way. For people who use a combo, regardless of what the correction is, its hard to put them into a pile, which is why I say 50/50. Does that make sense? Yes, she LOVES agility. She is allowed to run, jump, and climb without getting into trouble. She is my climber and always has been, loves to be up on top of things. I figure thats why the A frame is her favorite to do!

Edited to say never mind

I think the term "positive trainer" has a certain accepted definition, which means mostly reinforcing, very little punishment... By that definition, I think I fit. But I don't call myself a "positive trainer" simply because it labels me and people might make assumptions about me based on what they mean by the term. And since I don't like to be put in a box and I don't like assumptions, I don't claim an umbrella that covers my training style. I'm really all over the place.

What I do with dogs is more about relationship. They're like family. I don't "train" my husband. I let him know what I want, what I will put up with, what I need and what I expect from him, AND what I'm willing to give, and he does the same with me, and then we each choose what we give to the relationship. Depending on that, we either have a great relationship or not. We happen to have a great one. So, someone could say I have "trained" him, using "positive training" or they could say we have a great relationship.

So, people can call me whatever they want, but I have a great relationship with my dogs. And with my husband! LOL

Edited out - as it might be considered an insult to some. 

So I think "positive trainer" is a subjective term.

 Girlfriend, edit out that last line paragraph.