Smile RWbeagles! Stopping behaviors.

FourIsCompany

I agree. Stopping certain behaviors in puppyhood is why my dogs are so well-behaved now, I'm convinced. They learned at a young age that stuff that belongs to me is mine, what's on the table is mine and that they have to eat peacefully together and not get into each others' bowls, etc. I'd hate to think of what I'd be dealing with had I not stopped behaviors pro-actively while they were puppies. It would probably involve crates and a lot more management than I have to do now. Not to mention the general destruction that four 70+ lbs dogs could do.

Not necessarily, if you see Kim's post, she achieved A LOT by preventing the youngster from doing stuff that wasn't allowed.  Dogs are creatures of habit. 

Your use of the word pro-active is interesting.  If a dog does something he shouldn't and you stop him, I don't consider that to be pro-active.  I think it is reactive.  I think Kim's description is a pro-active one.  I try to remember "be pro-active, not reactive, be pro-active not reactive....."

This myth that, if I try not to correct my dogs`for unwanted behaviour they will run amok, is akin to the myth that "positive trainers are permissive".  In my book, "don't let the dog do X" is a world away from "dont let the dog get away with X"  The more positive you are, the less permissive you can be.

Dog_ma

I wrote in another thread: 

The clicker is not the way to stop a behavior. You can create an alternate behavior, but you can't teach "don't ever do X." Punishment is required for that - but punishment can be as mild as "eh eh" to signal disapproval.

In my personal experience, the most effective way for me to stop a behavior I don't like is to teach an alternate AND use mild verbal corrections. "Don't do this; do this instead" covers all bases and gives the dog a direction to channel the impulse. 

 How do you all stop unwanted behaviors?
 

"Leave it" works nicely for both dogs.  Occasionally if the unwanted behavior involves Sally being overexcited I put her in a down/stay time out.  "Ah-ah" tends to get their attention, especially Jack's.  When Jack was a pup and tried to play bite I would do the yelpy-noise thing and it worked so well we literally had about 3 play biting incidents before it stopped completely.  With behaviors like jumping, we try to diffuse the situation by turning away from the offending dog.  The remainder of the time were use the prevention and management strategy....

Chuffy

is akin to the myth that "positive trainers are permissive".  In my book, "don't let the dog do X" is a world away from "dont let the dog get away with X" 

Exactamundo. Much can be said for environmental management early on with reinforcing the right behaviors and not rewarding the undesired behavior. And one of the more desirable behaviors one can engender is listening to the human, as well as some classical conditioning at work. Our friend that had the Great Pyrenees never let her on the couch, even as a cute puppy. And it wasn't because she didn't think dogs in general should not be allowed on the couch. It is because a 30 in tall, 150 lb dog could take up all of the couch. When she was big enough the GP, Lilli would sleep outside, regardless of weather and was comfortable sleeping on ice or on the porch. As a Livestock Guardian Dog, that was right for her. And she was eventually rehomed to a sheep farm.

So, being pro-active and allowing only what you want can save a behavioral problem later. By the time later comes around, much of what you would have to train for is already classical. The dog doesn't even realize anymore why they stay of the couch, they just stay off of it because that's how the world is.

Or, in Kim's case, protecting a small dog from the injuries of play also prevented some destructive behaviors from developing because they never had the chance to start during the phase the dog could have started them.

And I've trained "off", which means to disengage, using treats. And he will off, out of sight, from another room. Of course, I don't see it as stopping a behavior so much as requesting an incompatible behavior as well as the change of focus from whatever to me, both things greatly rewarding. He has offed from chasing the cat, numerous times. He has offed in mid-snarl with another dog. And when he accidently toothed my goddaughter and she freaked out and he got scared because she was scared, I called off from the other end of the house and he offed, which in that case meant increasing his distance from her as he wasn't holding onto her or trying to fight, without a treat in my hand. I recalled and he recalled to me. All from treats, though, as others may point out, he wasn't actually having a problem just reacting. And it started out as a command to stop jumping on people but generalized into disengage. And I was glad to have that ability to redirect his focus.

But granted, the definition of + or - R is to increase behavior and + or - P is to decrease behavior. So, it's not that you can't use one quad or the other but that what you do must be effective or you are just spinning your wheels and that goes for any quad.

ron2

So, being pro-active and allowing only what you want can save a behavioral problem later. By the time later comes around, much of what you would have to train for is already classical. The dog doesn't even realize anymore why they stay of the couch, they just stay off of it because that's how the world is.

Nicely put ronnie-mundo!

Chuffy

if you see Kim's post, she achieved A LOT by preventing the youngster from doing stuff that wasn't allowed.

I did read and understand Kim's post. And I did exactly that with Cara and Mia and had the same results Kim did. However, even though I treated Jaia and B'asia the same as the others, they are different and responded differently. Dogs are creatures of habit, it's true. But they are not robots that will each respond identically to the others.

As regards "proactive" M/W has this to say:

I see where you are coming from on the pro-active front, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

And again, on the positive, permissive we have to agree to disagree...... The way I see it, the more positive you try to be = the more you try to avoid mistakes and corrections, the more you try to set the dog up for success via pre-emptive training and environment management.... it's AT LEAST as much about that as it is about rewarding for the good stuff.... normally we only hear about reward, reward, reward and in truth, if you want to avoid undesirable behaviour or punishment there really is a whole lot more to it than that.

You're disagreeing with the meaning of the word as put forth by Merriam Webster? Okay.

And then, you DO support the myth that "positive trainers are less permissive"? ...  Let me be clear. I'm not saying that YOU are more or less permissive, but there are many people who refuse to use punishment AND are more permissive with their dogs. And those dogs end up being wild, nasty, biting monsters. BECAUSE the owners are permissive in addition to being "positive trainers".

Perhaps you mean that positive training, done correctly, requires an owner not to be permissive. And I would remind you that ANY training, done correctly, also requires an owner to not be permissive of undesired behaviors. This is a 2-way street. Neither training method automatically results in being less permissive. The 2 factors are unrelated.

Some people who don't punish their children have little spoiled brats. Others have angels. Same with people who spank their kids.  

FourIsCompany

You're disagreeing with the meaning of the word as put forth by Merriam Webster? Okay.

Carla, you put forth TWO definitions and I, like Chuffy...mean the second when I say proactive. Doesn't mean I also "disagree with M-W"...it means I use a different, equally valid, and acceptable definition of the word proactive.

rwbeagles

I, like Chuffy...mean the second when I say proactive.

Understood and agreed. However, Chuffy said this:

Chuffy

I try to remember "be pro-active, not reactive, be pro-active not reactive....."

And we all know that, when talking about dogs, the connotation of the word "reactive" is quite negative. MW has this to say about it.

She's putting positive trainers in the "proactive" camp   and other trainers in the "reactive" camp. LOL

The mistake I see in Chuffy's argument is in the generalizations she's making. The statement that "positive" trainers are less permissive is a generalization, and is as incorrect as saying that "positive" trainers are more permissive. They are BOTH generalizations and therefore myths, in my opinion.

 Admin Note...

This is not the thread to discuss the meanings of words...do that via PM or start another thread if it is felt that another discussion on how people interpret words is necessary.  THIS thread is about how to stop unwanted behaviours, and I'd appreciate it being kept on topic.   

FourIsCompany

The mistake I see in Chuffy's argument is in the generalizations she's making.

Ahh see, that's where we diverge courses so to speak...I wasn't looking for mistakes...just reading thru the thread.

As to the topic...I manage environments and flat out don't really get bothered by most everyone else's "unwanted behaviors" really. Barking, mouthing, and housesoiling are about tops on my annoyance meter. Those I do the manage environment, set the dog up for success thing, but I have used an "QUIET!".

FourIsCompany:

I agree. Stopping certain behaviors in puppyhood is why my dogs are so well-behaved now, I'm convinced. They learned at a young age that stuff that belongs to me is mine, what's on the table is mine and that they have to eat peacefully together and not get into each others' bowls, etc. I'd hate to think of what I'd be dealing with had I not stopped behaviors pro-actively while they were puppies. It would probably involve crates and a lot more management than I have to do now. Not to mention the general destruction that four 70+ lbs dogs could do.

mudpuppy

Are you talking about waiting for the puppy to misbehave and then STOPPING him? or just realizing these potential misbehaviors could occur and preventing them?

Well, I did both, actually. We installed gates in our house so the puppies could be kept in the kitchen, laundry and outside, away from tempting items in the rest of the house. But I also let them spend time in the rest of the house when I could watch them and if they started to grab something, I gave a verbal correction. It's not that I waited for them to misbehave just to pounce on them. LOL But I did allow the opportunity for them to do things that I determined to be unwanted behavior so I could let them know that they weren't to be doing those things.

mudpuppy

A very inelegant solution to dog training.

Are you saying your puppies never attempted to grab a sock or a remote or a napkin?? Did they never bite your fingers or toes? You NEVER allowed them the opportunity to do ANYTHING that you consider unwanted behavior? You protected them completely from ever doing anything wrong? I find that hard to believe.

mudpuppy

I would feel, well, weird, to sit around waiting for the puppy to do something bad so I could CORRECT the puppy. A very inelegant solution to dog training.

I don't think, stopping a dog from going after a cat every time the dog sees the cat, is sitting around and waiting .........in my situation when rescues come to stay this has to be dealt with instantly.

snownose

in my situation when rescues come to stay this has to be dealt with instantly.

And that would depend on the age of the rescue. If it's a very young puppy, one still has time to manage the enivronment and curtail or prevent from reinforcing some unwanted behaviors. There may even be a point in time in the life of the puppy where it is most sensitive to sound than at other times. At such a time, a NRM such as stop or ack or goosenfrabe may be a punisher by means of sound (tone) ala the knuckles on the pan.

If the rescue or re-home is older, say about 1 year, things may change. A sound that was dreadful at 6 months might mean nothing now, or it may still retain the same meaning. While +R is primarily to encourage a behavior, I don't think that active punishment is always required to stop. In some cases, an unwanted behavior extinguishes without even a direct application of -P on the part of the trainer. In essence, the old way is simply forgotten about as this other way is so easy. One dog may see a poke or collar pop as a correction or punishment and abide by that. Another may just look at you and give that toothy grin and go on with what they are doing.

But what is the verbal stop command linked to? How is it that the dog stops the behavior at that sound? It does happen. Then, again, does it truly stop the behavior after once or twice? Or just until you are not looking?

And how are you going to punish a dog that is tougher and faster than you? It can be done and I doubt it would have to do with physical height and strength.

If I use a positively trained command that is incompatible with the unwanted behavior and the dog complies, have I not stopped that behavior at least as effectively as a no? Haven't I also accomplished a communication link and the dog is paying attention to me more than it wanted to continue the unwanted behavior? One can also stop a behavior with -R, such as we have discussed previously with special gear.

I know the example will come up that dogs can teach other dogs. Some dogs learn because they want inclusion, that is the reward. Others get punished in various and assorted levels. It usually starts with a glance or look, almost too fast for the human eye to see. Another time, maybe a growl. Sometimes, if those things haven't worked, then a grip on the snout. And it's all usually much faster and more timely than a human can manage. And the dog knows who is a dog and who is a human. Which is not to say that we can't come up with effective environmental punishments such as scat mats, citronella, etc.