Interesting linky

It was an interesting article - thanks for posting it. I note some of the comments pretty much prove her point for her too with their "this is all there is" attitude. It is interesting how words are used to play on our subconscious to get us to act a certain way.

FWIW, I agree, and practice, positive training with rewards but in addition I also correct mine with my voice and with a leash correction if necessary, usually combined with an "ah-ah" so that next time they hopefully don't need the lead correction too. Other than hitting them, which I don't do because I feel it is often done in anger and therefore doesn't really serve much of a purpose, I am fine with other methods if used properly. It really does depend on the dog. Bella would die a thousand deaths if I used anything other than positive and light vocal correction on her but then that is all she needs whereas Dakota often needs more vocal and leash correcting. He also needs me to be decisive for him because he is so fearful of other people and dogs. The more decisive I am the better he is because it takes the focus off him.

Of course I also find swearing at them helps. But I think that is more for me than them :D.
 
My Bella is something similar, use any sort of pressure and she caves. Hard for a grumpy cow like me :p and of course, B is quite like Dakota - we were in a line up last week with a dobe on one side of him and a very strong working dog on the other, who is a nightmare with other dogs unless he has a ball or frisbee wodged in his gob. My dog, who not so long ago I thought was a dog-aggressive bully, was physically shaking and trying to reverse onto my foot.

I read a great analogy on another forum, which I shall paraphrase
"A little old lady is about to step out in front of an articulated lorry - I grab her by the arm and jerk her back, rather than wave a bingo ticket in front of her nose to lure her back onto the pavement - does that make me a bad person?" :p
 
Thankyou for that CC, thats was very interesting, I have saved that. I also agree with his/her sentiments, refreshing to the whole ramming down the throat of the vids we see for "positive/non dominance/one way to train" blahh (but no evidence) to back it up;)
I esp loved the 1st reply comment, It was very true;)
 
Last edited:
Very interesting and the comments below.

Its funny how everything nowadays is all about positive reinforcements but a dog/horse learns & remembers negative reinforcement sometimes for life.

I used to have a book which was written about forty years ago by a man who was sent agressive nasty horses with really bad behavioural problems and he was their last chance. His methods were not cruel but forceful(negative) and they brought results he did alsoadvocate positive reinforcement in the right situation. He was way ahead of his time he even communicated with some horses using esp which he was wary of telling his clients about.

I think what Im trying to say is yes there are all sorts of methods its just finding one that suits your dog or horse.
 
CaveCanem said:
My Bella is something similar, use any sort of pressure and she caves. Hard for a grumpy cow like me :p and of course, B is quite like Dakota - we were in a line up last week with a dobe on one side of him and a very strong working dog on the other, who is a nightmare with other dogs unless he has a ball or frisbee wodged in his gob. My dog, who not so long ago I thought was a dog-aggressive bully, was physically shaking and trying to reverse onto my foot.

I read a great analogy on another forum, which I shall paraphrase
"A little old lady is about to step out in front of an articulated lorry - I grab her by the arm and jerk her back, rather than wave a bingo ticket in front of her nose to lure her back onto the pavement - does that make me a bad person?" :p
Click to expand...

That is a great analogy because I think it can be used to show the other extreme too - you wouldn't just hit her either. You'd use the amount of correction necessary to achieve what you needed to without going under or overboard.

I also think that what advocates for one particular method only often fail to understand is that for each situation with each dog you also need to vary your method with that dog. While it might work in one situation to be firm, in another it might be better to let the dog work its way through it by him or herself and in another it would be better to use positive reinforcement only. This kind of situational use of training methods can be so hard to figure out so I suppose it is easier to do it one way all the time. I personally think you need to keep at hand a portfolio of methods that work with your dog to fall back in different situations though as it is likely to prove more successful in the long run.
 
That is a very good article, she talks a lot of sense. It really bugs me that some trainers won't budge on their training methods, particularly some of the pet dog classes that are around. I firmly believe that some dogs need far firmer correction/treatment than others, over the years I have known many dogs and no way could you have used the same training method on all, too harsh would have ruined some, and too soft would have ruined others. I believe some of the behavioural problems that are seen are actually caused by the positive reinforcement approach some trainers use, when the dog in reality needed to have been told "you don't do that" in a way that they understood.
 
Interesting. I disagree with her and the tone of her writing has put my back up, but interesting nonetheless.

I do agree with the comment about positive trainers being looked down upon. If one more person makes a snarky remark about bribery to me I will break both their arms and knot them behind their head - although in a very positive way, of course.:p
 
Spudlet said:
Interesting. I disagree with her and the tone of her writing has put my back up, but interesting nonetheless.

I do agree with the comment about positive trainers being looked down upon. If one more person makes a snarky remark about bribery to me I will break both their arms and knot them behind their head - although in a very positive way, of course.:p
Click to expand...

It sounds like both "sides" think that the other looks down on them. The positive trainers for comments about bribery and the "other" trainers for comments about abuse. Over here I've never heard a comment about bribery (and I practice it a lot :D) but I've heard lots about abuse (not aimed at me personally but it is all extremely positive focused over here with comments about never saying "no" to your dog, etc.). I wonder if that is a cultural thing then - I think this blogger is in America isn't she? Are they more vehement on the positive stuff over here than they are in the UK which is what has prompted the blog. Thoughts?
 
People have made snarky remarks to me while I've been out training, minding my own business... that kind of thing can wear a girl down and release her inner psycho:p. Normally it's the flat-cap brigade doing it. I think they assume that only 'pet' dogs are trained in this way, and look down upon it as a result:rolleyes:
 
Spudlet said:
People have made snarky remarks to me while I've been out training, minding my own business... that kind of thing can wear a girl down and release her inner psycho:p. Normally it's the flat-cap brigade doing it. I think they assume that only 'pet' dogs are trained in this way, and look down upon it as a result:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Ahh, so maybe a different kind of cultural influence at work then?
 
Probably - that and sheer ignorance I guess. The same attitude that reckons you can't train a retrieve to hand using a food reward - wrong, I have the proof asleep on my knee (he's had a hard weekend;)).

It seems that the USA is very black and white about these things - seemingly it's either totally reward-based with no correction, or plug 'em into the mains and zap them when they breathe wrong, am I right in saying this?
 
Spudlet said:
The same attitude that reckons you can't train a retrieve to hand using a food reward
Click to expand...

I know little about gundog training - who says that, and why/what's the thinking behind that, if you don't mind me asking?

As the owner of a food slut, and yes, it would be easier if he had a toy drive, how on earth does one train a food slut, if not with food? :p
 
It's something many people seem to think. The theory is that the dog will spit the retrieve out to get to the food as quickly as possible, but if your technique is correct then you train the dog that rewards only happen when the dummy hits your hand. A clicker does make it easier, but it is totally possible. Didn't take long to train Henry to it either, maybe half an hour for him to grasp it?

It's all about finding the incentive that your dog wants - people go on about 'bribery', but see how many of them would carry on showing up to work if their salaries stopped arriving.:p (Shamelessly nicked from Jean Donaldson, but the woman has a point!) If food works, use food, if a toy works, use a toy, if freedom to hunt works, use that.
 
Funny, a very rufty tufty bloke said that to me last week...the type Jean Donaldson would probably like to turn a machine gun on :p
"Imagine if you got your wages at the start of the week...how hard would you work?"

As you say, the longer the dog holds the dummy, the higher the reward surely?!
 
As you say, the longer the dog holds the dummy, the higher the reward surely?!
Click to expand...

That's how I do it - extra holding means much food, ear ruffles and general praisings.:p He also gets a lovely chest rub while he's holding - it's a win win situation for Henry.

On another note, I was pretty amazed watching that channel 5 dog programme recently to see in the bit about assistance dogs in the US that they all seemed to be wearing prong collars. What's all that about?!
 
Quite a lot of WT people teach a retrieve with a food reward, certainly doesn't mean the dog spits the retrieve article out early. I do think positive training works for things such as this, however if you have downright naughty behaviour sometimes a stronger approach is needed. I do know a few trials people use clicker training, some of the old diehards did mock but if it works why not. The whole point is that everyone should be open to others points of view imho.
 
Spudlet said:
Probably - that and sheer ignorance I guess. The same attitude that reckons you can't train a retrieve to hand using a food reward - wrong, I have the proof asleep on my knee (he's had a hard weekend;)).

It seems that the USA is very black and white about these things - seemingly it's either totally reward-based with no correction, or plug 'em into the mains and zap them when they breathe wrong, am I right in saying this?
Click to expand...

I think those might be the vocal sides anyway. Those of us muddling along in the middle who use different methods likely aren't as vocal :). Thanks for answering CC's question about training retrieval with reward too. I know nothing about it either so that was interesting.

On the more general training note, surely all kinds of training is essentially reward based is it not? Let's face it, even if someone beats their dog for doing something wrong, the reward for being good the next time is not being beaten isn't it? Or is that too simplistic?
 
All training is basically operant conditioning, which means using consequences to influence behaviour. There are four types of reinforcement you can use (nicked off wikipedia because I always get them muddled):

* Positive reinforcement: the adding of an appetitive stimulus to increase a certain behavior or response.
Example: Father gives candy to his daughter when she picks up her toys.
* Punishment (positive punishment): the adding of an aversive stimulus to decrease a certain behavior or response.
Example: Mother yells at a child when running into the street.
* Negative reinforcement: the taking of an aversive stimulus to increase certain behavior or response.
Example: Rolling up the window to block the wind.
* Negative punishment (omission training): the taking away of an appetitive stimulus to decrease a certain behavior.
Example: Taking away a night light when child does not go to bed.
Click to expand...

So, some people use negative reinforcement for training retrievers - i.e. the dummy hits the floor, the dog gets zapped with an e-collar / has its ear yanked or something equally unpleasant, and this only stops when the dog has delivered the retrieve. Yes, you'll get your dummy back, but are you a team? Is your dog enjoying its work? Personally, I would think not...
 
Spudlet said:
On another note, I was pretty amazed watching that channel 5 dog programme recently to see in the bit about assistance dogs in the US that they all seemed to be wearing prong collars. What's all that about?!
Click to expand...

I haven't seen it but I imagine if the dogs are being handled or are destined to be handled by people with mobility problems, kids, older people, it is back-up/refined control. Easier to apply a light touch than have a tug of war with a large dog in an emergency.

I know you won't agree with me, but prong collars are not the worst tool in the world, used correctly. Mine has been slopping about at the bottom of my kit bag since last summer but when I needed it, it was a lifesaver, literally, for my dog (see old lady analogy!!!)

I know a few who wear them as back-up and their tales never stop wagging, certainly not abused or psychologically damaged.

They're also worn a lot more in America and on the continent.
 
Spudlet said:
All training is basically operant conditioning, which means using consequences to influence behaviour. There are four types of reinforcement you can use (nicked off wikipedia because I always get them muddled):
* Positive reinforcement: the adding of an appetitive stimulus to increase a certain behavior or response.
Example: Father gives candy to his daughter when she picks up her toys.
* Punishment (positive punishment): the adding of an aversive stimulus to decrease a certain behavior or response.
Example: Mother yells at a child when running into the street.
* Negative reinforcement: the taking of an aversive stimulus to increase certain behavior or response.
Example: Rolling up the window to block the wind.
* Negative punishment (omission training): the taking away of an appetitive stimulus to decrease a certain behavior.
Example: Taking away a night light when child does not go to bed.

So, some people use negative reinforcement for training retrievers - i.e. the dummy hits the floor, the dog gets zapped with an e-collar / has its ear yanked or something equally unpleasant, and this only stops when the dog has delivered the retrieve. Yes, you'll get your dummy back, but are you a team? Is your dog enjoying its work? Personally, I would think not...
Click to expand...

Thanks - that was really interesting and answered a bunch of questions I had :).
 
May I just say, this is how forums should be? People holding different opinions and with different experiences and ideas being able to share these ideas, knowledge and opinions and bounce ideas off one another without getting nasty, sending each other horrid pms or button pushing - fab:D

(Although CC, you horrid dog abuser, your poop-filled pm is in the cyber-post:p:D;))

I would see prong collars as a measure of final resort as opposed to a routine thing tbh. I have to be honest and say that I would have some concerns about an assistance dog that may need one, I mean to say assistance dogs in this country don't have them, and yet blind people are not generally being hauled across the land (although, did you see the story about David Blunkett voting on the wrong side after the election because his dog was so used to heading for the Government side?:D:D:D)

I have never used one, that is no secret, and I would not call them the work of the devil if used by someone knowledgeable to do it right as there are worse things that can occur. But I would much, much rather not get to the point where one is necessary.
 
See, I know someone who as soon as their horses are broken, puts them in what we in the UK would call quite a severe bit, but rides with a very, very light hand. Rather than putting a horse in a snaffle, thinking it is kind, and hauling away at it.
That's another analogy I like :p

I didn't like them either, until I met/owned a dog which it was agreed between myself and three trainers, needed one.
I think that's the key with a lot of tools.
 
Well we all know that CC is a dog abuser! :p
I would certainly not like to see a prong collar in the wrong hands, but it is not always possible to avoid getting to the point where one is necessary, some dogs just have huge problems no matter how well bred, socialised etc they are. I won't bore everyone again with the full story of my very experienced friends very reactive GSD, but without a prong collar, and yes on occasions an e collar, he probably would not be with us any more. I heard a few minutes ago that he qualifed for the second time WD Ex at Working Trials, and is now working successfully at TD (tracking dog) level, he is a joy to watch working and it could have ended so differently. :( Oh and he is trained with a combination of clicker and ball reward.:)
 
There are a couple of people working to a very high level of tracking through clicker training. That's a discipline, with a lot of dogs, including my own, where you cannot use any compulsion whatsoever.
 
Definitely agree - great discussion and as someone who just trains so that my dogs and I can coexist happily and without driving each other crazy, very interesting to read.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top