What makes YOU a positive trainer?

Benedict

he is bred to IGNORE pain and discomfort in favour of doing his job

???  Off-topic but ignore pain?  It would make more sense to me if it was a high breed instinct drive.  How would breeders ever think to accomplish this?

DPU

Benedict

he is bred to IGNORE pain and discomfort in favour of doing his job

???  Off-topic but ignore pain?  It would make more sense to me if it was a high breed instinct drive.  How would breeders ever think to accomplish this?

Answered via PM in order to keep this thread on topic.  If you'd like to start a thread about this, feel free.   

zart

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.

I don't have any issues with what people call themselves.  Never have.  I don't call myself a balanced trainer, though. To the extent that I use labels, I consider myself a positive trainer.  

I'm sorry that you can't see how much in common most of us have.  Bummer.

Please don't misunderstand, I think we all have lots in common which is the reason we all landed here.

I think where training is concerned the divide exists even if only in perception. That is why I purposed the post I did. I think the net and typing; this connection doesn't allow you to feel the emotion behind the words and leads to misunderstanding.

Benedict

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. 

Spot on, Kate. As many may know, my dog is a mix of Siberian Husky and Lab. Primarily Sibe in temperment, metabolism and some physiology. Example, his bones are less dense than a Lab's, which helps to limit his overall weight. He will never be as heavy as a full Lab. But he will do whatever, in spite of any pain. I will clip on to his collar to take him from house to truck. If something piques his interest, he will surge forward, hack and cough, and still want to surge forward, at least in the past. And as I have noted before, many of the physical corrections felt like play to him. "What are ya gonna do? Tickle me to death?" He is way more sensitive to the tone and timbre of my voice than the quickest and deftest scruff and pin I could manage. What do you do with a physically tough dog or two breeds, both arising from the north and bred to do the job in the absolutely nastiest conditions?

Just had to agree with you, actually your whole post.

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.

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

I think that is a very good statement in reference to the need and training for each breed....

I was watching a very interesting show on race horses......it got me thinking what they were bred for and how much they enjoy that in comparison to horses who are trained for other equine sports, such as dressage........do race horses lose out because, they are not trained for the same sport as the dressage horses? Do certain dogs lose out because, they are not trained for certain sports, such as agility or fine tuned tricks?

I don't think so, I think we really try to disect everything way too much....so, we end up with people claiming their dogs benefit the most from their form of training versus people who claim their way of training is most beneficial........I say it is all good, as long as it is positive....eh?

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

From the Australian Shepherd Club of America breed standard:  "Character: The Australian Shepherd is intelligent, primarily a working dog of strong herding and guardian instincts. He is an exceptional companion. He is versatile and easily trained, performing his assigned tasks with great style and enthusiasm. He is reserved with strangers but does not exhibit shyness. Although an aggressive, authoritative worker, viciousness toward people or animals is intolerable."

If you get an Aussie that gets no satisfaction from guarding your farm, you haven't got the original working dog.  While they are not vicious, they certainly don't allow intruders to walk away with your silverware, or get into the house without permission.  Quite a few of my Aussie's ancestors are Pincie Creek dogs, and I like Roger's description of these working lines: http://www.pinciecreek.com/aboutour.htm

snownose

I don't think so, I think we really try to disect everything way too much....so, we end up with people claiming their dogs benefit the most from their form of training versus people who claim their way of training is most beneficial

Well yeah, obviously

it goes without saying that I think how I do it is better, if I thought a different way was better I'd be using that...

I think the more positive you can be, the better.  I don't actually think anyone disagrees on that point.

I don't think any of us who teach tricks or train for other stuff neglect to also ,let their dog be a dog!  But there are people who disdain the idea of just teaching new, fun stuff and I don't understand why.... theres nothing bad about it, its very beneficial and if you have smart dogs they'd probably love it... thats not to say it should replace walks and just "being a dog", but you can do both.

Chuffy

thats not to say it should replace walks and just "being a dog", but you can do both

One of the things I changed with concentrating on more +R training was to improve behavior and manners, regardless of walking. There are times I want heel and other times where it's okay to pull ahead into a 20 mph north wind. The walk certainly is exercise and helps to burn off the energy but, with good manners and attentiveness to what I may command, it is a good walk for both of us and, given enough time, becomes a classical conditioning. We'll get to do the things he wants to do on a walk and he will listen to me.

As I have noted before, how many times do people come in the forum or go on a tv show with problems with their dogs during the walks? The exercise alone does not "cure" the problem by wearing them down. Without some training, you just have a tired dog with the same problems. But a balance of training and exercise with, of course, training in how we are going to walk works wonders.

ron2

[As I have noted before, how many times do people come in the forum or go on a tv show with problems with their dogs during the walks? The exercise alone does not "cure" the problem by wearing them down. Without some training, you just have a tired dog with the same problems. But a balance of training and exercise with, of course, training in how we are going to walk works wonders.

Excersing fulfills one of the dog's many needs.  Training is imposing the human will on the dog or practicing dominance.  Doesn't it make sense that before training takes place, you work on fulfilling the dog's needs of nournishment, physcial activity, instinct, medical, and social thus making the learning environment working for you instead of against you.  I see so many times on this forum that people go right into behavior modification and trick training before the dog's needs are addressed.  This awareness defines the postive trainer.

ron2

The exercise alone does not "cure" the problem by wearing them down. Without some training, you just have a tired dog with the same problems.

This is true in some cases. But if the dog is acting out (whether on a walk or in the house or yard) because of lack of good physical exercise, then a "good" walk (as opposed to a walk where the dog "walks" the owner) can be exactly the Rx for the "cure".  A combination of "treatments" is usually needed. It a rare case that will be cured simply by walking the dog, but they do exist.

That's why it's important to assess the situation (with "problem" dogs) and see where the imbalance lies.

I definitely agree with Chuffy here. Both can be done (and usually are). We shouldn't assume that because a person concentrates on or touts either "positive training" or "balanced behavior" that the other is being ignored. I'm sure there are cases where that's true, but it shouldn't be assumed. This subject was discussed here, Just FYI.

Well-Behaved (Taught), Well-Trained and Relationship

DPU, you keep coming back to not meeting the animals needs as if none of US on this forum give a rodents rear about their needs.  Why on earth would you make this assumption?  This has popped up in a couple other threads and I guess for me it goes without saying that their needs have to be met first.

DPU

Training is imposing the human will on the dog or practicing dominance

And the dog accepts it, for centuries and eons. We are symbiotic species, imo.

DPU

I see so many times on this forum that people go right into behavior modification and trick training before the dog's needs are addressed. 

I don't see it that way. And I don't see sit or stay or down as just trick training. Learning those behaviors also includes paying attention to the trainer, a general sense of what it takes to live with humans. And even using the Illusion collar is addressing behavior at best, concurrent with taking a walk. When I got Shadow, I knew nothing. But I could walk and feed him. Taking care of these needs did not affect the behavioral changes we needed. It just made him a well-fed, untrained, tired dog. Feeding and walking are pretty much a given. Perhaps that is why we don't draw attention to it. For us here, addressing the dog's needs is as reflexive as breathing.

DPU

This awareness defines the postive trainer

Awareness does define part of being a positive trainer but I draw exception that awareness of the need to burn off energy is the sole or primary definition of a positive trainer. Of course the walk is ever present. And it will be done in a way beneficial to all.

spiritdogs

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

From the Australian Shepherd Club of America breed standard:  "Character: The Australian Shepherd is intelligent, primarily a working dog of strong herding and guardian instincts. He is an exceptional companion. He is versatile and easily trained, performing his assigned tasks with great style and enthusiasm. He is reserved with strangers but does not exhibit shyness. Although an aggressive, authoritative worker, viciousness toward people or animals is intolerable."

If you get an Aussie that gets no satisfaction from guarding your farm, you haven't got the original working dog.  While they are not vicious, they certainly don't allow intruders to walk away with your silverware, or get into the house without permission.  Quite a few of my Aussie's ancestors are Pincie Creek dogs, and I like Roger's description of these working lines: http://www.pinciecreek.com/aboutour.htm

Oh, sorry! I didn't mean that Aussie's don't guard, more that they need more than that to stay happy. It's those pesky assigned tasks.  Assuming the Aussie in question doesn't have a bunch of animals to guard, which would be more of a task.  Guarding a yard might be a bit ho-hum for an Aussie unless he had other stuff to do too.  Am I wrong?

Sasha needs her exercise, but otherwise she is really content to sit on the highest hill or near the best window and keep an eye on things. Fence patrols every so often. She doesn't need to be doing things all the time.

- - -

As for meeting a dog's needs vs. training, most of the obedience training I do with my dogs improves the quality of their lives and makes it possible to meet more of their needs.  A dog that can happily coexist with my family and follow my rules is able to be included in more aspects of life.  Ie, does not need to be shuffled to another room when company comes over, is pleasant to take visiting to other people's houses or stores. Because I have exrted "dominance" over Sasha and taught her certain commands, she gets to do fun stuff like meet babies, help socialize fearful kids and kittens, and play chase with my daughter and I. There are times the dog, my kid and I are running around the house like idiots, shrieking and laughing and wagging, and the rules I've imposed on Sasha ensures she doesn't hurt us. Because she can follow the safety rules, she gets to join in the fun.

If I had a pack of dogs, she  could get most of her social needs met that way, but I don't.  She needs to navigate the human world, and since she loves people it is a good life for her.

Ron is right - we are a symbiotic species.   Dogs and humans have evolved together. It really is an amazing and wonderful thing.

glenmar

DPU, you keep coming back to not meeting the animals needs as if none of US on this forum give a rodents rear about their needs.  Why on earth would you make this assumption?  This has popped up in a couple other threads and I guess for me it goes without saying that their needs have to be met first.

This is where I am moving in caring for my dogs.  It is my view and a valid view that the dog's needs take presidence and most behavior problems do not arise if they are met.  There is a need on this forum to draw a sharp distinction between fulfilling the dog's needs and training, that is imposing human will on the dog.  I never take for granted that I am always fulfilling the dog's needs.  If there is a behavior change in my residence dogs I look at medical and other needs before I start with behavior modification.  Remember I have Petro here who is not trained in anything but the COME command.  He lives in perfect harmony here and I have no need for specific training since he is well balanced dog.  Also I bring shelter dogs into my home that no one else wants and they come here in extreme condtions where their needs of food or  instinct or breed or activity or socialization have been totally missing from their lives.  I see first hand what their behavior was like before the needs were addressed and then after. 

Over time a dog's needs changes and an awareness of this and a periodic examination is prudent advice.  The average dog owner does not detect this because often it is hard to detect and is subtle.