What makes YOU a positive trainer?

spiritdogs

I think you are making an erroneous assumption that positive trainers do not ALSO have their dogs roam the woods, or the beaches, for that matter.

 

I missed that little statement.....but, no...I did NOT make that assumption....re-read my post and you will see that I was making a statement in reference to what my dogs would most likely prefer....and after all....making them happy is a positve thing, now, isn't it?

Most "positive trainers" here also say they use corrections. It's how much and how quickly that is key for me, not whether you use them at all.... If by "corrections" you mean punishment (P+), delivered by you, not the environment and if you were to rely on it as a regular form of teaching/discipline and not just as a last resort, then you would not be what *I* would define as a positive trainer.  There's no law against calling yourself a positive trainer if thats what you believe yourself to be, regardless of anyone else's opinion.  But please dont feel offended just because my criteria of a positive trainer may be different to yours.

zart

FourIsCompany

previously deleted content

 

I don't consider calling traditional training old school a barb. Just as I don't consider calling clicker training positive a barb, it is what it is. If we are all completely comfortable with what we are doing that statement should offend no one.  What is missing here is anyone actually giving merit to another way of doing something. Instead it is a word by word dissection of any positive trainer's post. I don't remember which post but they actually said in not so many words "clicker training is only good for tricks". If that isn't old school nothing is! That is why I have not contributed to the conversation. And since that is the way I see it I will stay out of this post completely.

Deepest apologies to those offended! 

 

Clicker training is not positive training.  It is a tool used most frequently by positive trainers, and has come to be associated with positive training, but clicker training itself is neutral. Calling people old school trainers is a barb, because they do not self-identify as old school trainers.  Its the same as if I told you that you were nothing but a trick trainer.  It probably isn't true, and is definitely not how you see yourself. (FTR, I'm 50% a trick trainer because Sasha and I enjoy pointless amusement together.)

Zart, one of the unfortunate things about this forum is that it becomes unnecessarily  polarized, and you are adding to that dynamic.  There is a false divide between "old school" and "positive" trainers here.  Truth be told, "old school" type trainers aren't hanging out much at idog, and the positive trainers have more in common with the "balanced" trainers than some like to admit. It is totally the same as the political situation in the U.S. We think democrats and republicans are soooo different, and the Europenas look at us like WTH? You call that left? You call that right? Yeah, the two parties disagree on some points, but on the scale of global politics they sit together.

I like spiritdog's last post very much, and I don't think picking apart people's posts is a bad thing -if- it is done with an interest in actual debate and not with the sole purpose of delivering insults.

I also think DPU has a point about considering the dog's needs.

Breed preferences play into this, I think.  There is a reason some of us prefer certain types of dogs - because they match up with our own idea of what life with a dog should be.  I like aussies, I respect them, but I do not want to own one because what an aussie needs and what I want to give don't match up.  It would be a pain (for me) to keep an Aussie happy.  Sasha is a good dog for me, because while she and I enjoy our little tricks her main identity and job is as watch dog.  She gets a great deal of satisfaction being on alert, without me doing anything. My next dog will be a ridgeback, and the ridgeback's need for exercise and hunting games also fits with my idea of a good time.  Run, run, run, play, come home and snooze.  Works for me!  My nightmare dog would be a border collie, and I think they are neat dogs.  Just not dogs for my lifestyle.

Four's german shepherds probably get a great deal of satisfaction as house and property watchers. Spiritdog's aussie would not.  

Another excellent post! Thank you, Dog_ma!

The breed point really opens it up for me.  I LOVE BCs but I won't have one. I don't have what it takes to keep them fulfilled. Or at least I don't want to do what it would take. My GSDs are enough (a little much, actually) And if I had BCs, I may have a whole different approach!

And I love the term "balanced" trainers. I could gladly accept that moniker. I don't feel comfortable calling myself a "positive" trainer (though ron2 thinks I should just come out of the closet and claim it! LOL) because it indicates polarization to me, and I don't feel that I lean very far one way or the other. But I won't go into that any more here. I just wanted to thank you for your post, the breed thing and the term "balanced trainer".

P.S. I do NOT mean to indicate that "positive trainers" are imbalanced in any way.

 The reason that I don't care for the term "balanced" is not that it implies anything bad on its own, but that too many people are using it to justify entirely too much corrective training of dogs.  If it's rarely necessary to correct a dog, then why the heck is everyone so focused on insuring that we call ourselves "balanced" in favor of "positive"???

spiritdogs

I don't care for the term "balanced"  [...] too many people are using it to justify entirely too much corrective training of dogs.

 

I can see how that might happen and I can't really help how other people use it. I've actually never heard it before. But I can only say it feels right to me. Because I believe in a balanced use of the 4 quadrants. That doesn't mean I use the same amount of each one, but rather that I'm willing to use whatever works the best for the situation. I don't see correction and punishment as bad things, but rather specific tools for specific jobs. 

spiritdogs

If it's rarely necessary to correct a dog, then why the heck is everyone so focused on insuring that we call ourselves "balanced" in favor of "positive"???

 

Firstly, I can't really say that I rarely use corrections. Secondly, I don't care what you call yourself. But I get the distinct impression that you and I aren't in the same camp as regards how we think of and use corrections. So it's great by me if you call yourself a positive trainer and I call myself a balanced one. They both sound pretty positive and balanced to me.

And the reason I wanted to focus on it is that I have never had many of the conversations that you've probably been having for years. Sorry if I'm a little late to the meeting, but there's a lot I don't know about this stuff and I'm a curious person. My husband tells me to take my curiosity elsewhere, but I really feel there's a lot for me to learn here.

Once again, without a clear, agreed upon definition of the parameters and doctrine of a belief system, the word "balance" can also be judged and misinformation spread.

It's clear that "positive only trainers" point to anyone who refers to themselves as a "balanced trainer" as someone who uses corrections, even minimally. So, a trainer who uses corrections at all, is actually a "balanced trainer" and is not part of the "positive only" crowd. I've seen plenty of discussions where "positive trainers" have attacked other "positive trainers" for not being "positive enough" because they used a piece of equipment or a correction as a last resort. Read through enough dog boards and you will see how fast they devour their own for not being "positive enough", and all "positive trainers" are clearly not created equal.

That's not my personal definition of "balanced", lol. Balanced to me is someone who uses classical conditioning, social learning, fulfullment by design, intelligent choice, and all four quadrants of operant conditioning. But that's just me because I've learned "training" is only part of living with a dog as a family member, IMO.

For discussions among canine professionals to try define "balanced dog training", there are some interesting articles on the IACP site:

www.dogpro.org/

For the doctrine and parameters for those who wish to adhere to a "positive only" form of dog training, I've found this site to be helpful:

http://trulydogfriendly.com/blog/?page_id=10

 

Dog_ma

Clicker training is not positive training.  It is a tool used most frequently by positive trainers, and has come to be associated with positive training, but clicker training itself is neutral. Calling people old school trainers is a barb, because they do not self-identify as old school trainers.  Its the same as if I told you that you were nothing but a trick trainer.  It probably isn't true, and is definitely not how you see yourself. (FTR, I'm 50% a trick trainer because Sasha and I enjoy pointless amusement together.)

By your definition. Clicker training yields positive results in a positive way, no corrective device needed. By my definition positive. 

 

Dog_ma

Zart, one of the unfortunate things about this forum is that it becomes unnecessarily  polarized, and you are adding to that dynamic.  There is a false divide between "old school" and "positive" trainers here.  Truth be told, "old school" type trainers aren't hanging out much at idog, and the positive trainers have more in common with the "balanced" trainers than some like to admit.

The dynamic was here before I joined and is not as false as you think. And I haven't noticed the commonality you speak of. If you want to call yourself a balanced trainer that's fine. If i call my self a positive trainer it should also be fine. And I can call myself that because it is true.

 

Dog_ma

I like spiritdog's last post very much, and I don't think picking apart people's posts is a bad thing -if- it is done with an interest in actual debate and not with the sole purpose of delivering insults.

Well it seems to me to be in the sole interest of finding fault, but that could be just me. We all see what we look for, me included.

Dog_ma

Breed preferences play into this, I think.  There is a reason some of us prefer certain types of dogs - because they match up with our own idea of what life with a dog should be.  I like aussies, I respect them, but I do not want to own one because what an aussie needs and what I want to give don't match up.  It would be a pain (for me) to keep an Aussie happy.  Sasha is a good dog for me, because while she and I enjoy our little tricks her main identity and job is as watch dog.  She gets a great deal of satisfaction being on alert, without me doing anything. My next dog will be a ridgeback, and the ridgeback's need for exercise and hunting games also fits with my idea of a good time.  Run, run, run, play, come home and snooze.  Works for me!  My nightmare dog would be a border collie, and I think they are neat dogs.  Just not dogs for my lifestyle.

This I agree with. I love BC's and love to watch them think and learn. They are also a breed that demands positive training, IMHO.

zart

   

Dog_ma

Zart, one of the unfortunate things about this forum is that it becomes unnecessarily  polarized, and you are adding to that dynamic.  There is a false divide between "old school" and "positive" trainers here.  Truth be told, "old school" type trainers aren't hanging out much at idog, and the positive trainers have more in common with the "balanced" trainers than some like to admit.

The dynamic was here before I joined and is not as false as you think. And I haven't noticed the commonality you speak of. If you want to call yourself a balanced trainer that's fine. If i call my self a positive trainer it should also be fine. And I can call myself that because it is true.

 

Dog_ma

I like spiritdog's last post very much, and I don't think picking apart people's posts is a bad thing -if- it is done with an interest in actual debate and not with the sole purpose of delivering insults.

Well it seems to me to be in the sole interest of finding fault, but that could be just me. We all see what we look for, me included.

A littel over a year ago, this forum reached its zenith in divisiveness on training methods.  Since that time, progress has been made by the advocates through constant dialogue and understanding the other methods, though very slow.  It seems that repetiveness not only works on dogs but on humans.  The definition of a 'what makes YOU a postive trainer' has definitely changed since I have been here.  And that is by telling the truth and not exaggerating the negatives of the other methods.  "Positve trainers" freely admit that they use corrections and punishmenets but attempt to minimize.  Clicker Training uses multiple quads in OC, not just +R, which most people jump to the wrong conclusion that +R = positive trainer.  Withholding a treat may not have an effect on most dogs.  Getting a dog in an excited state by teasing with food will also not have an effect on most dogs.  But the measure is the odd ball cases, or excuse me-the special needs cases that tells the truth about the training method.

Zart, if you know a training method that just uses +R, please let me know or start a thread so it can be analyzed.  For most of my training of foster dogs that I rehab, I seem to use classical c since that is so far the only way I know to control any unintentional negative consequences in the training. 

OK, so the breed differences point raises a question for me, and I will preface this by saying I DO call myself a positive trainer, I am happy with that name and that's what matters - that *I* am OK with it.

Anyway, on to my point/question.  I have a labrador...and not just a lab, but a field bred lab - a dog who is bred to spend all day running through fields and woods, to go through bushes not around them,  to dive into ice cold water without a second thought. 

Although physical correction does not in itself mean causing pain to a dog, that is in some instances the natural progression.  If I were to put a choke collar - a device intended to dish out physical correction - on Ben in his pulling days (before I taught him to walk without pulling) he would pull until he choked himself regardless of the discomfort because he is bred to IGNORE pain and discomfort in favour of doing his job, on top of having a high pain threshold anyway.

Even if I totally disregard my own visceral feelings towards physical correction and the reality that such training DOES cause dogs (not necessarily all) to shut down, a physical correction is only as effective as it is...well...effective.  If my dog is unresponsive to physical corrections because, as stated above, he's genetically predisposed to disregarding pain, what on earth would be the point? 

Using the example of the choke collar, or even a prong...I understand that these are implements that do not necessarily HAVE to cause discomfort, but the reality is that at least at the beginning of use, they do.  That discomfort is what teaches the dog not to do what they are designed to correct.  So how do you use such a thing on a dog who will well and truly do damage to himself before the pain gets through his threshold?

If I then examine the flip side - that not all physical corrections involve pain or discomfort to the dog, but are simply a physical signal of my attitude - that is, a physical manifestation of my displeasure at what my dog is doing, then I move into the area of the dog responding to my emotion, rather than the tool itself.  I grant that that happens, every day, with every dog, no matter what training camp you're in.  BUT, if it's the attitude and not the physical correction that is what is getting the point across, then surely the physical correction is not needed?  And if that's true, that the attitude's the thing, then what is the difference between communicating to Fido, through attitude, that you are unhappy and promoting a behavior with which you are happy that is incompatible with the one you don't like?  Why is the first more beneficial?

 

 

I think breeds and the situation you are in really come into play on how to train dogs. I will never take a blanket approach of this way is the right way for everyone and every dog. I have been training dogs for just shy of 11 years and have tried every method known to man throughout those years.
I think each mentality requires various methods. I would never use a correction on a soft breed like a cocker, but the hard headed Beagles might require corrections. A Great Dane, especially an intact one (which is what I work with) may need harder mentality than an intact Whippet.
I primarily work with show dogs, thus I am working with an intact dog, around bitches in season, with testosterone surging. I can not imagine not having some of those larger breeds on anything but a choke while around other dogs that may have been used at stud and bitches that are ready to breed. My Danes have lovely personalities and are very friendly, but around the girls, even the best behaved dog looses his mind.
I like to use a lot of positive approaches, but must use corrections in many of my situations because the safety of other people and dogs comes into play. That does not mean that I am not a positive trainer, especially since I do recommend them in many, many cases. I will tell you that I am not a fan of the idea of ignoring the bad, only praising the good. I think dogs need rules, boundries, and expectations and that rarely comes when you ignore the bad thing they are doing.

But I am a rare case. Most pet people and most trainers are not in my situation and never may be, thus making it hard to understand where I am coming from. I understand that, but will never slow me from trying to show my thoughts and my reasoning for why I train the way I do and how and why I have had success this way.

Benedict

If I were to put a choke collar - a device intended to dish out physical correction - on Ben in his pulling days (before I taught him to walk without pulling) he would pull until he choked himself regardless of the discomfort because he is bred to IGNORE pain and discomfort in favour of doing his job, on top of having a high pain threshold anyway.

Just curious, did you actually use a choke on him? It is not clear in this statement.

My experience with a choke on my hunting dog, a Brittany; When the choke was allowed to hang loose on the dog and be used for self correction, it failed. When I put it up high under the neck and kept just a tad bit of pressure, so that when she went to pull, it tighted, it work very well. I had the ability the give her little quick pops fast and easy when she moved out of heel position and could praise her when she walked in the proper place.
Biggest downfall of a choke is there is no instruction manuel on how to properly use it and keep it in position.

No, I've never used a full choke on him.  I have used, for purposes of experimentation, a half-choke and a prong, and those were before I cured him of his pulling.  With both, he literally pulled until he was too hoarse to bark, and neither one appeared to cause him the slightest bit of discomfort.  A trainer helped me fit both of them, so I am pretty sure they were both used correctly. 

I'm not saying this is typical....it might be, I don't know...but I know for a fact my dog has an incredibly high pain tolerance.  It would take a LOT of pain to stop him, much more than I'd be comfortable dishing out.   

DPU

Zart, if you know a training method that just uses +R, please let me know or start a thread so it can be analyzed.  For most of my training of foster dogs that I rehab, I seem to use classical c since that is so far the only way I know to control any unintentional negative consequences in the training. 

 

This I won't do, I have stated why in one of these long posts or more then one. And  if I throw it out to be analyzed it will become a thread that is hardly distinguishable form the one I am typing in. I do however have an idea, or the beginning of one. It may actually turn out to be fun if approached with the right frame of mind. I will start a thread that uses this idea but only if others here want to help expand it. Add their thoughts, a collaboration to keep it from getting derailed.

Well here it is;

Suppose we have a thread and in it we post some of the issues we have had to face with our own dogs. Not what we did to work through them, not yet anyway. Then anyone can post what would have been their approach to each issue. ( I think a number of posts would have to be allowed for each dog) and that is the hard part. There would be no R's or P's or quadrants mentioned. No picking on anyones method, no pulling it apart or analysis. Only your approach and expected outcome and even time frame if you feel the need. Then the original poster can state what they did and how it worked. Also I think these should be issues we have worked through with a result or have started seeing a result. Perhaps after reading through these various methods and approaches we can better understand each others  take on things. You wouldn't need to respond to every issue, only the ones you want to. Then after a certain time frame we could discuss the entire thread.

Ok there it is but as you can see it needs work. So first we need to see if everyone feels this is a good idea for a thread, (moderators too). And second how to work out the timing, number of responses etc. If the consensus feel this won't work then it will be forgotten and left to die here.

Sort of like an "Agony Aunt" column for training, except the problem's already been fixed or is on its way to being fixed, and one person is the Gentle Reader and all other members are giving the advice?  I'm up for that.  So as not to derail *this* thread, please PM me when you have an idea as to how you want it set up and we'll figure out the logistics.