# Non-compulsive training



## animalsafe (Feb 17, 2009)

When considering the definition of non-compulsive dog training it means not using force ,physical manipulation, aversive’s, restraint, aversive corrections, intimidation, stress, flooding, threatening verbal’s/gestures/body language, discomfort , pain, ect. This also includes refraining from using any tool that acts to do so such as prong collars, choke collars, martingales, shock collars, head halters such as the GL or for that matter a plain flat collar or any other tethering device in such a manner. . It means showing the dog a reward or motivator and teaching the dog a behavior that results in the dog getting the reward and wanting to show behavior verses being dominated to do so.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

Are you trying to sidle up to a point, or merely being didactic?


----------



## animalsafe (Feb 17, 2009)

a little bit of everything 

cheers


----------



## txcollies (Oct 23, 2007)

In reality, even positive training relies on some form of compulsion. 

I wouldn't be to quick to label compulsion training as evil.


----------



## animalsafe (Feb 17, 2009)

I do not believe I made any reference to that effect????

Just thought I would offer something for thought...I do however understand that naturally anyone can have a different perspective on anything that one may say.

cheers


----------



## Trainer (Feb 18, 2009)

I have read your posts in this thread and other threads in the last week or so. You don't understand positive animal training. I suggest you forget the word "training" and instead substitute the word "teach". That puts a whole different perspective on it. The next concept you need to get your arms around is "motivate" Once you understand motivation and teaching and how those two go hand in hand, you will begin to understand what is known as "positive training".

I know you are wanting to answer this post by saying that you do understand positive training but if you truly understood it you would never have made the OP in this thread. Your posts I have read seem to point toward towards you making an great attempt to discredit positive training lately. Once you get proficient at positive training, you will see there is no reason to use anything else.


----------



## animalsafe (Feb 17, 2009)

Any assertion that I am attempting to dismiss the possibilities and benefit to positive reinforcement is ridiculous as I depend on such benefits in all that I do with conditioning dog behavior....I think I am simply being targeted by those who have a agenda and take some offense to my comments one way or the other and feel a need to devalue anything that I may say concerning any of the operant’s.....

It appears I seldom if ever am correct .Trainer perhaps you take offense to my discription or use of training collars such as the GL for example.If I were to compare your rendention (the one you posted) for example of how the GL (gentle leader) might function (or any other such matter) to many of those who have contrasting and contridictive perspectives including myself who should I believe? I happen to like/prefer this rendition.
http://www.wagandtrain.com/leader.html



Trainer I think I will pass on your suggestions to educate myself in aligning to your opinion of the truth. Thank you however.




Read what you may and think what you will from my comments...

cheers


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Holy Moley Batman, here we go again.


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

What I don't get is that what's acceptable in training a child is suddenly not acceptable in training a dog. For example, a kid tries to steal food from another kid's plate. The kid starts reaching his hand out and we slap his hand and tell him no. This is generally considered to be perfectly acceptable parenting. A dog goes after a plate of food on the floor and we yank his leash, tell him no and this is not acceptable?


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

I am not sure where your original post is going. It is a statement and not a question. 

I would not put a martingale collar in the same category as a prong collar. It does tighten, but if properly adjusted it tightens only enough to insure the dog cannot slip it. Some dogs are collar slipping masters.

As to the argument of whether correction based training is more effective than positive reinforcement based training.. I think that depends on who is implementing it and why. 

Here is what I have observed. HIGHLY successful trainers.. I mean ones who get titles in dog sports or working classes, all look very similar when you watch them train. The correction based trainers and the positive based trainers.. look so similar.. and you know what? They both look positve. Dogs are focused, wagging and working. Rewards are frequent. Incorrect behavior is mostly ignored and the dog is set up to succeed so there is little incorrect behavior. 

Correction based training in the wrong hands has ruined more dogs than positive reinforcement has. What was explained to me when I started learning Positive Reinforcement was this: A person who uses Positive Reinforcement incorrectly can end up with a fat happy dog that is not obedient. A person who uses corrections incorrectly can end up with a unhappy (or even aggressive) dog that is not obedient and has been damaged to the point of impossible return. 

I will NEVER support correction based training on a Public Internet forum. Rather you have a fat, happy disobedient dog than a ruined dog.

Beyond that, I see no reason to inflict misery or pain on a companion animal to train it. Why would anyone condone or support that? 

In another, lengthy, thread, Curbside Prophet gave you all the academic reasons and resources to support the learning theory based on positive reinforcement. Zimandtakandgrrandmimi gave you input as a person with hands on experience using this type of training on rescue dogs where there are time constraints. 

MORE chips fall on the side of Positive reinforcement training. Seems to me that if you are insisting on correction based training as the best way to go, that you should have learned here that it is largely not supported on this forum for both academic and practical reasons. 

Or is this just another Cesar Milan thread in disguise?????


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

hulkamaniac said:


> A dog goes after a plate of food on the floor and we yank his leash, tell him no and this is not acceptable?


Yanking his leash is unnecessary in teaching appropriate behavior...it's a matter of perspective, and either you have it or you don't. But I would ask is it acceptable or normal for food to be plated on a floor around a dog? I say no, it is not...at least if we understand the animal in the dog, therefore it is not acceptable to physically punish the dog for being a dog. 

Regardless, it's never acceptable to justify a punishment based on how we raise our children. Your child's ability to reason far exceeds that of your dog. It's only acceptable, IMO, to justify a punishment when more humane methods are proven ineffective and less humane methods are proven effective.

No one takes the time to quantify behavior, so...we equate children to dogs I guess.


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

hulkamaniac said:


> What I don't get is that what's acceptable in training a child is suddenly not acceptable in training a dog. For example, a kid tries to steal food from another kid's plate. The kid starts reaching his hand out and we slap his hand and tell him no. This is generally considered to be perfectly acceptable parenting. A dog goes after a plate of food on the floor and we yank his leash, tell him no and this is not acceptable?


If the child is reaching for food we should have been smart enough to prevent this before it happens. It is called being the adult. Having been slapped and hit I can tell you it is typically reactive, not proactive and it only teaches said child to not do this in front of the adult. 

If the plate of food is on the floor, then what is it doing there? Dogs are opportunist scavengers and recognizing this as dog behavior, we should not be putting our food on the floor.

If something is on the floor that the dog is not supposed to have, why didn't we use positive reinforcement to train the command "Leave It?" Fact is, you could do this with my dog, who was trained "leave it" wiith positive reinforcement and she would not touch it. If she did before I noticed and I told her first, "What do you HAVE?" she would drop what was in her mouth and then if I followed it with "leave it" she would not touch it or anything associated with it. That is without a leash BTW.

Training, prevention and setting up dog (or child) for success is a far better way to train or teach (see CP's posts on learning theory) than using punishment after or during the inappropriate act. 

Punishment instills fear (and, in children can even go so far as hatred.. trust me, I know!). What is the purpose of instilling fear?

PS: Thank you CP.  We simultaneously posted.


----------



## animalsafe (Feb 17, 2009)

My intention was not to ask a question but simply to point out a perspestive that I happen to find educational, sort of like the stickies where people broadcast theres. It was pointed out to me in several private messages that perhaps my descriptions/definitions are offensive to those who are of the mindset of never needing to use compulsive methods/tools and possibly do when recommending or suggesting the use of such tools.

Regardless of all the semantics on what is and what is not "IS" I have always been taught that dolphins,dogs,humans,fish,birds,ect all can learn in the manners as described /defined in operant conditioning and classical conditioning. I am not the one arguing against that perspective.

I am not sure what the issue is actually. Other than I am in error.


----------



## Corteo (Jan 7, 2009)

IMHO, I think that we should never say that there is one way... a choke might be just right for one dog, but totally wrong for another. And I personally say that, when used correctly the choke collar is fine. Although called a "choke", the collar should not choke, it is just a correction. If your dog is corrected by just the noise of the collar, then you don't use more force. Maybe we should use the correct name for the collar, and call it a training collar. If treats work for your dog, then go for it. Also, it's not bad to mix the two. My goal would be to get to the place where I could wean the dog from the collar, to just my voice. You also have to be careful with treats, some dogs will only obey if given a treat.

Just my opinion,

Corteo


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

Treats are not the only reward in positive reinforcement training. Read the NILIF post... stickie.. 

I use getting in/out of the truck, going outside, playing, playing with the cat, games, and release to do what the dog was doing/wants to do as rewards. Treats are in there too. Treats are "a" reward, not the "only" reward. 

Not all dogs are motivated by treats. There are many many positive reinforcers besides and beyond treats. 

My dog works/walks almost exclusively off leash. Collar style is unimportant to a dog that is trained off leash. 

My next dog I am going to try training with no leash at all.


----------



## Corteo (Jan 7, 2009)

Of course! I completely agree! However, that does not make the slip and prong wrong. (no, I'm not saying you said that ) It's all how you use it.


----------



## Trainer (Feb 18, 2009)

Corteo said:


> IMHO, I think that we should never say that there is one way... a choke might be just right for one dog, but totally wrong for another.


It's not the dog, its the trainer. A trainer that knows how will never need a choke collar or any collar.



> And I personally say that, when used correctly the choke collar is fine.


We could execute jay walkers and it would eliminate jay walking but there are much more acceptable, more humane ways to deal with the problem. Again, a choke collar is never needed by a trainer who is properly trained to train.



> Although called a "choke", the collar should not choke, it is just a correction.


But choke collars do choke and that is what makes them work. If you don't use them to choke, why not just use a leather collar?



> If your dog is corrected by just the noise of the collar, then you don't use more force.


If he had never had "more force" applied in the past, the sound of the collar will have no effect.



> Maybe we should use the correct name for the collar, and call it a training collar.


No, choke chain is more descriptive and the proper name for the collar.



> If treats work for your dog, then go for it. Also, it's not bad to mix the two.


Actually it is. The negative effect from aversive corrections negate the efforts to use motivation to teach a dog. The dog need to know that nothing bad will happen to him if he makes a mistake. It makes positive training many times easier.

You will understand this once you see a 100% positive trained dog get confused. He will try something hoping its right. If' it's not, he will try something else until he gets it right. When a dog who has had negative things happen when he doesn't perform correctly will freeze when confused.



> My goal would be to get to the place where I could wean the dog from the collar, to just my voice. You also have to be careful with treats, some dogs will only obey if given a treat.


Don't you think positive trainers wean their dogs from treats? 

You have to be careful with choke chains, some dogs will only obey if on leash and wearing a choke chain. 



> Just my opinion,


Hopefully it has changed somewhat now.


----------



## animalsafe (Feb 17, 2009)

Trainer I am curious and have a question. Has your mind been changed on how a GL is designed to work in contrast to how many behavorists (I provided 1 link) feel they might work to condition behavior?


Trainer.............
“Hence the name Gentle Leader. It does not grab the dogs mouth it has absolutely no effect on the dog's breathing in any shape form or fashon. The Gentle Leader is not for corrections, it is a tool used to teach the dog how to walk without pulling and nothing more. It is more akin to a horse head halter than whatever that object you are describing. I have never seen or heard of a device like you are talking about. ‘
“You are a long way from learning it yet. I can always recognize a good trainer because he never uses corrections. A good trainer knows how to teach a dog proper behavior without finding it necessary to correct. The secret is to change your mindset to "teach" rather than "train". Dogs are very open to be taught by people they respect.”
“Physical corrections don't teach proper behavior. Physical corrections upset the dogs and that impairs learningways recognize a good trainer because he never uses corrections. A good trainer knows how to teach a dog proper behavior without finding it necessary to correct. The secret is to change your mindset to "teach" rather than "train". Dogs are very open to be taught by people they respect.” 
“I eventually had to hire a trainer to show me how to teach my dog certain things. Unfortunately there were no Gentle Leaders in those days.”






Is as you point out about the choke collar after all the suggestions offered to variations of its usage simply based on a compulsive conditioning concept of force training? Could'nt the same be said for the martingale?

cheers


----------



## Corteo (Jan 7, 2009)

Trainer said:


> It's not the dog, its the trainer. A trainer that knows how will never need a choke collar or any collar.


Sorry, but I disagree.





> Again, a choke collar is never needed by a trainer who is properly trained to train.


How do you know I'm not?



> But choke collars do choke and that is what makes them work. If you don't use them to choke, why not just use a leather collar?


You can't get the same sound with a leather collar...



> If he had never had "more force" applied in the past, the sound of the collar will have no effect.


I disagree



> No, choke chain is more descriptive and the proper name for the collar.


um no it's not.





> Actually it is. The negative effect from aversive corrections negate the efforts to use motivation to teach a dog. The dog need to know that nothing bad will happen to him if he makes a mistake. It makes positive training many times easier.


Actually it's not. Nothing bad happens to the dog anyway



> You will understand this once you see a 100% positive trained dog get confused. He will try something hoping its right. If' it's not, he will try something else until he gets it right. When a dog who has had negative things happen when he doesn't perform correctly will freeze when confused.


I would _much_ rather like my dog to obey on the first time. And no, my dog does not freeze.





> Don't you think positive trainers wean their dogs from treats?


I don't think, I know. 



> You have to be careful with choke chains, some dogs will only obey if on leash and wearing a choke chain.


Just like you have to be careful with the treats





> Hopefully it has changed somewhat now.


You are arrogant aren't you? We are all allowed are own opinion.


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

I look at it this way. How do we train children? We teach them which behaviors are unacceptable and which behaviors are acceptable. Dogs and other animals learn the same way.

Example, I have a dog that likes to jump on me. I'm trying a corrective method that I've seen in several books and all over the 'net. The dog jumps on me and I turn my back and ignore him for a minute or two. This is punishing the dog by with holding attention. Some how this is acceptable even though it's a negative reward? The dog learns that if I step through the door and he jumps on me he is punished (I ignore him) but if he sits quietly or just stands quietly he is rewarded (I pet him). Both have their place in dog training IMO.


----------



## Corteo (Jan 7, 2009)

I agree with you.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

hulkamaniac said:


> I look at it this way. How do we train children? We *teach them which behaviors are unacceptable and which behaviors are unacceptable*. Dogs and other animals learn the same way.


Freudian slip? 



> Example, I have a dog that likes to jump on me. I'm trying a corrective method that I've seen in several books and all over the 'net. The dog jumps on me and I turn my back and ignore him for a minute or two. This is punishing the dog by with holding attention.


I've also seen some dogs learn what a neat trick it is to make their human spin by jumping on them. The dog will determine if your punishment is in fact punishing. Often is the case the dog's emotions are involved and he is acting on emotion. Jumping is one behavior dogs use to exhibit excitement. You can not/ should not punish emotions...emotions are not operant behaviors (behaviors the dog voluntarily does). Emotions are involuntary. 

The prudent trainer would not train the animal if he's over an emotional threshold...no good training can be had if the dog is over threshold (it's a waste of time). The prudent trainer might rehearse coming and going over and over until the dog is no longer excited about the owners coming and going. They do this not to punish excitement, but rather to extinguish the behavior to a point where operant conditioning can be had. And what training would that be? The desired behavior, "sit". If we need to punish our animals, why not use instruction, like "sit". 




> Some how this is acceptable even though it's a negative reward?


Acceptable to whom? Not for the dog that finds this a game. 




> The dog learns that if I step through the door and he jumps on me he is punished (I ignore him) but if he sits quietly or just stands quietly he is rewarded (I pet him). Both have their place in dog training IMO.


Both have their place but again, only after humane methods are proven ineffective. We could write volumes on that subject too.


----------



## Trainer (Feb 18, 2009)

Corteo said:


> Sorry, but I disagree.


I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with.



> How do you know I'm not?


Not what?



> You can't get the same sound with a leather collar...


If a dog has never been jerked with a joke chain, the sould of the chain will have no influence on his behavior.



> I disagree


Listen, I am not someone who has never used a choke chain or even a pinch collar. I have used them both for years until I learned better methods. I know how to use both and I know how they work. I have used them both to train many dogs.



> um no it's not.


So it doesn't choke?



> Actually it's not. Nothing bad happens to the dog anyway


NOt if you consider being jerked on a choke chain "nothin bad".



> I would _much_ rather like my dog to obey on the first time. And no, my dog does not freeze.


When he gets confused and doesn't understand what is being asked of him, he definately freezes.



> I don't think, I know.


I know you don't know. 



> You are arrogant aren't you? We are all allowed are own opinion.


If you equate arrogant with confident, then yes. Yes we are allowed our own opinions but that doesn't make them right. Most of what we are talking about here is not opinion, its fact and it's either right or wrong. If you can't competently train a dog using 100% positive reinforcement, you have to resort to using coersion thus your view will be different. That doesn't make it correct. If you can train using positive reinforcement, then why would you want to subject the dog to the stress of coersion?


----------



## poodleholic (Mar 15, 2007)

hulkamaniac said:


> What I don't get is that what's acceptable in training a child is suddenly not acceptable in training a dog. For example, a kid tries to steal food from another kid's plate. The kid starts reaching his hand out and we slap his hand and tell him no. This is generally considered to be perfectly acceptable parenting. A dog goes after a plate of food on the floor and we yank his leash, tell him no and this is not acceptable?


Slapping a child's hand and telling him no serves no purpose but the adult/parent's, and this includes yelling NO and slapping hands rather than child-proofing the house until one can teach the child was is, and is not acceptable, and certainly not good parenting. As a young mother, I had people tell me I was nuts for having beautiful furnishings because my children would ruin them. They did not. I kept my home child-proofed during their infant and toddler years, and taught them over time what was ok, and not ok, and never slapped them or yelled at them. I had well-behaved children with manners, who, as adults, also have well-behaved children with manners.

Leaving a plate of food on the floor in front of a dog, and then yelling NO and yanking the leash is stupid, IMO. Dogs are opportunistic, and OF COURSE would go after a plate of food! I have 4 dogs with whom I never yell NO at, or raise my voice. I puppy proof my home, and teach/train the behaviors I want. It's usually sufficient to distract, then redirect from an unwanted behavior to a WANTED behavior, and follow up with positive reinforcement for compliance. Dogs do what works, and what never worked was to do what I didn't want - because I was there to supervise and teach/train, and do so in a gentle, non-aversive manner. Being persistent, consistent, and above all, patient, will result in a dog who understands what is wanted/expected. My dogs LOVE pizza and other goodies, but do not beg, pester, or otherwise go after what I am eating, including sneaking (not even my master thief, Beau). I've instilled in them that what's mine is mine, and only theirs if I offer.


----------



## Corteo (Jan 7, 2009)

> Not what?


How do you know I'm not a properly trained trainer? 



> If a dog has never been jerked with a joke chain, the sound of the chain will have no influence on his behavior.


It's not a jerk, it's a pop. A pop, is a quick release





> Listen, I am not someone who has never used a choke chain or even a pinch collar. I have used them both for years until I learned better methods. I know how to use both and I know how they work. I have used them both to train many dogs.


I've used both as well, and they both work equally with the same goal to get the dog off leash and obeying voice commands




> So it doesn't choke?


Not if used right





> NOt if you consider being jerked on a choke chain "nothin bad".


Being jerked around is a bad thing




> When he gets confused and doesn't understand what is being asked of him, he definately freezes.


That's why you give a verbal command. 




> I know you don't know.


And I know that you know that's not what I meant 





> If you equate arrogant with confident, then yes. Yes we are allowed our own opinions but that doesn't make them right. Most of what we are talking about here is not opinion, its fact and it's either right or wrong. If you can't competently train a dog using 100% positive reinforcement, you have to resort to using coersion thus your view will be different. That doesn't make it correct. If you can train using positive reinforcement, then why would you want to subject the dog to the stress of coersion?


I'm confident enough in own opinion, to stop the argument.


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

We obviously have different philosophies on raising kids. I know how my parents raised me and my brother was born when I was 14 so I saw their parenting techniques first hand. They never baby proofed the house and never put any of their figurines, bowls, etc.... that were sitting on coffee tables and end tables away. Instead they corrected my brother any and every time he reached for one of these things. Sometimes with just a look, other times with a light slap on the hand, other times with more severe methods if he didn't listen. There were also rewards for good behavior.

I tend to look at results. Your methods obviously work for you both with kids and dogs and I would not question them simply because you get results. Cesar Milan's methods work for him and while I don't agree with them all I can't deny the fact that he gets results. 

I've seen trainers who use choke collars, shock collars and other tools that I would never use. I've seen trainers who use a simple clicker paired with treats. Both seem to get the same results to me. 

I think it really depends on the individual animal. Just like some kids might get the point from a simple harsh look, others take a smack up side the head and some don't even get it then. I think dogs can be the same way.


----------



## MegaMuttMom (Sep 15, 2007)

hulkamaniac said:


> What I don't get is that what's acceptable in training a child is suddenly not acceptable in training a dog. For example, a kid tries to steal food from another kid's plate. The kid starts reaching his hand out and we slap his hand and tell him no. This is generally considered to be perfectly acceptable parenting. A dog goes after a plate of food on the floor and we yank his leash, tell him no and this is not acceptable?


Well, I trained my kids to be respectful, upstanding teenagers without ever laying a hand on them. Hmmmm, what a concept! You slap and yank, I will guide and teach.


----------



## rosemaryninja (Sep 28, 2007)

Trainer said:


> If you can't competently train a dog using 100% positive reinforcement, you have to resort to using coersion thus your view will be different. That doesn't make it correct. If you can train using positive reinforcement, then why would you want to subject the dog to the stress of coersion?


That's exactly it. Of course if I pop a dog with a choke chain every time he jumps on the sofa, he'll _eventually_ stop jumping on the sofa. Of course if I shove a dog's nose in his pee on the carpet and spank him, he'll _eventually_ stop peeing on the carpet. The questions are 

a) how much faster does the job get done using positive reinforcement? 
and
b) how much negativity is introduced into the relationship between me and my dog in the process of popping him every time he misbehaves?


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

It disturbs me when I hear self proclaimed trainers talking about this way better or that way better and which ever side of the training attitude they happened to be standing on now, regardless of whatever side they stood on before, their new way is only way period. I'm sorry in a real world dog training program, balance is what's needed to train dogs properly. There are some dogs in the real world that 100% positive is the only way to go and with other dogs the exact opposite is true and all the variables in between. I don't get into the arguing about this stuff too much because I personally think anybody who has not trained a minimum of 250 dogs, hands on training, is still serving an apprenticeship. They just do not have the experience or knowledge to proclaim that their methods and their methods only are correct. Balance is the word I don't see much on some of these threads and that worries me.


----------



## Trainer (Feb 18, 2009)

Corteo said:


> How do you know I'm not a properly trained trainer?


Because you don't know how to train wihtout putting stress on the dog by jerking the dog with a choke chain. 



> It's not a jerk, it's a pop. A pop, is a quick release


Two words, same meaning.



> I've used both as well, and they both work equally with the same goal to get the dog off leash and obeying voice commands


I never use a leash even in the beginning of training. A properly trained trainer doesn't need choke chains, pinch collars or leashes. A properly trained trainer understands motivation and knows how to teach and guide. 



> Not if used right


Of course it does if even very briefly.



> Being jerked around is a bad thing


Exactly, thats what I've spent all this time trying to get across to you.



> That's why you give a verbal command.


You miss the point. What if the dog is distracted or doesn't hear exactly what you said or is confused as to the "command" for whatever reason. A compulsion trained dog freezes. He will do nothing rather than risk punishment.



> And I know that you know that's not what I meant


Yeah, but I couldn't pass on the opportunity. 



> I'm confident enough in own opinion, to stop the argument.


But confident as you are, you are wrong. There is no reason to use such "tools" as choke chains and pinch collars. GL's are not in the same category.

Been nice chatting with you.


----------



## poodleholic (Mar 15, 2007)

> I think it really depends on the individual animal. Just like some kids might get the point from a simple harsh look, others take a smack up side the head and some don't even get it then. I think dogs can be the same way



A smack up side the head to a child is child abuse, pure and simple. Doing this to a dog is also abuse. How pathetic that an adult feels the need to give "harsh looks" and to smack a child or a dog. Says volumes about that person.

I have a male dog whose original owner subjected him to an environment and treatment that resulted in his being dog aggressive. I took this dog home, and worked with him, never using aversive methods. Behavior modification needed was desensitization and counter-conditioning. Today, he is a well balanced dog who is confident and calm, is a therapy dog to children in shelter, and feels no need to react in fear through aggression. He is an ambassordor of his breed, and dogs in general; a wonderful boy to all in his household, including rescue foster dogs, and those we met while out on walks. Aversive methods would have shut him down and made worse what he was experiencing.


----------



## waterbaby (Jan 20, 2009)

Nicely said, wvasko. Any trainer that proselytizes their methods and trash talks the rest makes me nervous.


----------



## rosemaryninja (Sep 28, 2007)

wvasko said:


> It disturbs me when I hear self proclaimed trainers talking about this way better or that way better and which ever side of the training attitude they happened to be standing on now, regardless of whatever side they stood on before, their new way is only way period. I'm sorry in a real world dog training program, balance is what's needed to train dogs properly. There are some dogs in the real world that 100% positive is the only way to go and with other dogs the exact opposite is true and all the variables in between. I don't get into the arguing about this stuff too much because I personally think anybody who has not trained a minimum of 250 dogs, hands on training, is still serving an apprenticeship. They just do not have the experience or knowledge to proclaim that their methods and their methods only are correct. Balance is the word I don't see much on some of these threads and that worries me.


Of course, balance is essential and no one is arguing against that. The issue here isn't a lack of balance... it's addressing a method of training that doesn't even lie within the realm of what should be balanced. 

I'm not going to say, and never have said, that choke chains should never be used. Choke chains have their place. So do GLs, e-collars, prongs, no-pull harnesses and all that jazz. But training negatively is different from harsh corrections at every turn. That kind of training shouldn't even come into play, imo. A dog that has been trained with negative reinforcement can still be a dog that is thinking and willing to learn. A dog that has been trained with multiple random corrections shuts down. 

What I'm saying is that positive reinforcement has its place, negative reinforcement has its place, choke chains have their place. But methods like a pop of any given magnitude, for any given unwanted behaviour, don't.


----------



## poodleholic (Mar 15, 2007)

wvasko said:


> It disturbs me when I hear self proclaimed trainers talking about this way better or that way better and which ever side of the training attitude they happened to be standing on now, regardless of whatever side they stood on before, their new way is only way period. I'm sorry in a real world dog training program, balance is what's needed to train dogs properly. There are some dogs in the real world that 100% positive is the only way to go and with other dogs the exact opposite is true and all the variables in between. I don't get into the arguing about this stuff too much because I personally think anybody who has not trained a minimum of 250 dogs, hands on training, is still serving an apprenticeship. They just do not have the experience or knowledge to proclaim that their methods and their methods only are correct. Balance is the word I don't see much on some of these threads and that worries me.


wvasko, I hear you. Even though I'm sure that I have NOT trained 250 dogs, I do feel strongly about my preferred methods of training, and know, too, that I have had great success, my current dogs being marvelous models of that success. I agree, though, that some dogs require tweaks in how I train, and I have used corrections on occasion, even with my current dogs, though only with a raised eyebrow or disapproval understood through body language. Those corrections were mild, and never jerks on choke chains; again, mainly disapproval shown through body language, which those dogs clearly understood, and chose to avoid by choosing the behavior I praised, and avoiding behaviors I "frowned" upon.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

Elana55 said:


> Correction based training in the wrong hands has ruined more dogs than positive reinforcement has. What was explained to me when I started learning Positive Reinforcement was this: A person who uses Positive Reinforcement incorrectly can end up with a fat happy dog that is not obedient. A person who uses corrections incorrectly can end up with a unhappy (or even aggressive) dog that is not obedient and has been damaged to the point of impossible return.


Since I am comparatively pro-correction training, I will take it upon myself to correct this meme. I'll stipulate to "correction based training [having] ruined more dogs...", but I don't know that it is true and I don't think you know it either. Let's say it is, though.

What I do object to is the notion that "a person who uses Positive Reinforcement incorrectly can end up with a fat happy dog that is not obedient", but somehow incorrect positive reinforcement does not exacerbate aggression. I'm not picking on you; I've seen/heard this asserted many times--and not just on DF. If this is true (and I know it is not) I'd love to have explained to me the mechanism by which rewards increase the likelihood of behaviors being repeated, with the sole exception of aggressive behaviors. If we are talking about incompetent/ignorant/ham-handed training, lets level the playing field by including the dumbasses of both camps.

As to which training failures a dog may come back from, a dog who's aggression has been exacerbated by rewards may not get a second chance either. I've lived in several places where there is only one outcome in the event of an unprovoked dog bite (and the provocation would have to be extreme for there to be an exception made). A dog who is reported for a bite is euthanized. End of story, end of dog. Hey, but at least nobody jerked his chain.


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

poodleholic said:


> A smack up side the head to a child is child abuse, pure and simple. Doing this to a dog is also abuse. How pathetic that an adult feels the need to give "harsh looks" and to smack a child or a dog. Says volumes about that person.


I have no idea how you correct children. All I know is what I've seen. I have seen parents on more than one occasion raise an eyebrow at a misbehaving child and I've seen that child instantly correct his/her behavior. I don't see this as abusive. If I see my child running toward the street, I'm not going to kindly ask them to stop, beg and plead with them if they don't and just give up if that doesn't work.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

wvasko said:


> I don't get into the arguing about this stuff...


Well, now you're all in.



> ...too much because I personally think anybody who has not trained a minimum of 250 dogs, hands on training, is still serving an apprenticeship. They just do not have the experience or knowledge to proclaim that their methods and their methods only are correct.


I find this comment interesting coming from someone who's older than the dirt I'm standing on and who continues to proclaim that he's still learning from dogs.  Nevertheless, I feel qualified by your standards to make the proclamations I do. 



> Balance is the word I don't see much on some of these threads and that worries me.


Balance in dog training means all things are weighed equally. This is not only misleading, it is a fruitless practice. I would go on to say Balance should be avoided, and if your training is Balanced, you have much more to learn (dog training is a mechanical skill after all)...if you're willing. 

A wise trainer once told me that our dogs are like piggy banks. The more you invest in them, the more you'll reap from the investment. Investments are appetitive consequences for behavior. Withdrawals are aversive consequences for behavior. If these two are balanced, you have a net gain of zero, and I would argue you are not reaping all the benefits of your dog. 

Then there are those dogs who will give you interest on investments and tax the heck out of you for withdrawals...or Elsa.


----------



## Trainer (Feb 18, 2009)

wvasko said:


> It disturbs me when I hear self proclaimed trainers talking about this way better or that way better and which ever side of the training attitude they happened to be standing on now, regardless of whatever side they stood on before, their new way is only way period.


It disturbs me anytime someone slides a choke chain or pinch collar over a dogs head in preperation to train a dog. There is a better way and just because a particular trainer isn't capable of doing it doesn't change that fact.



> I'm sorry in a real world dog training program, balance is what's needed to train dogs properly.


I'm sorry but if balance includes coersion, that is just not true. There is not an animal that can't be trained using positive methods.



> There are some dogs in the real world that 100% positive is the only way to go and with other dogs the exact opposite is true and all the variables in between.


Just because a particular trainer can't train a particular animal using positive methods doesn't mean it can't be done. It just means that trainer has to resort to less than desired methods. What trainer wouldn't want to use 100% positive techniques if they could do it efficiently with that particular animal?



> I don't get into the arguing about this stuff too much because I personally think anybody who has not trained a minimum of 250 dogs, hands on training, is still serving an apprenticeship.


According to your definition, my apprenticeship was over many years ago. 



> They just do not have the experience or knowledge to proclaim that their methods and their methods only are correct. Balance is the word I don't see much on some of these threads and that worries me.


It doesn't bother me. "Balance" in this context shouldn't be a goal. Teaching a dog to behave properly while creating the least amount of stress should be. The least amount is zero. I am glad to see that there are several good articulate positive trainers on this board. Hopefully others will aspire to reach their level.


----------



## poodleholic (Mar 15, 2007)

> If I see my child running toward the street, I'm not going to kindly ask them to stop, beg and plead with them if they don't and just give up if that doesn't work.


Neither would anyone else in their right mind. Supervison, and common sense go a long way. And, BTW, I never begged or pleaded with my children. Much of what they learned was through example.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

Marsh Muppet said:


> If this is true (and I know it is not) I'd love to have explained to me the mechanism by which rewards increase the likelihood of behaviors being repeated, with the sole exception of aggressive behaviors.


The mechanism is a simple understanding of learning theory. Operant behaviors, those which the dog voluntarily does, are subject to reinforcement. Respondent behaviors, aggression, is involuntary behavior, and is not subject to reinforcement. Respondent behaviors and aggression, however, are subject to being classically conditioned, thus the need to avoid "corrections" and adding antecedents that can be classically conditioned onto the behavior.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Curbside Prophet said:


> I've also seen some dogs learn what a neat trick it is to make their human spin by jumping on them. The dog will determine if your punishment is in fact punishing. Often is the case the dog's emotions are involved and he is acting on emotion. Jumping is one behavior dogs use to exhibit excitement. You can not/ should not punish emotions...emotions are not operant behaviors (behaviors the dog voluntarily does). Emotions are involuntary.


Well, I have to say that this is how I trained Wally not to jump on me.

He is still excited to see me (he'll come running up to me), but he'll sit there looking all alert, waiting for the invitation to jump up.

So, it's not like I drained him of his emotion - he's still excited. I just "explained" to him the behavior he should do when he is excited when I come back from being away.

Just did it through shaping (though at the time I didn't know I was doing it). He jumped - no reaction. He stood there staring - no reaction. He sat - he got the invitation to jump and got petted and rubbed, etc.



txcollies said:


> In reality, even positive training relies on some form of compulsion.
> 
> I wouldn't be to quick to label compulsion training as evil.



I was just about to post this as a response.

All training is compulsive. It's just the type of manip...er motivation you use, and the definitnion of the word "compulsive" you pick, imo.


----------



## Trainer (Feb 18, 2009)

Marsh Muppet said:


> If this is true (and I know it is not) I'd love to have explained to me the mechanism by which rewards increase the likelihood of behaviors being repeated, with the sole exception of aggressive behaviors.


There is a law in psychology that says basically, "_Rewarded behaviors will be repeated._" To expand on that. No animal on earth will waste energy on something for which they receive nothing in return. Even humans receive something for every action they take. Even when you scratch an itch, you receive a reward. Exercising is rewarding.

For the same reasons, "_Behaviors that are not rewarded will soon extinguish._" This is the foundation of positive reinforcement training and what makes it work. If the above weren't true, it would be impossible to train animals positively.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Corteo said:


> I would _much_ rather like my dog to obey on the first time. And no, my dog does not freeze.


So you have dog that when asked to perform a task he never ever ever seen or did before will perform it 100% correctly on the first time and never ever has any misunderstanding about what you want and how fast you want it, even though he doesn't know what you want?

To me, learning is making mistakes. I mean, even "non-positive" trainers use corrections, which means the dog made a mistake.


----------



## photo_grapher_gurl (Feb 27, 2009)

It sounds incredibly ineffective. You're not training a fish, you're training a dog that only understands dog behavior, which is leadership found through touch, voice, and force if need be. Without those, you pretty much let them get away with EVERYTHING.


----------



## Trainer (Feb 18, 2009)

KBLover said:


> All training is compulsive. It's just the type of manip...er motivation you use, and the definitnion of the word "compulsive" you pick, imo.


I strongly disagree. In positive training, the dog determines that performing the behavior asked of him is more rewarding than any other behavior availiable to him at that time. That is what motivation is about.

With compulsive training, the dog performs because the consequenses of not performing are stronger than the rewards performing any other behavior available to him. See the difference? 

With positive training there are no consequeses of not performing, just rewards for performing. Which method creates a stronger bone between human and animal?


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

photo_grapher_gurl said:


> It sounds incredibly ineffective. You're not training a fish, you're training a dog that only understands dog behavior, which is leadership found through touch, voice, and force if need be. Without those, you pretty much let them get away with EVERYTHING.


Dogs also communicate through body language - which is often enough for my dog. A hard stare, or a lean over him a bit, or me just being completely motionless. 

I mean, just this morning he was about to sneak and eat something off the ground. I just loomed over him a little and looked in his eyes and he walked away from it. Then we just kept doing what we were doing. No voice, no touch, no force. Just eyes and body.



Trainer said:


> I strongly disagree. In positive training, the dog determines that performing the behavior asked of him is more rewarding than any other behavior availiable to him at that time. That is what motivation is about.
> 
> With compulsive training, the dog performs because the consequenses of not performing are stronger than the rewards performing any other behavior available to him. See the difference?
> 
> With positive training there are no consequeses of not performing, just rewards for performing. Which method creates a stronger bone between human and animal?



compulsive
Adjective
1. resulting from or acting from a compulsion
2. irresistible or absorbing 

I choose definition two. 

He certainly gets absorbed and dosen't want to quit our shaping sessions and our training sessions (I'm primarily a positive trainer, especially during the learning phase of a behavior).

You pick definition one. 

But both, by definition, are compulsive.


----------



## Trainer (Feb 18, 2009)

KBLover said:


> compulsive
> Adjective
> 1. resulting from or acting from a compulsion
> 2. irresistible or absorbing
> ...


Compulsion
Noun
1. the act of compelling; constraint; coercion 

No, this is the definition I use. This is not used in positive training.


----------



## rosemaryninja (Sep 28, 2007)

KB, by looming over Wally and giving him the hard stare, aren't you also using a form of negative reinforcement? You introduce threatening body language and, after his response, remove it. The question is where do you draw the line with the definition of "negative"? Are we applying our human definition of "negative" -- no physical force is not negative/no correction-based training tools is not negative? Or are we applying the word "negative" in terms of learning theory?


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

KBLover said:


> Well, I have to say that this is how I trained Wally not to jump on me.
> 
> He is still excited to see me (he'll come running up to me), but he'll sit there looking all alert, waiting for the invitation to jump up.
> 
> ...


I'm not suggesting that this is a bad practice. I don't particularly find negative punishment useful or effective...in fact I find it's a waste of valuable training time. That's not saying I wouldn't do the same...it's saying I know the difference between ignoring the dog as a punishment (and proving it as such) and allowing the behavior to extinguish where reinforcement can be effective. The deduction I would hope you make and others is that the desired behavior was acquired through reinforcement. That's the only way it can be acquired.


----------



## pamperedpups (Dec 7, 2006)

photo_grapher_gurl said:


> It sounds incredibly ineffective. You're not training a fish, you're training a dog that only understands dog behavior, which is leadership found through touch, voice, and force if need be. Without those, you pretty much let them get away with EVERYTHING.


The discussion here may be about dogs, but positive reinforcement/negative punishment is also what is used to train dolphins, whales, monkeys, elephants, etc. in zoos and oceanariums.


----------



## Trainer (Feb 18, 2009)

photo_grapher_gurl said:


> It sounds incredibly ineffective. You're not training a fish, you're training a dog that only understands dog behavior, which is leadership found through touch, voice, and force if need be. Without those, you pretty much let them get away with EVERYTHING.


Positive training does not equal permissive. Positive training is very effective. More so than coersive training. I agree about leadership and it is an important aspect of positive training but force has no place. 

Dogs are not nearly as smart as humans. They are pretty easily outsmarted. When you have to use force on your dog, you are admitting that he is smarter than you are.


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

Curbside Prophet said:


> I'm not suggesting that this is a bad practice. I don't particularly find negative punishment useful or effective...in fact I find it's a waste of valuable training time. That's not saying I wouldn't do the same...it's saying I know the difference between ignoring the dog as a punishment (and proving it as such) and allowing the behavior to extinguish where reinforcement can be effective. The deduction I would hope you make and others is that the desired behavior was acquired through reinforcement. That's the only way it can be acquired.


Which is why I stand by my original assertion that both positive and negative re-inforcers have a place in training. Positive teaches the dog that the behavior is good. Negative teaches that the behavior is bad.


----------



## rosemaryninja (Sep 28, 2007)

Negative reinforcement is not the devil. Just because I don't ever beat my dog, just because I don't use choke collars, just because I train with a clicker... doesn't mean I never use negative reinforcement. Every time I see Spunky showing too much interest in the trash bin, for example, I'll give her a low "Spunkyyyy." She leaves it, I say "Good girl!", give her an ear rub and occasionally pop her a treat if I have one handy. Am I being abusive? Certainly not. Negative reinforcement is not abuse, and _if done right_, it has its place in training.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

photo_grapher_gurl said:


> It sounds incredibly ineffective.


Sounds or is? It is neither if you understand the process. 



> You're not training a fish, you're training a dog that only understands dog behavior, which is leadership found through touch, voice, and force if need be.


A fish, a snail, an ape, heck even a cat (though I reluctantly include cats) are all learning creatures, the laws by which they learn ARE the SAME, but they are not human. The goal of training is to define these things for our dogs in ways that are appetitive. If you mean to say we must also define them as aversive, please give me one humane reason why. 



> Without those, you pretty much let them get away with EVERYTHING.


Why?



hulkamaniac said:


> Negative teaches that the behavior is bad.


Not true. Negative reinforcement increases the frequency of the DESIRED behavior. Example: dog biting a bite bag while the trainer teaches "out" with leash pops. The trainer repeatedly leash pops the dog until the dog *releases* (the desired behavior). Negative reinforcement strengthens behavior, it does not teach biting is bad.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

Curbside Prophet said:


> Respondent behaviors, aggression, is involuntary behavior, and is not subject to reinforcement.


In the case of a fear producing stimulus, yes. However dogs are quite capable of consciously choosing strategies (i.e., behaviors) that advance their self interests. They're pretty good at generalizing those strategies, too. Either way, the result is the same. Call it what you like, but if an aggressive display (or screaming in mock pain) produces the dog's desired outcome, you will see more of that behavior.


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

Disagree. Example, I went out for fast food for lunch today. I ordered my food and they gave me a cup I could take to the fountain and fill up. I wanted Dr Pepper. There were two Dr Pepper dispensers. I picked one for not particular reason. It filled up half way, then the foam started to get to the top of the cup so I pulled the cup back. The dispenser kept pouring out pop. I reached around behind the stream, popped the trigger back in place and the stream stopped. I now had half a cup of Dr Pepper. Because I did not want to have a flow of pop that wouldn't stop (negative result) or repeat my behavior of having to pop the trigger back into place (negative result) I used the other Dr Pepper dispenser to top off my drink. My negative experiences with the other dispenser diminished my willingnes to use it again.

I'm sure everyone here has gone into a retail store and had a horrible experience. Maybe the sales people were rude or belligerent, perhaps the store was filthy, maybe they short changed you, whatever. Does it not make you reluctant to go do business with that store in the future?


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

Curbside Prophet said:


> practice. I don't particularly find negative punishment useful or effective...in fact I find it's a waste of valuable training time.


And now I know too, tho my dog has showmn me this a jillion times.. I kept at it. Thank you for stating this. It mirrors my frustration (and points out my insanity.. where I kept doing the same thing expecting different results...).



Curbside Prophet said:


> The deduction I would hope you make and others is that the desired behavior was acquired through reinforcement. That's the only way it can be acquired.


OK.. so is this to say you ONLY reinforce what you want. What about the things the dog finds self rewarding.. self reinforcing? How does a trainer over come those things and what would be the suggested method? How can I be more reinforcing in the behavior I want INSTEAD of the behavior the dog finds so GREAT (self rewarding/reinforcing) to do? 

This seems to be the old adage of "becoming the most interesting thing in your dog's environment." Yet, sometimes, the behavior we don't want is SO rewarding to the dog.. to the point where nothing we have or do is more interesting. What would you suggest? Physical Aversives attempt to make the behavior unrewarding.. by introducing various levels of discomfort. How can I extinguish self rewarding behavior and replace it with behavior that I want but not use physical aversives (which I am avoiding)?

This is my buring question... LOL



Curbside Prophet said:


> A fish, a snail, an ape, heck even a cat (though I reluctantly include cats) are all learning creatures, the laws by which they learn ARE the SAME, but they are not human. The goal of training is to define these things for our dogs in ways that are appetitive.


Whoa Whoa.. EZ on them Kitties! I find it EASIER to cats than my dog and my cats taught me you can't use physical aversives on cats. Ever. They were the ones to teach me to train thru Pos. Reinforcement cuz you use a physical aversive on a cat you may never be forgiven. You will most assuredly cause fear and once you have a scared animal the training session is done. 

If you train a cat you learn huge amounts about observation, patience, and positive methods. 

Truly, my cats leave food for me when I come home after work. They will leave food if I call them. The dog will leave her food after she is finished (she will leave if I call her, but not of her own choice). She looks up from it, gives a wag and is back at the rations.


----------



## pamperedpups (Dec 7, 2006)

Elana55 said:


> OK.. so is this to say you ONLY reinforce what you want. What about the things the dog finds self rewarding.. self reinforcing? How does a trainer over come those things and what would be the suggested method? How can I be more reinforcing in the behavior I want INSTEAD of the behavior the dog finds so GREAT (self rewarding/reinforcing) to do?
> 
> This seems to be the old adage of "becoming the most interesting thing in your dog's environment." Yet, sometimes, the behavior we don't want is SO rewarding to the dog.. to the point where nothing we have or do is more interesting. What would you suggest? Physical Aversives attempt to make the behavior unrewarding.. by introducing various levels of discomfort. How can I extinguish self rewarding behavior and replace it with behavior that I want but not use physical aversives (which I am avoiding)?
> 
> This is my buring question... LOL


Is this a pop quiz?

Premack it. (I assume we are talking about a behavior like jumping up, sniffing, marking, etc.)


----------



## Entwine (Jan 14, 2009)

This thread sounds almost exactly like the potential discussion between myself and one of my boyfriend's friends. He has a two year-old Husky that is very well behaved--but I also sense an unease about her actions. It's not that this friend is cruel outright, it's that he believes that "dominating" your dog is the only way to train it.

He was over for a visit the other night and Misty (who is only six months old, mind you) got ahold of a sandwich my boyfriend left on a low coffee table. I told her to leave it, she scarfed down whatever she had in her mouth and walked away from the sandwich. Now, I want to get to the point wherein I can tell her to leave it and she'll drop the food in her mouth, but that's something we're working on. Neither my boyfriend nor I punished her, simply picked up the sandwich and praised her for walking away and coming to me. (She does this because she is treated for leaving it). Bryan, my boyfriend's friend, seemed very upset that I chastised my boyfriend for leaving the sandwich at such an easily accessible height unattended.

He continually insisted that we needed to "train her better" and that after he corrected his dog when she got some of his food, she never did it again. He tackled her, rolled her, and pinned her down growling. So, yes, I can see that the desired behavior was extinguished--but at what expense? His dog seems very nervous when food is out--she won't even look at it, which seems to me a fearful avoidance. Maybe I'm wrong.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

hulkamaniac said:


> My negative experiences with the other dispenser diminished my willingnes to use it again.


Not a very good example. All you're demonstrating is that punishment forces the animal to change his strategy. Did this experience keep you from Dr. Pepper dispensing behavior in the future? If not, the experience was not punishing. Punishment does not teach you what not to do...it teaches you to do something else. I don't want that animal to choose his own strategy, I want him to choose mine. You do that through reinforcement, and reinforcement only. 



> I'm sure everyone here has gone into a retail store and had a horrible experience. Maybe the sales people were rude or belligerent, perhaps the store was filthy, maybe they short changed you, whatever. Does it not make you reluctant to go do business with that store in the future?


If you've gone shopping at other stores, shopping behavior was not punished. If you're reluctant to go back to the same store (the one that attempted to punish you), this is an example of classical conditioned. Meaning, your behavior is the result of your emotions, and this is exactly the reason to advocate against the use of aversion.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

As I said on my very 1st post
Holy Moley Batman here we go again. Just one short statement to *trainer*. When I said balance I wasn't thinking about Solomon and cutting dog in half, then training half all positive, 2nd half all negative. I just assumed you knew that sometimes some dogs have to be trained differently and since I don't have the mental or writing skills necessary to match wits with you I'm going to retreat as I have a couple new Labs to work. Most of the time I can understand what their talking about it's the people that confuse me. I'm gone.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

pamperedpups said:


> Premack it. (I assume we are talking about a behavior like jumping up, sniffing, marking, etc.)


I have an adder...not just "Premack it"...Premack the H - E - double hockey sticks out of it. There are other strategies too...management, and/or putting the behavior on cue.


----------



## mostlymutts (Jan 10, 2009)

Curbside Prophet said:


> I have an adder...not just "Premack it"...Premack the H - E - double hockey sticks out of it. There are other strategies too...management, and/or putting the behavior on cue.


I only found one definition for this:

Premack principle
A theory stating that a stronger response or a preferred response will reinforce a weaker response. 

I understand the words, I just can't "see" it. Can someone explain it?


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

mostlymutts said:


> I understand the words, I just can't "see" it. Can someone explain it?


http://life.familyeducation.com/dogs/pet-training/47296.html


----------



## mostlymutts (Jan 10, 2009)

Man. I was disappointed when the article was over. 

Thanks. That made it very clear.


----------



## Tofu_pup (Dec 8, 2008)

Curbside Prophet said:


> http://life.familyeducation.com/dogs/pet-training/47296.html


Among the many examples, there was one of ignoring an excited dog until it exhibits a desired behavior followed by the reward(i.e. going outside). Maybe you've lost me but I thought that you just condemned KBlovers method to get a calm greeting out of Wally(?).


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

wvasko said:


> As I said on my very 1st post
> Holy Moley Batman here we go again. Just one short statement to *trainer*. When I said balance I wasn't thinking about Solomon and cutting dog in half, then training half all positive, 2nd half all negative. I just assumed you knew that sometimes *some dogs have to be trained differently* and since I don't have the mental or writing skills necessary to match wits with you I'm going to retreat as I have a couple new Labs to work. Most of the time I can understand what their talking about it's the people that confuse me. I'm gone.


That's basically all I was saying. Some dogs have to be trained differently because they respond better to different methods. That's all.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

Tofu_pup said:


> Among the many examples, there was one of ignoring an excited dog until it exhibits a desired behavior followed by the reward(i.e. going outside). Maybe you've lost me but I thought that you just condemned KBlovers method to get a calm greeting out of Wally(?).


Sorry, I'm not meaning to be confusing, but this is what I said earlier RE: KB's approach... 



Curbside Prophet said:


> I'm not suggesting that this is a bad practice. I don't particularly find negative punishment useful or effective...in fact I find it's a waste of valuable training time. *That's not saying I wouldn't do the same...it's saying I know the difference between ignoring the dog as a punishment (and proving it as such) and allowing the behavior to extinguish where reinforcement can be effective.* The deduction I would hope you make and others is that the desired behavior was acquired through reinforcement. That's the only way it can be acquired.


Specific to your PM, and jumping in general. I teach a bomb proof sit (preferred). If the dog knows the cue, I'll simply cue for sit. If the dog is still learning, I'll lure the dog into a sit. If the dog is too excited, I will choose to wait/ignore the dog. Not as punishment, but rather as a necessary step for an opportunity to reward something I like presents itself. 

The point I was trying to make earlier is in the last sentence of the above quote. To say it another way, you do not get behavior from punishment. Punishment does not teach the dog what to do, right from wrong, it only, if effective (and that's a question I like to answer, others like to assume), reduces the frequency of the target behavior in the future.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Curbside Prophet said:


> Specific to your PM, and jumping in general. I teach a bomb proof sit (preferred). If the dog knows the cue, I'll simply cue for sit. If the dog is still learning, I'll lure the dog into a sit. If the dog is too excited, I will choose to wait/ignore the dog. Not as punishment, but rather as a necessary step for an opportunity to reward something I like presents itself.
> 
> The point I was trying to make earlier is in the last sentence of the above quote. To say it another way, you do not get behavior from punishment. Punishment does not teach the dog what to do, right from wrong, it only, if effective (and that's a question I like to answer, others like to assume), reduces the frequency of the target behavior in the future.


But is what I did punishment or just applying Premack?

He wants to jump on me (high prob. behavior), I want him to sit and just look at me (low, probably very low prob. behavior). 

When he sat (gave me what I want), then I invited him to jump up and get petted, greet me eagerly, etc. (gave him what he wants).

Based on that article - I did Premack, just in a shaping-esque (i.e. he figures it out instead of me telling him the answer) sort of way.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

KBLover said:


> But is what I did punishment or just applying Premack?
> 
> He wants to jump on me (high prob. behavior), I want him to sit and just look at me (low, probably very low prob. behavior).
> 
> ...


Yup! x 10 character limit.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

hulkamaniac said:


> That's basically all I was saying. Some dogs have to be trained differently because they respond better to different methods. That's all.


I think the problem is the line of thought that gets mentioned that positive reinforcement "doesn't work" or positive punishment "doesn't work" when the reality is that any method works based on the dog/handler team and the effectiveness of applying the chosen method(s).

What you said is right in my view. Really, I don't think there's a ton of disagreement with that. Just like I don't think people actually think "balance" means doing half of this and half of that like wvasko mentioned in his post. I just think both of those points are really non-issues in these kinds of discussions because, really, who disagrees with them? IMO, Every method has some positive and some negative (or perhaps better said as what I want and what HE wants) - which allows balance - applying both sides of the learning coin.



Curbside Prophet said:


> Yup! x 10 character limit.


YAY I got one right!


----------



## txcollies (Oct 23, 2007)

wvasko said:


> It disturbs me when I hear self proclaimed trainers talking about this way better or that way better and which ever side of the training attitude they happened to be standing on now, regardless of whatever side they stood on before, their new way is only way period. I'm sorry in a real world dog training program, balance is what's needed to train dogs properly. There are some dogs in the real world that 100% positive is the only way to go and with other dogs the exact opposite is true and all the variables in between. I don't get into the arguing about this stuff too much because I personally think anybody who has not trained a minimum of 250 dogs, hands on training, is still serving an apprenticeship. They just do not have the experience or knowledge to proclaim that their methods and their methods only are correct. Balance is the word I don't see much on some of these threads and that worries me.


Well said, I agree completely.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

For years I have told people about dog's jumping as it is one of the 1st complaint people have and I explain to them (my own lack of education words) that I allow dogs after some really good work to jump up, I thump my chest and up they jump and I really make a big deal of it petting, happy words etc. I just call it a pressure release and happy moment. It has to be earned though. I have no idea nor do I care if it's an accepted training program, it's just something I have always done.


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

pamperedpups said:


> Is this a pop quiz?
> 
> Premack it. (I assume we are talking about a behavior like jumping up, sniffing, marking, etc.)


I have. It is really a NILIF approach. Mostly it works. But not for jumping up because it means the dog actually gets to jump up and that is something that must must MUST be extinguished. Permanently and FOREVER. I have elderly parents. 

IOW's I use premack for a lot of things. Most of those things start with attention. It works. But for this ONE BEHAVIOR I do not want to encourage the behavior AT ALL. I want to extinguish it. 

She does not jump up on me. The issue is new people. I want that extinguished for a variety of reasons.

As much as I want to use a positive method, it has not worked. I paid ppl to help me. I attempted to generalize the behavior I wanted (sit quietly instead of jumping up). I got no where at all and finally have reverted to physical corrections which I wish I did not have to use. However, it has been the only way I can get the response I want (staying in a sit). 

The issue with physical corrections is that it only works when the dog is on leash. Dog is not stupid. She knows when the leash is on. I want her to stay in a sit leash or no leash, when she sees new people. 



Curbside Prophet said:


> I have an adder...not just "Premack it"...Premack the H - E - double hockey sticks out of it. There are other strategies too...management, and/or putting the behavior on cue.


I put the behavior on cue. What a mistake (with this dog). She finds the behavior so much fun she gets the idea that "Oh she showed me I can so now I can.." so that just did not work. I tried leaving the room if she offered the behavior without cue. I tried turning my back.. and yeah.. she likes the spin thing. 



wvasko said:


> For years I have told people about dog's jumping as it is one of the 1st complaint people have and I explain to them (my own lack of education words) that I allow dogs after some really good work to jump up, I thump my chest and up they jump and I really make a big deal of it petting, happy words etc. I just call it a pressure release and happy moment. It has to be earned though. I have no idea nor do I care if it's an accepted training program, it's just something I have always done.


As you have said.. every dog is different. In this dog's case, I have come up with the replacement behavior (sitting quietly) I ask this dog to sit off leash everywhere we go. I can ask her to sit when she is 100 years away and she will. 

But if a new person comes along she jumps on them. Ignores me. I have actually considered using an E collar.. and the ONLY reason I do not is because I worry she might react to the E collar by biting the person she wants to jump on. With my luck she would jump up first and then bite them in the face.

I truly have NEVER had this much trouble extinguishing this behavior in a dog in my life. 

If she gets up, even to stand, I correct her and put her back in a sit. The corrections are quick and are strong enough to get her attention and she DOES SITand then she gets attention from the new person. If I hand the leash to the new person she is all done.. gets up and immediately jumps up.. and every time she jumps up she is self rewarded. 

I will reiterate that I do not like this correction approach but so far, it is the ONLY one I can get to work at any time. 

This behavior is frustrating me no end.. as you probably can tell.... 

I am sure there will be responses to this and I hope they will be of benefit to me. If I do not answer it is because the network I am on is just not working well.. I type and the words show up a few seconds later.. Very aggravating.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Well I got nothing to say to elana about her training, because I was considering if we decide to get another personal dog, just shipping it to her to have her start it the 1st year. Then I will dive in and be the bad cop.


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

I cannot believe anyone would send a dog to me for training.. LOL

I think a lot.. I try hard.. but really and truly and by your definition WV I am a RANK amateur. Yes.. I have trained some dogs but mostly for my own purpose or use. 

And here I am with this dog and what I have always perceived as a simple problem.. jumping up.. and I am having a devil of a time changing it... and this after training her to do all kinds of things well. 

Ultimately I don't think I am a very good dog trainer at all.


----------



## animalsafe (Feb 17, 2009)

Such interesting debate.

I pondered for a moment about the verbiage and perspectives being tossed back and forth and I was reminded of a experience a well known trainer once shared with me. This person had a highly trained obedience and tracking champion GSD who had been trained/conditioned primarily by the use of positive reinforcement/motivation methods. She told of how her intact male dog could not be trusted off leash while in a fenced in area unsupervised ( to include 8 and 10 foot high fencing) as it would quite often scale fencing to engage particular interests especially (but not limited to) any nearby females in season which resulted in many various problems over a period of time.
She described how she and other certified trainers with many years of experience had spent roughly 7 months and a large number of resources in failing attempts to resolve the issue of being able to trust the dog to not scale fencing at inappropriate times . She also explained the reasons why she preferred not to have this dog neutered and resort to using more restrictive managment options which I found reasonable.

To make this story short it was not untill she employed the use of a compulsive process that incorporated the use of a very powerful electric fence charger and the use of a remote shock collar that included the capability of administering a tone . To further shorten the length of this story she reported that the process took only 3 days that included proofing the dogs response behavior to heavy distractions to include bitches that were in season in 3 different locations where the dog had a history of jumping/scaling fencing. The dog in the last 2 years has not jumped/scaled fencing (without a command) to include the shortend 6 foot high fencing the dog is now most often exercised in.

I could only speculate as to how many different perspectives anyone might have about this story to include it's accuracy or the intent for having posted it.

My question is however ...does the means always justify the end regardless of what works? Do you feel that there are situations where different people and different dogs may benefit from approaches that otherwise could have been gained by a different (non-compulsive) process/approach possibly in time that might simply require more, patience, skillset, experience, experimental adaptation,....resources?

Maybe another couple questions need asked...

In judging or determining the *MEANS*can we in reality (considering all that is possible and probable in human and dog behavior) reasonably expect to draw a line in the sand to using little or no aversives,force training,compulsive condtioning,ect,ect,ect,ect,ect,ect,ect,ect,?

Is it not possible and does it not occur that sometimes failing to gain a particular resolution using only a non-compulsive approach can result in more of a disservice to the dog?

Cheers


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

Elena, there is that chance that being with you is more rewarding, you just happen to be a piece of the puzzle when greeting guests. So I'm wondering is abandonment training would help. Abandonment training requires two other people. Someone of novelty (a Guinea pig, and a third person holding a long line off to the side for safety reasons. The process is simple, you with her regular leash approach the novel person and the second your dog shows any excitement in the novel person, you throw the leash down make a noise and sprint in the opposite direction. Being abandoned tempts most dogs to chase, and when she does, she is heavily rewarded. The process is repeated and proximity and behavior noted with each attempt. 

I don't recommend doing this alone, though you can, and it's preferred that the person holding the long line assist in reading the dog's body language to prompt you. 

Once the dog shows some control approaching the novel person, generalizing the behavior you want is resumed.


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

I don't know about the sex drive in a dog.. typically sex will out weigh all other things in the environment (we are always competing with the environment for our dogs attentiveness). It sure is that way with humans! 

I do believe, in my heart and soul, that there is a NON compulsive way to get Atka to sit instead of jumping up. I believe, beyond that, there is an expeditious way to attain her choosing to sit instead of jumping. 

I entirely believe my lack of skill as a trainer is the reason I have not been able to extinguish this behavior in my dog. It may be I have another weak spot in my program and this is evidence of that. It may be my lack of experience as a trainer (no 250 dogs here!). It is most assuredly my inability to communicate what I want and that the results of doing what I want will give her more than the self reinforcing behavior of jumping up. IOW's if she would stay in a sit people, and especially her favorite, _little kids_ would come up to her and give her unending amounts of attention.. treats.. luvin' and play!

If I was smarter I could tell her.. and she would understand.. and I would not have to resort to physical intervention.

Thanks CP.. We Simul-posted again.... I will see if I can enlist a "victim" (or two or three) and give it a try!


----------



## Sophie's Mum (Jan 24, 2009)

WVasko, you can come train my Golden Retreiver anytime . I'd trust that you'd know when she needs correction and what type and when she needs rewards. Like you, I think it's all about balance. I'm positive that MY Golden will flourish with softer corrections and heavier rewards, yet I think that all dogs need corrections, be it a look, a repeat of a behaviour they don't want to do, a pop with a leash, or an firm 'no'. Depends on the dog.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Curbside Prophet said:


> Elena, there is that chance that being with you is more rewarding, you just happen to be a piece of the puzzle when greeting guests. So I'm wondering is abandonment training would help. Abandonment training requires two other people. Someone of novelty (a Guinea pig, and a third person holding a long line off to the side for safety reasons. The process is simple, you with her regular leash approach the novel person and the second your dog shows any excitement in the novel person, you throw the leash down make a noise and sprint in the opposite direction. Being abandoned tempts most dogs to chase, and when she does, she is heavily rewarded. The process is repeated and proximity and behavior noted with each attempt.
> 
> I don't recommend doing this alone, though you can, and it's preferred that the person holding the long line assist in reading the dog's body language to prompt you.
> 
> Once the dog shows some control approaching the novel person, generalizing the behavior you want is resumed.


Very interesting, I definitely see the possibilities and I see no harm involved. Not that you needed my stamp of approval. I just like dog problem solving.

I do see a couple minor problems that work arounds could be in order. Having read some of elana's earlier replies on this problem she has had problems after explaining to people what she would like them to do and it was a total wash-out. The people would lose their cool and either want to love Atka or some got a tad standoffish because of a GSD. Sprinting could also be a problem. (glad I don't have to sprint) That being said I do like the idea though. Whether it produces the desired result or not you would learn from the process and learn more about the dog.

Sophie's Mum
Thank you. at least I have somebody fooled with my training knowledge


----------



## Sophie's Mum (Jan 24, 2009)

wvasko said:


> Sophie's Mum
> Thank you. at least I have somebody fooled with my training knowledge



Hey there's a sucker born everyday right?


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Well we both understand that the internet is full of charlatans and one has to have the sense doG gave a goose to survive.


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

Yes.. WV.. I will try to sprint.. but with bad knees it may be more of a wobble and stumble. I am SURE my dog will find it VERY amusing, especially if I have a wreck while attempting the sprint routine. 

The other day when I was working on some electrical stuff in the house and the juice was SUPPOSED to be OFF and I "discovered" it was not, Atka found it VERY amusing when ened up 1/2 way across the room with smke and a blown breaker.. Fact is, she seemed to be saying, "That was FUN! Can we do it again?" 

Of course, maybe I could just use the stock prod on myself and the results would probably be WAY more fun to her than just hobbling/sort of spriniting off.... she finds a great deal of pleasure in seeing me get nailed with a correction. 

I am starting to think that I need hazard pay when working with this dog.


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

Sophie's Mum said:


> WVasko, you can come train my Golden Retreiver anytime . I'd trust that you'd know when she needs correction and what type and when she needs rewards. Like you, I think it's all about balance. I'm positive that MY Golden will flourish with softer corrections and heavier rewards, yet I think that all dogs need corrections, be it a look, a repeat of a behaviour they don't want to do, a pop with a leash, or an firm 'no'. Depends on the dog.


I agree. Let's say you own a puppy and you come home to discover the puppy chewing on the leg of your sofa. Now, unless you really want a new sofa and the SO won't let you have one, this is probably not an acceptable behavior. You basically have a couple of options. You can ignore the behavior, wait until the pup starts chewing on one her chew toys and then click, treat, praise, reward, etc.... so she learns that chewing on her chew toys is better than chewing on the leg of the couch (of course your couch could be a goner by then). You could distract the puppy with some interesting toy and some treats which does stop the behavior (but may also simply be teaching the pup that if they chew on the couch they get treats). Or you can scold the puppy for chewing on the couch, then give the puppy an appropriate chew toy.

For me, the last one is the best choice though it involves negative reinforcement.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

hulkamaniac said:


> You can ignore the behavior, wait until the pup starts chewing on one her chew toys and then click, treat, praise, reward, etc.... so she learns that chewing on her chew toys is better than chewing on the leg of the couch (of course your couch could be a goner by then).


Why would anyone risk the health of their dog for one opportunity to reinforce the target behavior? I can't fathom a reason so I'll say this is not an option. 



> You could distract the puppy with some interesting toy and some treats which does stop the behavior (but may also simply be teaching the pup that if they chew on the couch they get treats).


You've described bribery. Bribery should be avoided, so I would say this is also not an option. 



> Or you can scold the puppy for chewing on the couch, then give the puppy an appropriate chew toy.
> 
> For me, the last one is the best choice though it involves negative reinforcement.


1) scolding a dog is not negative reinforcement. It's positive punishment.
2) how exactly does this solve an owner absent problem? Sure you can scold the dog when you're there, but how exactly do you do that when you're not? All you're teaching the dog is precisely the time when he can chew the couch...when you're absent.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

That's why I crate, poor people know that crates are cheaper than couches.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

Curbside Prophet said:


> 2) how exactly does this solve an owner absent problem? Sure you can scold the dog when you're there, but how exactly do you do that when you're not. All you're teaching the dog is precisely the time when he can chew the couch...when you're absent.


The age old solution to this quandary--you do know that clever humans figured this out long ago--is to trick the dog into thinking you are out of the picture, while still retaining the ability to enforce the "no breaking my stuff" rule. In this age of technology, you could do this from your office across town (assuming the boss doesn't mind you babysitting your dog on company time).


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

Marsh Muppet said:


> The age old solution to this quandary--you do know that clever humans figured this out long ago--is to trick the dog into thinking you are out of the picture, while still retaining the ability to enforce the "no breaking my stuff" rule.


Trick the dog? You mean like a magician's wand poofing into a bouquet of flowers? Or a rabbit pulled out of an empty top hat? As clever as humans are, dogs are not that dumb. I'm being facetious but not at the expense of being realistic.


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

Marsh Muppet said:


> The age old solution to this quandary--you do know that clever humans figured this out long ago--is to trick the dog into thinking you are out of the picture, while still retaining the ability to enforce the "no breaking my stuff" rule. In this age of technology, you could do this from your office across town (assuming the boss doesn't mind you babysitting your dog on company time).


To be honest, it's not just a trick that applies to dogs. I remember many times as a child being scared to do something based on the fear that my parents were somehow watching me from a distance.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

I'm the last person to underestimate a dog's intelligence. Dogs aren't smart in the same way people are, but to paraphrase the (likely apocryphal) Native American saying: a dog is a genius at being a dog. They're extremely cunning, but their intellectual weakness lies in predicting what they can't detect with their senses. They aren't hard to fool.


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

One of the reasons I avoid positive Punishment as much as I can with dogs, cats and other animals has to do with the sort of things Hulkamaniac describes... 

Positive punishment from my parents taught me the following things:
1.) I could do things they did not like if they were not around.
2.) I could do things they did not like if they did not find out.
3.) My Father was someone to be afraid of (this lasted into adulthood.. and then the fear turned into something else less than complimentary.. and was not repsect).
3.) Parents could not be trusted to love you because they could turn on you. 
4.) Parents could and would hurt you even if they were wrong and you had not done the "deed" which you were being punished for.. but they discovered the "deed" and blamed you. 

Now, my parents rarely resorted to hitting me. They would yell at me. They also showed me love and attention and we did have fun. However, due to the positive punishments they doled out.. and mostly this was Dad, I NEVER EVER believed them when they said they loved me. Add to this that a great deal of the time I truly disliked them and sometimes openly hated them. This lasted into early adulthood.

I was usually obedient, but that was the price. 

Honestly, if that is what you want from your kids, go for it. 

In taking that list and applying it to learning and training my dog to do approriate things I look at it this way:

1.) My dog should do the things I want because I work hard to make that the better choice.. and a positive YAY! experience for her. 
2.) It won't matter if I find out or not.. there won't be pain to the dog if I do. 
3.) My dog will not be afraid of me.
4.) I can be trusted (to not inflict pain and to prevent anyone else from inflicting pain).
5.) My dog knows I will not hurt her. 

That is my goal. That is why I have gone to mostly positive reinforcement. That is why I get very frustrated when I am not clever enough or a good enough trainer to come up with a positive way to extinguish and/or redirect a behavior. 

.. and to that end I come on this forum to try to find answers when the questions go beyond what I have read... or what I can figure out... 

Cuz dang.. I want to train my dog in a manner that is way better than the way I got trained as a kid. 

A pos. re. trainer told me once that the reason we use positive punishment on our dogs is because we had it used on us as kids. Dogs are not kids and there is a better way for both dogs AND kids. That better way does not mean there are not consequences for poor choices.. it means the consequences do not result in fear, dislike, and mistrust directed at the trainer. This was a light bulb moment for me.


----------



## animalsafe (Feb 17, 2009)

I always wondered why I never trusted Marines. Now I wonder if my one dog really respects, loves and trusts me having used a prong collar to teach loose lead walking. I can only hope in my case that dogs do not think or percieve all things the same way we humans do as often suggested..... in terms of love,happiness,trust, and respect and are more forgiving. 

Thanks for such a great insight. Such a sad story and a powerful one.

cheers


----------



## pugmom (Sep 10, 2008)

You don't have to trust them....but you should respect them and the job they do (Marines or any of our armed forces)


----------



## animalsafe (Feb 17, 2009)

My Mother and father were Marines as I was a military brat and I had little respect for them in terms of there parenting. One can only have so much love,trust, and respect for anyone that uses force to effect/condition behavior be it humans or dogs.

I know what Elana55 is talking about in her references believe me.


----------



## pugmom (Sep 10, 2008)

animalsafe said:


> My Mother and father were Marines as I was a military brat and I had little respect for them in terms of there parenting. One can only have so much love,trust, and respect for anyone that uses force to effect/condition behavior be it humans or dogs.
> 
> I know what Elana55 is talking about in her references believe me.


I understand that was your situation and its very sad you had to grow up in that environment....but there are many Military families that are not like that as well ......so you can chose to not respect/trust YOUR family...but its a huge leap to say it about all Military people....My grandfather was in the navy for 25 years and is one of the best grandfathers anyone could ask for....My brother and My Brother in law are both Marines...they love their families I have never even seen them raise there voices to their kids 

sorry to veer off topic....

I wonder were police would lie in the whole..... force to effect/condition ?


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

animalsafe said:


> I always wondered why I never trusted Marines. Now I wonder if my one dog really respects, loves and trusts me having used a prong collar to teach loose lead walking. I can only hope in my case that dogs do not think or percieve all things the same way we humans do as often suggested..... in terms of love,happiness,trust, and respect and are more forgiving.
> 
> Thanks for such a great insight. Such a sad story and a powerful one.
> 
> cheers


AhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhHHHHHHH! That sigh of relief is that being old school I had/have none of those worries. I was more interested in being a parent than a friend so that was not a big problem either.


----------



## animalsafe (Feb 17, 2009)

"My grandfather was in the navy for 25 years and is one of the best grandfathers anyone could ask for....My brother and My Brother in law are both Marines...they love their families I have never even seen them raise there voices to their kids "

I did not imply that THEY did not love me..My implication is in the using force and punishment to condition behavior regardless of the Branch of service or non-service. The Marines in general just tend to use more force in what they do than most and that is why I do not trust,respect, or love anyone that does regardless of who they are.... I met many service kids while being a military kid and I cannot think of anyone who ever mentioned not having been punished or force trained let alone having had a voice raised at some point. Marines love to raise thier voice as that is what they do.

Maybe this is why I have such a interest in non-compulsive behavioral condtioning now that I think about it and possibly feel some guilt.


----------



## pugmom (Sep 10, 2008)

animalsafe said:


> "My grandfather was in the navy for 25 years and is one of the best grandfathers anyone could ask for....My brother and My Brother in law are both Marines...they love their families I have never even seen them raise there voices to their kids "
> 
> I did not imply that THEY did not love me..My implication is in the using force and punishment to condition behavior regardless of the Branch of service or non-service. The Marines in general just tend to use more force in what they do than most and that is why I do not trust,respect, or love anyone that does regardless of who they are....


In their family life or work???....those are two very different things


----------



## animalsafe (Feb 17, 2009)

compulsive methods and force training I am starting to realize need not be used anywhere at anytime be it dog,human,bird,cat,fish,dolphin, ect....

there are better ways it seems..


----------



## pugmom (Sep 10, 2008)

animalsafe said:


> compulsive methods and force training I am starting to realize need not be used anywhere at anytime be it dog,human,bird,cat,fish,dolphin, ect....
> 
> there are better ways it seems..


Well that didn't really answer my question but ok

When it comes to the military or police...what would your ideal way be?....in regards to their job.

When it comes to home life...IMO yes there probably is a better way to do a lot of things.....but every family is so different that I can't say any one way is the only way.


----------



## animalsafe (Feb 17, 2009)

pugmom said:


> Well that didn't really answer my question but ok
> 
> 
> IMO yes there probably is a better way to do a lot of things......


I am glad we agree and that is why everyone needs educated on this fact so that every family or person can be the same in this regard. That is the point of all of the debate and science to learning. Don't you agree?

To answer your question... If we put these understandings to use cops and dog trainers would not NEED to use force and punishment!.... That is the UTOPIA we should all strive for in nature should we not? Not to or anything less will surely result in continuation of the status quo. It may be reasonable to say that if we can educate everyone who works with dogs to understand this we can then move on to making the entire world a better place in which to live. Everyone will can exist loving,respecting, and trusting each other rather than all the hatred and mistrust that we now experience daily and all the ugly things that go along with it.

Just think..no more CM adversing dogs and VS aversing humans...


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

animalsafe said:


> compulsive methods and force training I am starting to realize need not be used anywhere at anytime be it dog,human,bird,cat,fish,dolphin, ect....
> 
> there are better ways it seems..


Whether you are driving a car, dancing, dining out, everybody has their own style and attitudes when going through life. It seems to me you are having a hard time finding your niche in dog work. I have read many of your replies and don't understand the problem. Just let your dog/dogs be your guide and train accordingly.

Just read what you're saying 1. "I am *starting to realize*" 2. "there are better ways *so it seems*" It sounds to me like you are still on the fence. Whatever methods you choose dive in and pursue the methods as the bouncing back and forth could be confusing you and dog.


----------



## rosemaryninja (Sep 28, 2007)

Once again, I think a lot of people are equating negative training to force, punishment and general tyranny... It doesn't have to be, and when done right, it's not. I think Wvasko can testify to this. Negative training *doesn't* mean constant leash pops and alpha rolls, and I think describing it as such is applying our human definitions of "positive" and "negative" to a psychological theory. We do not need to strive towards a world where everyone trains with positive reinforcement. We just need to strive towards a world where every trainer knows what they're doing with their dog.


----------



## Inga (Jun 16, 2007)

wvasko said:


> Whether you are driving a car, dancing, dining out, everybody has their own style and attitudes when going through life. It seems to me you are having a hard time finding your niche in dog work. I have read many of your replies and don't understand the problem. Just let your dog/dogs be your guide and train accordingly.
> 
> Just read what you're saying 1. "I am *starting to realize*" 2. "there are better ways *so it seems*" It sounds to me like you are still on the fence. Whatever methods you choose dive in and pursue the methods as the bouncing back and forth could be confusing you and dog.


Well said.  I think you need to pick a method and work with that for awhile. If the result is a happy working dog that is understanding what it is you are asking for, succeeding in it and not afraid of repercussions you are doing well. NOT all dogs are the same and everyone of us needs to be flexible in our training styles. I have trained many dogs in my life and each one of them was different. Be flexible and have fun... Hopefully your dog is having just as much fun and learning a whole lot.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

animalsafe said:


> Everyone will can exist loving,respecting, and trusting each other rather than all the hatred and mistrust that we now experience daily and all the ugly things that go along with it.


\

Not as long as there are people, like yourself, who mistrust a whole class of people because 2 individuals from that group treated you badly--or you perceive that they did.


----------



## pugmom (Sep 10, 2008)

animalsafe said:


> I am glad we agree and that is why everyone needs educated on this fact so that every family or person can be the same in this regard. That is the point of all of the debate and science to learning. Don't you agree?
> 
> To answer your question... If we put these understandings to use cops and dog trainers would not NEED to use force and punishment!.... That is the UTOPIA we should all strive for in nature should we not? Not to or anything less will surely result in continuation of the status quo. It may be reasonable to say that if we can educate everyone who works with dogs to understand this we can then move on to making the entire world a better place in which to live. Everyone will can exist loving,respecting, and trusting each other rather than all the hatred and mistrust that we now experience daily and all the ugly things that go along with it.
> 
> Just think..no more CM adversing dogs and VS aversing humans...


No I do not agree 100%....but The whole striving for Utopia is another thread all together and it could be discussed till the end of time ... and I don't want to be responsible for this thread being completely off topic...I will say that it is a lovely thought but I don't feel that its possible humans or dogs are able to exists with out any violence...fear....Mistrust.

I do not agree that all military people should be deemed not trust worthy or not respected...or that a blanket statement such as all Marines use more force then others...

and I don't agree that EVERY family can be the same....so I'm not sure what you meant by "that is why everyone needs educated on this fact so that every family or person can be the same in this regard"?


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

Geeze loueeze.. I was making a comparison.. PLEASE leave the military out of it.. (We don't want the thread to close). My parents were not military unless you count the 3 years my Dad was in the Aleutians during WW2.... 

Honestly, the military has my support. It cannot be an easy choice to join the military and do what that job entails. End of discussion. Please. 

This was my personal experience.. and it was between three people (tho my two siblings feel similar to me, so that might make it five). 

I was just trying to show that corrections can backfire.. and why and how and why I don't want to do it that way with my pets.  

I did not want my parents to be my friends (and they were not).. and that was not the object.. and that does not work either. They did not beat me or alpha roll me and honestly, what they did might have been ignored or immaterial to another person with a different psyche... I just was saying this was MY experience and making a comparison. 

My point was that you don't have to be permissive and you don't have to be over bearing. Actions need consequneces but if the consequences get results while also creating fear and mistrust, then a clever and caring person would find another way.

The point is not to have zero consequences. The point is to make or present the correct response or behavior and the consequences for the correct behavior in such a way that it becomes the more desirable behavior. The point is to make the consequences for the worng choice meaningful without creating fear or mistrust on the part of the individual being trained.


----------



## animalsafe (Feb 17, 2009)

I believe that I included everyone and in the end made the point that regardless of who you are ....using methods that inject stress,fear,discomfort,pain,aversive force condtioning,aversive punishment,restraint,intimidation,flooding,ect.ect. 

C R E A T E S and results in distrust, loss of love, loss of respect ,creates fear,and stifles happiness. Now if that is not true than why all of the debate back and forth?

Problem is for me when I say it ...it means something different and how can that be? ARe we saying that as long as you use those condtioners correctly it is okay? Are we saying that we should only use one or the other or we will create confusion?


ARe we now saying there are no absolutes and yet there are?

Are we saying that the use of these things are not so bad after all and that there is a place for all of them. Are we saying that humans and non-humans have a different playing field when it comes to operant and classical conditioning?

WOW.... yes I am on the fence...still.

cheers


----------



## pugmom (Sep 10, 2008)

Elena, I agree with you post very much......none of my replies were towards your post

I completely agree with "what they did might have been ignored or immaterial to another person with a different psyche..".....We are all so different beings that its hard to say what each of us would do /feel in the same situation...


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

animalsafe said:


> I believe that I included everyone and in the end made the point that regardless of who you are ....using methods that inject stress,fear,discomfort,pain,aversive force condtioning,aversive punishment,restraint,intimidation,flooding,ect.ect.
> 
> C R E A T E S and results in distrust, loss of love, loss of respect ,creates fear,and stifles happiness. Now if that is not true than why all of the debate back and forth?
> 
> ...


I love it when I am right. I get so arrogant then. 

It's not a big deal because you will do what everybody does when training dogs (except me I'm perfect) you will make mistakes and then adjust the training to come to an understanding with your dog.


----------



## mostlymutts (Jan 10, 2009)

wvasko said:


> I love it when I am right. I get so arrogant then.
> 
> It's not a big deal because you will do what everybody does when training dogs (except me I'm perfect) you will make mistakes and then adjust the training to come to an understanding with your dog.


Is that because you made all the mistakes back when you were trying to load all the animals on the ark?


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

The Ark came AFTER the Dinosaurs.....


----------



## pamperedpups (Dec 7, 2006)

...and we can all know how well the dinosaurs fared:


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

Ouch.... 
You guys are rough. You SURE you use Positive Reinforcement??????


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Ark! What Ark? I was suppose to load what into what. I'm confused This is bad, very bad I could have made a mistake. What I gonna do now?


----------



## animalsafe (Feb 17, 2009)

I wonder how one would train those unruley out of balanced dinosaurs? I bet not with a prong collar or Gentle Leader.

And think of how big the treats would have to be!

Is there possibly some reference being made as to the survival or extinction possibility of dinosaur trainers???

cheers


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

animalsafe said:


> I wonder how one would train those unruley out of balanced dinosaurs? I bet not with a prong collar or Gentle Leader.
> 
> And think of how big the treats would have to be!
> 
> ...


Actually you know us Dinosaur types, I died a long time ago but the body message is still trying to find my pea-sized brain so I can get the job done. I probably will be around a while to torment all you young whipper-snappers


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

animalsafe said:


> ARe we now saying there are no absolutes and yet there are?


It's really easy, imo.

Actions need consequences. Period. That's how dogs learn, whether you use classical or operant conditioning. The difference is simply how you're "explaining" to the dog. 

Classical says, "Hear bell, expect food". Operant says "Want food? Ring the bell."

The none absolute part is "what works best for you and your dog and the task at hand."

So yes, there are and are not absolutes all rolled up into one. Like many things in life - it's not always this or that. It's often some of both in varying degrees.




animalsafe said:


> Are we saying that the use of these things are not so bad after all and that there is a place for all of them. Are we saying that humans and non-humans have a different playing field when it comes to operant and classical conditioning?


There's a place for corrections. Again, I don't see anyone saying NEVER CORRECT YOUR DOGZ! And, yes, I consider Negative Punishments, corrections, so yes, "Positive trainers" do use corrections, imo, just like most any other trainers. Part of teaching is pointing out mistakes and guiding the learner to avoid them next time - and training is just teaching.

As far as operant and classical conditioning, no they are not on different playing fields. You can just, in theory at least, explain things to a kid or adult in more complex ways because our brains can associate things like what we did last week and our language can access those thoughts via the umpteen hundreds of words we have. 

Dogs just don't have that level of thinking. So we have to explain things differently to them with a different kind of timing. I believe both humans and canines can learn via classical and operant conditioning.



animalsafe said:


> WOW.... yes I am on the fence...still.
> 
> cheers


What is there to be on the fence of? Reward your dogs when they do what you want, and let them know when they make a mistake and then guide them back to the path on what you want. That's all there is to it at it's core.

How you do each of those, that's all your choice.



wvasko said:


> Actually you know us Dinosaur types, I died a long time ago but the body message is still trying to find my pea-sized brain so I can get the job done. I probably will be around a while to torment all you young whipper-snappers


Oh - well at first when I read this, I thought you were some kind of zombie. I was about the burn you with fire in that case. 



animalsafe said:


> I wonder how one would train those unruley out of balanced dinosaurs? I bet not with a prong collar or Gentle Leader.


I don't think a clicker would work either...

By they time you've associated the click with the treat...you'd be the treat. 
[/QUOTE]


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

animalsafe said:


> I wonder how one would train those unruley out of balanced dinosaurs? I bet not with a prong collar or Gentle Leader.
> 
> And think of how big the treats would have to be!
> 
> ...


It is true that you don't see dinosaur trainers around any more. They are basically non-existent.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Alright KBL, Burn the old guy.

All kidding aside and back to thread.
*
What is there to be on the fence of? Reward your dogs when they do what you want, and let them know when they make a mistake and then guide them back to the path on what you want. That's all there is to it at it's core.

How you do each of those, that's all your choice.*

I surely don't know what else to add to that statement, it's about as self-explanatory and simple as needed. I do know that if I was a newbie and got on the forum and tried to understand in any way how to solve a problem with my dog. I would probably end by swapping my dog for a bowl of goldfish. it's so simple, dog good reward, dog bad consequences. Owner is in charge of what they should be.


----------



## animalsafe (Feb 17, 2009)

KBLover said:


> It's really easy, imo.
> 
> Actions need consequences. Period. That's how dogs learn, whether you use classical or operant conditioning. The difference is simply how you're "explaining" to the dog.
> 
> ...


[/QUOTE]

My reference to operant conditioning is in the 4 quads to operant conditioning(BF Skinner)


positive punishment
negative punishment
positive reinforcement
negative reinforcement

Are you saying there is sometimes a need for or benefit to positive punishment as a consequence to "inappropriate" behavior in training/conditioning? 

cheers


----------



## mostlymutts (Jan 10, 2009)

hulkamaniac said:


> It is true that you don't see dinosaur trainers around any more. They are basically non-existent.


Egads! I am going to start a petition to get dinosaur trainers listed as an endangered species.

(I am going to try and stop now.)


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

mostlymutts said:


> Egads! I am going to start a petition to get dinosaur trainers listed as an endangered species.
> 
> (I am going to try and stop now.)


Perhaps global warming has made them extinct.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

animalsafe said:


> My reference to operant conditioning is in the 4 quads to operant conditioning(BF Skinner)
> 
> 
> positive punishment
> ...


Considering what I would consider positive punishment (leash corrections, collar corrections, saying NO really really harshly if the dog finds that aversive, etc), then yes, there's a place.

My view is there is a place for all four quadrants. Again, how much of each quadrant you want to use is up to each trainer, their dog, and the task (or behavior) at hand.

I mean, if Wally just lost it some day and started eating some kids leg off - I'd definitely not be standing there ignoring him hoping to use shaping so that I can click him for when he finally stops biting the kid. (Nevermind that the biting is probably self-reinforcing to him anyway...)

Likewise, if he won't pick up an object off the kitchen floor or walk across a garbage bag lying on the floor - scruff shaking him would be rather counter-productive in that situation. All that will do is either make him afraid of the bag or too focused on appeasing me to focus on the task at hand.


Like, back to the ringing the bell example:

Positive punishment - If the dog doesn't, Dog gets a collar/leash correction and then told to ring the bell
Negative punishment - No food/reward/attention until he rings the bell
Negative reinforcement - Dog gets an ear pinch until he rings the bell, then you stop.
Positive reinforcement - Dog gets a treat for ringing the bell.

All of those could very well and probably would work. Positive/Negative punishment would seem most effective if the dog already knows how to ring the bell. Negative reinforcement might get a "stubborn" dog to do it if not motivated by by anything else as a reward. Positive reinforcement would facilitate learning, but might take a while to get the dog to first ring the bell, but once he does and gets rewarded, he might sit there ringing it forever (if they are like Wally anyway!)

A pretty simple example, and I probably did some mistakes, but it's an illustration on how all the quadrants could have a place.



wvasko said:


> I do know that if I was a newbie and got on the forum and tried to understand in any way how to solve a problem with my dog. I would probably end by swapping my dog for a bowl of goldfish.


First, sorry about the fire. 

Oh, you'd stay in the animal kingdom? I might be tempted to just stick with plants. Plants are really simple. Just water and point them at a window and watch 'em grow


----------



## animalsafe (Feb 17, 2009)

KBLover said:


> Considering what I would consider positive punishment (leash corrections, collar corrections, saying NO really really harshly if the dog finds that aversive, etc), then yes, there's a place.
> 
> My view is there is a place for all four quadrants. Again, how much of each quadrant you want to use is up to each trainer, their dog, and the task (or behavior) at hand.


So let me see if I understand your stance correctly.

You feel that using aversive positive punishment ( in conditioning unwanted,inappropriate, or undesired behaviors ) as a correction is ok as long as it results in teaching the dog to not repeat the "bad" behavior again?

And would this be regardless of the fact that scientific studies CLEARLY indicate that using such a approach ( force training,initimidation,fear,aversive physical force, flooding,ect, results in distrust, shutting down, a diminished value to trust and respect,fear,and many other negative backlash behaviors to include as some say a negative effect to love?

And WHAT IF there is a failure to initially deliver a true correction when using such aversives and repeated attempts fail also? 
Is not the negative fallout even greater regardless?

Finally why would one choose to use aversive corrections utilizing posive punishment if even at best there will be such negative consequnces from doing so? Why would we then not simply use the alternatives that do not result in such negative consequences?


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Extinct! Extinct! Oh, dementia attack. Oh Dinosaur trainers extinct, not Dinosaur dog trainers extinct. Phew, I still safe.


----------



## mostlymutts (Jan 10, 2009)

hulkamaniac said:


> It is true that you don't see dinosaur trainers around any more. They are basically non-existent.





pamperedpups said:


> ...and we can all know how well the dinosaurs fared:


Well, evidently there is indeed no need for dinosaur trainers... (So far I only have some-timers...)

We still got the dogs though, so we still need (dinosaur/whipper-snapper) dog trainers.


----------



## animalsafe (Feb 17, 2009)

wvasko said:


> Extinct! Extinct! Oh, dementia attack. Oh Dinosaur trainers extinct, not Dinosaur dog trainers extinct. Phew, I still safe.


Well think of the bright side wvasko..as those Dinosaur dog trainers become more and more extinct your line of clients will increase having little or no where else to go for a tuneup.

JOB SECURITY in a failing economy is a good thing.!


----------



## katthevamp (Aug 7, 2007)

animalsafe said:


> So let me see if I understand your stance correctly.
> 
> You feel that using aversive positive punishment ( in conditioning unwanted,inappropriate, or undesired behaviors ) as a correction is ok as long as it results in teaching the dog to not repeat the "bad" behavior again?
> 
> ...


Thee are times when you need the behaivor to stop now, and you can't wait. Like KB said, the dog is in the process of attacking, bolting away, or otherwise needs to ceas and desist. If you don't, they could very well get killed.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

The problem is that you have no idea how much faster and stronger the dogs have become as one's reflexes and strength slowly fade. You are right though job security is good (thank doG) since dinosaur dog trainers can't afford to retire. They did not have 401-Ks back in Jurassic era.


----------



## animalsafe (Feb 17, 2009)

katthevamp said:


> Thee are times when you need the behaivor to stop now, and you can't wait. Like KB said, the dog is in the process of attacking, bolting away, or otherwise needs to ceas and desist. If you don't, they could very well get killed.


Oh I see so what is being said is .. Its ok to use aversive positive punishment when protecting property,life, or limb? Otherwise it should not be used in day to day training conditioning as a correction to behavior?

Is this correct?


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

animalsafe said:


> Oh I see so what is being said is .. Its ok to use aversive positive punishment when protecting property,life, or limb? Otherwise it should not be used in day to day training conditioning as a correction to behavior?
> 
> Is this correct?


No, that is not necessarily what I think was said. Years ago I had a weimie that when in Chicago I lived across from a small empty lot. I would walk out and get to the curb look both ways and send dog across to do her duty. When she was done I would call and when she got to curb I would hand signal and she would stop I would check street and then continue recall. Whatever training you do is done before the emergency arises and is needed. There is no ok-permission needed for an aversive. The real permission needed is inside you for anything you do. I don't preach use of aversives, in fact I preach against the use of such by amateurs because of possible dog abuse. I do use aversives and have never needed permission or had any conscience problems. It's a tough world and then you die.


----------



## animalsafe (Feb 17, 2009)

wvasko said:


> I don't preach use of aversives, in fact I preach against the use of such by amateurs because of possible dog abuse.


wsasko is this because you agree with the science that clearly indicates all of the neg backlash results that occur even with the *proper * or *correct* use of positive punishment whatever that would be?

wsako Would I be wrong to assume that you do not agree with such studies?

Enquiring minds would like to know. or at least whatever part of mine that remains.



cheers


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

animalsafe said:


> So let me see if I understand your stance correctly.
> 
> You feel that using aversive positive punishment ( in conditioning unwanted,inappropriate, or undesired behaviors ) as a correction is ok as long as it results in teaching the dog to not repeat the "bad" behavior again?


My stance is utterly simple.

Basically - do what works for your dog and doesn't cause him physical, mental, or emotional harm.

Like I said before: Reward when the dog is doing what you want, point out mistakes and guide him to doing what you want when he doesn't.

That's my stance. How you get there depends on you, your dog, and the situation at hand.





animalsafe said:


> And would this be regardless of the fact that scientific studies CLEARLY indicate that using such a approach ( force training,initimidation,fear,aversive physical force, flooding,ect, results in distrust, shutting down, a diminished value to trust and respect,fear,and many other negative backlash behaviors to include as some say a negative effect to love?


How were these corrections given in the study? If they were poorly timed - well I don't need a study to tell me a badly timed anything during training is not good. R+ (yes I'm getting lazy) poorly timed can teach a behavior chain you did not want. 

So how were these test given? Did they just pop a dog out of the blue? Did they come down on a dog when it was just trying to understand a new behavior chain? 




animalsafe said:


> And WHAT IF there is a failure to initially deliver a true correction when using such aversives and repeated attempts fail also?
> Is not the negative fallout even greater regardless?



Like with any method, execution of the method matters. Properly executed, I don't think P+ creates any negative effects. It's the misuse that creates the negatives, imo.




animalsafe said:


> Finally why would one choose to use aversive corrections utilizing posive punishment if even at best there will be such negative consequnces from doing so? Why would we then not simply use the alternatives that do not result in such negative consequences?


Because it has a place and will not result in those negative consequences unless mis-used and poorly executed, which applies to any other four quadrants no matter how much of each you use.

I have used all four quadrants at various times. I can tell you what I do in all four quadrants to communicate with Wally. I was first teaching him loose-leach walking. He pulled - I stopped, he got uncomfortable and stopped pulling and made leash loose. That's R- (he performed the wanted behavior and received an end to the negative stimulus. Then when he walked on the leash loose on his own, he got the walk, praise, and clicks and treats (all R+)

It's just a matter of how you do it, and getting creative to do what works for your dog, no matter what it's called (unless it's called outright abuse).


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

animalsafe said:


> wsasko is this because you agree with the science that clearly indicates all of the neg backlash results that occur even with the *proper * or *correct* use of positive punishment whatever that would be?
> 
> wsako Would I be wrong to assume that you do not agree with such studies?
> 
> ...


I don't deal with studies that may or may not have merit to what I deal with on a daily basis. I just train dogs no more-no less. I have been training dogs in some instances way before the studies. Is there a negative backlash when idiots train, of course there is, does that mean I should not use aversives because of other idiots. I don't think so. I will do whatever is necessary to train a dog and that also means when the dog is done it must look proper when doing the work. The ethically correct thing when training a dog for me is no dog abuse, if dogs are abused they don't look proper when working. If dogs don't look good, I don't look good and I'm out of work.


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

KBLover said:


> Like, back to the ringing the bell example:
> 
> Positive punishment - If the dog doesn't, Dog gets a collar/leash correction and then told to ring the bell
> Negative punishment - No food/reward/attention until he rings the bell
> ...


This is a little confusing. I think it is easier to place the result/consequences order so it is easier to see. 

Positive punishment: Behavior is requested. Behavior not exhibited, correction exerted. 

Negative punishment: Correction Exerted until behavior ehibited. 

In training a dog, if you as the dog to come here and dog does not, you pull him to you with a long line. This is Positive punishment. Request is made first and if not obeyed, there are physical consequences. 

Again, training a dog, you want the dog to leave the kitchen. You press on the Ecollar button until the dog leaves the kitchen and release the e collar button as soon as he is out of the kitchen. IOW's pressure is exerted on the dog until the desired behavior results and then the pressure is released. This is negative punishment. IOW's the pressure is put in place first and released when the dog does what is desired. 

For positive punishment to work, the dog must CLEARLY understand your request to CLEARLY understand the consequences. Typically, you cannot be sure of the clarity... and this is why positive punishment can backfire. The dog may associate the punishment with something other than disobeying your request.

For Negative puishment to work, again you have to be clear with the pressure and the release of pressure. If the dog associates the pressure with something other than what the pressure was exerted FOR, then, again, you have confused the situation. 

Clarity is the issue. Dogs don't speak verbal languages. Dogs are not humans. 
As a human positve punishment and negative punishment can be a slippery slope to be on as far as clarity goes.. so it would seem wise to avoid same with a dog. 



wvasko said:


> Extinct! Extinct! Oh, dementia attack. Oh Dinosaur trainers extinct, not Dinosaur dog trainers extinct. Phew, I still safe.


WV.. you got a LONG ways to go to be extinct. Fact is, any trainer to use Spam to reward a dog.. and jumping up for attention as a reward for a dog is rally using a LOT MORE positive reinforcement than you might want to admit to. 

But this is a rough crowd.. I hope you ot some T Rex going on there 



wvasko said:


> The problem is that you have no idea how much faster and stronger the dogs have become as one's reflexes and strength slowly fade. You are right though job security is good (thank doG) since dinosaur dog trainers can't afford to retire. They did not have 401-Ks back in Jurassic era.


You are lucky if you don't HAVE a 401K unless you put your $$ in bonds or were smart enough to move it over to bonds about 12 months ago... Lots of near retirements have been put on hold 



KBLover said:


> My stance is utterly simple.
> 
> Basically - do what works for your dog and doesn't cause him physical, mental, or emotional harm.
> 
> Like I said before: Reward when the dog is doing what you want, point out mistakes and guide him to doing what you want when he doesn't..


This is correct. The method used does count, tho. 



KBLover said:


> Like with any method, execution of the method matters. Properly executed, I don't think P+ creates any negative effects. It's the misuse that creates the negatives, imo.


Timing is important but what is even more important than timing is clarity. If you pos. re. a chain and end up with a dog that does it wrong, it is fairly easy to teach a new chain that does it right. Yes.. your timing was off, no harm done.

If you do the same with Positive puishment or Negative punishment.. you can cause the dog to shut down and quit trying or you can end up with the dog associating the punishment with the wrong thing. This is the clarity issue. We cannot read our dog's mind nor can they read ours. 

This is how leash aggressive dogs are made... We collar correct for barking at another dog while on a walk. We are punishing the barking. It happens a fewtimes with differnt dogs. Dog barks MORE.. what happened? Dog associated the leash pop with meeting other dogs, NOT with his action of barking at other dogs. Our timing was perfect, our clarity and why was not. Now we have successfully trained our dog to be leash aggressive. 



KBLover said:


> Because it has a place and will not result in those negative consequences unless mis-used and poorly executed, which applies to any other four quadrants no matter how much of each you use.


I just gave an example of how a correction, executed perfectly, back fired. Examples of this particular backfiring are found in shelters across the US.. and some of those examples are PTS.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

The good news about forum is that my treats have been commercial dog treat types. (which a lot of dogs refuse) Somebody mentioned spam on this forum(I forget who, dementia problem) I have never gone into the chicken/hot dogs etc routines at all. Hard to handle greasy stuff with gloves and a lot of dogs trained here need gloves on while training. I recently had a very large dog that did not want to walk with me and at the same time had leftover spam in frig. I thought, what the he*l give it a try. Thankfully the dog was not a glove type dog and the spam worked like a charm. Even the dinosaur dog trainer can be taught new tricks. I suppose I should have taken credit for the spam thing but that would not be proper. But it is stashed down in the dog-training tool bag.

*WV.. you got a LONG ways to go to be extinct. Fact is, any trainer to use Spam to reward a dog.. and jumping up for attention as a reward for a dog is rally using a LOT MORE positive reinforcement than you might want to admit to.

But this is a rough crowd.. I hope you ot some T Rex going on there *

Rough is not the word, Mean is the word and I'm sooooooo sensitive


----------



## animalsafe (Feb 17, 2009)

Elana55 said:


> This is a little confusing.
> This is how leash aggressive dogs are made... We collar correct for barking at another dog while on a walk. We are punishing the barking. It happens a fewtimes with differnt dogs. Dog barks MORE.. what happened? Dog associated the leash pop with meeting other dogs, NOT with his action of barking at other dogs. Our timing was perfect, our clarity and why was not. Now we have successfully trained our dog to be leash aggressive.
> 
> 
> ...



Thank you Elana55 I agree with all of the probabilities and possibilities that you so clearly illustrated. So many different perspectives and understandings on the issue of compulsive based training/conditioning to consider when searching for the truth ....what ever that may be.



wvasko said:


> But this is a rough crowd.. I hope you ot some T Rex going on there [/B]
> 
> Rough is not the word, Mean is the word and I'm sooooooo sensitive


LOL wvasko I like the word aversive and I am sure that many would like to use some positive punishment on me in hopes to find a true correction that might result in extinguishing or eliminating my behavior. Anything less or below the threshold would simply be nagging.

cheers


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

I think it is against forum Rules to use E collars, (the "highest" form of Positive Puishment IMO) on co-members. 

There are Mods tho, and one of those has a Big Hairy Banning Stick which is Wielded at those who refuse to comply with the Rules. It is an Aversive and its use is brought down with absoute Clarity. The Big Hairy Banning Stick is shared by other Mods so it is wise to OBEY. 

I have personally never SEEN the Big Hairy Banning Stick, but I imagine it and Cringe.  I think it is similar to the thing that gives my dog nightmares and makes her run and Yip.. and wake up all in a lather.. 

I still love our Mods..... (especially after being on a bunch of other forums.. this one is REALLY well Moderated).


----------



## animalsafe (Feb 17, 2009)

Elana55 said:


> I think it is against forum Rules to use E collars, (the "highest" form of Positive Puishment IMO) on co-members.


LOL Elana55 are you then saying that there is value in force training verses simply ignoring undesired behavior?


cheers


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

Elana55 said:


> This is how leash aggressive dogs are made... We collar correct for barking at another dog while on a walk. We are punishing the barking. It happens a fewtimes with differnt dogs. Dog barks MORE.. what happened? Dog associated the leash pop with meeting other dogs, NOT with his action of barking at other dogs. Our timing was perfect, our clarity and why was not. Now we have successfully trained our dog to be leash aggressive.


I would submit that the timing in this instance is way off. If the dog is already barking at the other dog, he's in too highly an excited state for correction to be appropriate. Not that correction won't work on some dogs in that example, but it's not the route I'd go. Better to train rock solid OB incl. "look at me", and use a command as redirection at the first sign of the dog alerting to the other dog's presence. If corrections are required, they are for breaking or refusing the sit/down/stand/heel/whatever. There is clarity in that. And every correction is not a spine compressing jerk on the leash. It's a gradual thing to proof the dog to such a distraction, and in the process he learns that the other dog presents no threat.

As the old saying goes: "To the man who's only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail". All I'm saying is don't blame the hammer for being the wrong tool for the job.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Elana55 said:


> Our timing was perfect, our clarity and why was not. Now we have successfully trained our dog to be leash aggressive.


If the correction is properly executed - that means the timing and message got through to the dog, imo.

So to me, that correction example you gave was not executed perfectly. If the dog doesn't understand what you're telling it - regardless of method - then the method wasn't perfectly executed, imo.

It's one thing to say P+ techniques have a higher degree of difficulty to get right, and that has a valid point, although I don't think R+ isn't exactly super easy either (otherwise, people would grasp it easier). But to say that if it's done well with both timing and clarity that it's creates tons of backlash - I still believe that depends on the dog, handler, task, and punishment applied.

Shutting down a dog, to me, results in the punishment/correction being to harsh for the dog's personality/spirit - and both of these can be seen by the handler, imo, if he/she knows the dog he/she is working with.


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

KBLover said:


> If the correction is properly executed - that means the timing and message got through to the dog, imo. .


Exactly. The problem is whether or not the dog understands what the correction is for. 



KBLover said:


> So to me, that correction example you gave was not executed perfectly. If the dog doesn't understand what you're telling it - regardless of method - then the method wasn't perfectly executed, imo..


The example shows you why correction was entirely the WRONG method.. but it is frequently the one used. The example also shows you why it often backfires. You cannot get into your dog's mind. 

IOW's positive punishment, which is often used on leash aggressive dogs, is the wrong method.. but is is still used and it backfires badly on a lot of dogs. 

What SHOULD be done is to REMOVE the barking dog to a distance where the dog relaxes and use Positive reinforcement so the dog does not associate the other dog with a negative experience. But, in the world of reality, people still leash pop reactive dogs without reward or regard. Talk to Zimandtakandgrrandmimi.. she will tell you what she has to do to FIX this problem.. and how it doesn't GET fixed in some dogs... and the TIME it takes to fix it... 



KBLover said:


> It's one thing to say P+ techniques have a higher degree of difficulty to get right, and that has a valid point, although I don't think R+ isn't exactly super easy either (otherwise, people would grasp it easier). But to say that if it's done well with both timing and clarity that it's creates tons of backlash - I still believe that depends on the dog, handler, task, and punishment applied. .


I said that even if positive punishment is done with proper timing, if the REASON is UNCLEAR to the DOG, it can, and does, create backlash. We cannot read our dog's minds. 

If Positive reinforcement is done incorrectly and is unclear, the backlash is a fat dog that still doesn't do it right, not a fearful dog or an aggressive dog or a dog that refuses to work at all. 

Another example of poitive punishment not working well.. dog is taught "leave it" and is generalized on the command. You take a walk with your dog and the dog is wearing an E collar. Dog sniffs roadkill. Owner says, "Leave it." dog continues to sniff. Owner zaps dog. Dog leaves it... then for the next three days when you walk past that bit of road kill the dog goes to the opposit side of the road and gives signs of fear and submission. The dog did not learn "leave it. The dog learned taht that bit of road kill is "dangerous!" 

And yet another example of misuse of positive punishment. Dog poops in the house.. owner catches dog pooping and screams at the dog and puts the dog out. Guess what some dogs learn from this? NOT that it is wrong to poop in the house.. but that it is wrong to poop with the owner around. 

I will not EVER go on a public forum and support in any way shape or manner Positive Punishment or Negative punishment. These examples are results of using both those things and having them back fire. Maybe YOU can use Positve punishent and Negative punishment successfully, and have no backfires, but the truth is MOST OWNERS CANNOT. 

And the results of that can be found in shelters. 



KBLover said:


> Shutting down a dog, to me, results in the punishment/correction being to harsh for the dog's personality/spirit - and both of these can be seen by the handler, imo, if he/she knows the dog he/she is working with.


Maybe, but why promote something at all that can cause misery to the dog if used incorrectly? Consider your audience here on a public forum. How many readers are owners who really really understand their dogs? Most of the regulars here do, or try to.. but what about the casual reader? 

From what I see out there in the world of dog owners, most people have trouble getting their dogs to be housebroken, walk nice on leash, recall, sit, lie down and stay. Considering the audience reading what I write, I will not ever support Positve punishment or Negative punishment on a public forum. Fact is, the correction based trainers don't either.

I think a lot about how to do things better.. why I am not getting the response I need to get.. and how to get that response in spades because the dog wants to do it.. loves to do it.. will do it thru a wall of fire it is so reinforced.. and the dog is HAPPY to do it thru a wall of fire... NOT because the dog knows he HAS tio do it thru a wall of fire OR ELSE.


----------



## animalsafe (Feb 17, 2009)

Elana55 said:


> Exactly. The problem is whether or not the dog understands what the correction is for.
> 
> 
> 
> .


Elana55 I am sort of confused by what you are saying...sort of.

Are you saying that positive punishment ALWAYS result in negative backlash behaviors?

Are you saying that the use of positive punishment NEVER works?

Are you saying possibly that all attempts at using positive reinforcement should be exhausted before using positive punishment to resolve and issue ?

Are you saying possibly that regardless of failed attempts at using positive reinforcement ..positive punishment should NEVER be used?

Are you saying as long as someone uses positive punishment correctly than that is OK verses those who do not?

Are you saying that positive reinforcement always works?

Are you saying that all dogs will react the same to positive punishment so if you do x to any dog that all dogs will respond, react, or associate with the same behavior?

you stated..
"I will not ever support Positve punishment or Negative punishment on a public forum. Fact is, the correction based trainers don't either."

I have 2 questions

Do most correction based trainers (by definition) use positive punishment,negative punishment,positive reinforcement, and negative reinforcement at various points?

Do you agree or disagree with the explaination in the following example in describing forms of NEGATIVE PUNISHMENT ?

IF you agree are you saying that you would never recommend or support such useage?

"Negative punishment” means taking something away, and that taking away will decreases the likelihood that a dog will do a behavior. Taking the car keys away from a teenager when they are “grounded” due to misbehavior is negative punishment.

Dog owners and trainers will use negative punishment to teach dogs manners in every day life .

For example, if you ask your dog to sit before you put the food bowl down so he doesn’t dive in the bowl and spill it, you probably pull the bowl away when the dog gets up before you tell him to. Pulling the food bowl away is taking something away the dog wants, so the dog will quickly learn to sit quietly until given permission to break his sit the next time the bowl is lowered. If you ask the dog to wait at the door before going out, the negative punishment occurs if you push the door shut if the dog breaks before being told he can go out. Shutting the door in the dog’s face takes away his access to the outdoors.

Unlike positive punishment, which relies on the dog knowing exactly what is expected of him and knowing when and how he is making errors to be effective, negative punishment can be intuitively clear to the dog if the reward or goal is clearly in sight and taken away when the dog fails to comply. Using negative punishment means controlling the resources available to the dog or access to things and activities the dog values. It can be subtler than hands on positive punishment, but it can help to avoid direct confrontation and fights between the dog and the handler. Using negative punishment causes the dog to do more thinking about the situation and “take responsibility” for his own actions. 


The thing that confuses me is that it seems to me (from what I understand or misunderstand) is that you are saying on one hand postive punishment and negative punishment does not work and if it does it always results in creating negative backlash behavior/s

and on the other hand
"
said that even if positive punishment is done with proper timing, if the REASON is UNCLEAR to the DOG, it can, and does, create backlash. We cannot read our dog's minds. "

That when done so correctly may not????

This is confusing to me?

So do you believe that using positive and negative punishment will ALWAYS result in some level of mistrust, lack of respect, stress,discomfort/pain, loss of spirit, loss of behavioral experimentation, loss of confidence, loss of love and relationship closeness, negative association, fear, focus,ect?


Or just when not administered correctly by the handler?

If you could answer these questions with some clarity I would actually promise not to post ever again on this list..

Hows that for a positive reinforcement motivator?

Just think of how happy everyone would be!!!


cheers


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

when choosing a methodone should also take into consideration the problem being addressed.

working with dogs with reactive/aggressive issues...the potential for backlash is one of serious consequences. An aggressive dog has usually learned to respond to what it considers negative stimulus with aggression. Piling MORE negative stimulus on top of the existing triggers has the real chance of escalating the aggressive issue OR causing redirection of the aggression.

here is a real life example.

I went to help a foster mom deal with a dog reactive pit/cattle dog mix yesterday. I asked her to show me how she had been dealing with the problem.

we went on a walk and the dog saw a golden coming the other way and began to bark and snarl. She gave the dog a collar correction. the dog turned to her and gave her a look for a brief second and stopped. We kept walking. A cocker came around the corner. the pit/cattledog reacted aggressively to the sight of the cocker and she gave a leash correction. the pit/cattledog again turned to her immediately afterwards and this time curled his lip at her....a warning, that I wouldn't have seen if I hadn't been paying complete attention. I stopped it at that point. 

Dogs have thresholds. there is only so much they will tolerate before they lash out. and for a dog that has already been pushed close enough to threshold that they are lashing out, correction can be a dangerous game.


----------



## animalsafe (Feb 17, 2009)

I have observed, read testimony, and have experienced x (that) working both ways and when judging x is it not about all that is in the details to any partiilar sitatuion as to why the process failed and why it worked. 

Does because handler x fails at a process mean that handler o will have the same results?

Somehow I cannot believe that...

so again ...all of my questions..

I guess what I am saying is that I (and i would think others) cannot properly/fully make judgement on the pro's and con's of a particular process based on taking only those who have had failures testimony into account.



cheers


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

animalsafe said:


> I guess what I am saying is that I (and i would think others) cannot properly/fully make judgement on the pro's and con's of a particular process based on taking only those who have had failures testimony into account.


Fine, take the testimony of Bob Bailey. He and his deceased wife Marian have over 100 years of experience in animal training and have conducted projects for the Navy such as pigeon-guided missiles and mine sniffing dogs. In an interview with Dr. Sophia Yin, Bob Bailey says this...


> Between Marian and myself we probably have about 103 years of training experience. In the course of that, we've used positive punishment maybe a dozen times. So we stand pretty well on the side of you don't have to use positive punishment except under the really extreme, unusual situations. And certainly in pet training, there's no reason I could see that you'd need to use an aversive for pet training, or for that matter obedience training in the ring.




I don't know how much more clarity you need, but I'll anticipate your next poll question in response to the Bailey's experience.


----------



## animalsafe (Feb 17, 2009)

CP you seem to avade my questions?


Are we or are we not attempting to state that anytime a person addresses a aggresive dog behavior with a positive punishment correction the same result will occur?


Thats all I would like answered with a yes or no.

And if the answer is "it depends" then I have nothing further to ask.

cheers


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

animalsafe said:


> CP you seem to avade my questions?


Well, I didn't care to make light of it, but I find your questions oddly structured, and I don't understand what you're trying to get at half the time. 



> Are we or are we not attempting to state that anytime a person addresses a aggresive dog behavior with a positive punishment correction the same result will occur?


I have no idea what you or a collective "we" are attempting to state. None of that helps anyone train their dog. 



> And if the answer is "it depends" then I have nothing further to ask.


Of course the answer is _it depends. _It's dependent on where the dog is relative to his emotional threshold. No prudent trainer attempts to find that proximity with positive punishment.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

the point of my post was that the RISK of backlash is significantly higher when using aversives on aggressive dogs.

and frankly...IMHO...when training an aggressive dog, risking injury(infected bites, bystanders getting injured, etc) to humans is

NOT WORTH THE RISK simply to effect behavior modification on a DOG.

not to mention lawsuits, liability and the risk of the dog being euthanized as a dangerous animal.


----------



## animalsafe (Feb 17, 2009)

Thats what I assumed the response/s would be....

I have no further interest in these forums


cheers


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

elana/Zim/CP
What did you people do to animalsafe? After 3 or 4 polls, doG knows how many questions etc and now there is no more interest in these forums.


----------



## pamperedpups (Dec 7, 2006)

That's just what happens sometimes when you feed the trolls, wvasko. Of course, when it comes to the exact outcome of every feeding, _it depends_ where the troll is relative to it's emotional threshold...


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

I've never admitted to being a prudent forum trainer.


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

animalsafe said:


> Elana55 I am sort of confused by what you are saying...sort of.


Yes you are... LOL



> Are you saying that positive punishment ALWAYS result in negative backlash behaviors?


You need to remove two words from your discussion of animal training discussion.. ALWAYS and NEVER. 
No, positive punishment does not ALWAYS result in a backlash but if your dog misunderstands you it can and does OFTEN enough to avoid it. 



> Are you saying that the use of positive punishment NEVER works?


Get rid of Never. 



> Are you saying possibly that all attempts at using positive reinforcement should be exhausted before using positive punishment to resolve and issue ?


That is probably correct and b4 I go to positive punishment, I would re-evaluate what I have done wrong in explaining to my dog what I want and why we did not communicate. 



> Are you saying possibly that regardless of failed attempts at using positive reinforcement ..positive punishment should NEVER be used?


You sure do like the word NEVER. 



> Are you saying as long as someone uses positive punishment correctly than that is OK verses those who do not?


No. I am saying that I avoid it and that I think it should be avoided because there IS A BETTER WAY. 



> Are you saying that positive reinforcement always works?


If you are good enough at training, yes. If it is misused or used incorrectly (lumping, bad timing etc.) there is little damage to the dog.



> Are you saying that all dogs will react the same to positive punishment so if you do x to any dog that all dogs will respond, react, or associate with the same behavior?


ALL dogs is the same sort of thing as NEVER. Absolutes training animals are absolutely foolish. I can't get TWO dogs to react exactly the same.. I can get the result I want but I don't think two dogs react exactly the same way. If you want that, get a robot. 



> you stated..
> "I will not ever support Positve punishment or Negative punishment on a public forum. Fact is, the correction based trainers don't either."
> 
> I have 2 questions
> ...


I think most good trainers have a very large tool box. 



> Do you agree or disagree with the explaination in the following example in describing forms of NEGATIVE PUNISHMENT ?
> 
> IF you agree are you saying that you would never recommend or support such useage?
> 
> ...


Well this is negative punishment... taking away what the dog wants.. no physical intervention. 

NEGATIVE REINFORCEMENT: Pressure is applied to the dog until the dog complies at which point the pressure is released. I used an E collar example.. but here is another. 

You want the dog to walk next to you. He is walking ahead. You pull the dog's choke collar tight and do not release it until the dog is walking next to you. Then you release it.

NEGATIVE PUNISHMENT: You remove something the dog wants to get him to do what you want. 

The food bowel example you gave is Negative Punishment.. 



> Unlike positive punishment, which relies on the dog knowing exactly what is expected of him and knowing when and how he is making errors to be effective, negative punishment can be intuitively clear to the dog if the reward or goal is clearly in sight and taken away when the dog fails to comply. Using negative punishment means controlling the resources available to the dog or access to things and activities the dog values. It can be subtler than hands on positive punishment, but it can help to avoid direct confrontation and fights between the dog and the handler. Using negative punishment causes the dog to do more thinking about the situation and “take responsibility” for his own actions.


You have described Negative Punishment. 



> The thing that confuses me is that it seems to me (from what I understand or misunderstand) is that you are saying on one hand postive punishment and negative punishment does not work and if it does it always results in creating negative backlash behavior/s
> 
> and on the other hand
> "
> ...


You have confused negative punishment with negative reinforcement. This is what is confusing you. Or maybe I erroneously mixed them up. 

The other thing confusing you is the use of ALWAYS and NEVER. Try these words:
Sometimes, Usually, Can, May... 

You are looking for absolutes and with animals there are no absolutes. Again.. absolutes are for machines. 

The problem I have with Positive Punishment and Negative Punishment is that it requires unpleasantness to the dog in the form of physical correction, threats etc. 

Once the dog is scared or upset, learning STOPS.

Oh DARN.. I just answered all those questions.. and find out the poster lost interest. 

And if ths poster is NOT a troll.. then it seems that they were trying to take learning and training and make it into a mathematical formula.. and it just isn't like that. 

Zim.. I LOVE your answers..... I hope the lady with the Cattle dog is paying you something. You surely do have it so figured out. 

No words for CP. I just wonder if you are an educator w. a PhD ion learning theory or something.


----------



## sparkle (Mar 3, 2009)

I think animalsafe gave a incorrect illustration of negative punishment if this definition is correct.

http://www.mcli.dist.maricopa.edu/proj/nru/nr.html

I am not sure now that I find this definition.

http://www.pgaa.com/canine/general/punishingbehavior.html


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

Sparkle, you are dcorrect. I mixed up Neg. Punishment and Neg. Reinforcement and corrected my post to reflect this. 

Its been a long day. Here are what the Pro's say.. 

Negative Reinforcement:
http://www.mcli.dist.maricopa.edu/proj/nru/nr.html

Thank you for pointing that out Sparkle. I appreciate it. I try to be accurate... *sigh*

Off to my corner for a "Time Out..."


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

> No words for CP. I just wonder if you are an educator...


You made me do it. But...



Elana55 said:


> NEGATIVE PUNISHMENT: Pressure is applied to the dog until the dog complies at which point the pressure is released. I used an E collar example.. but here is another.
> 
> NEGATIVE REINFORCEMENT: You remove something the dog wants to get him to do what you want.


...you have these backwards. 

_You don't want to eat your Brussels sprouts_..._no tv after dinner. _Negative punishment is the removal of an appetitive consequence upon the target behavior (no-Brussel sprout eating). Presumably in this case, watching tv.

_6:AM on a Sunday morning...dad out working in the backyard wants son to help him. Dad decides to do all his noisy work by son's bedroom window._ _Dad stops making noise once son starts working. _Negative reinforcement is the removal of an aversive consequence upon the target behavior (son working in the backyard. 

Fast forward 30 years...I still don't eat Brussel sprouts, and I work on my own dogged schedule. Love you dad!


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

I fixed my post.. I thought... Really I did.. Honest.. I did it after Sparkle pointed out the same thing... 

Thanks tho. I really don't like to put up incorrect stuff.. .... 

I am glad you posted too.

BTW I went back to square ONE on my Jumping Dog. I started to review with her in a distracting situation and it seems like I found where the split in the road happened. 

I went back to just working on FOCUS, FOCUS and ONLY FOCUS. Everywhere. I think that was the HUGE hole in her training. She is smart and does stuff.. but she does her own stuff too. She often will do what I ask but continues to do something she is doing at the same time. This dog can multi-task.. unlike her trainer. 

To this end we are working on focus. I have got it on cue now too. We have been working... well like DOGS.. on this for a couple of days now. Improvement is progress and there has been much improvement.

Today.. she met two new people and did not jump. I asked for her focus on ME first. She did it. Then I let them pet her and because of the pre-focus on me and the heavy reinforcemnt for that, she was happy to greet but just stood up and got petted and did not offer to jump. YAY

And we went to see her Grandma and she never even offered to jump.. tho she rubs on her Grandma like a cat.. back and forth on her legs... cheek rubs and all... I think she needs to see a dog once in awhile. 

So far so good and I have not had to 'abandon' her as you suggested I try. Yet. I am going to over-train focus for a couple of weeks or more.. and when I have that.. I will go on to other things. Like greeting new people. I may have to abandon her and sprint.. errrr... hobble away.. but we may have it under control. 

Of course if I can't keep negative reinforcement and negative punishment straight I am probably doomed... (and we thought it was only the dinosaurs...)


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

May I ask how all this stuff is ending with the word dinosaurs in the statement. I am starting to get a little paranoid


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

Elana.

no Im not being paid. What I do is this.

there are a lot of small,independently operated rescue groups and independent foster homes in my area that don't have a lot of funding. When one of them gets a problem dog they call me because the money they would have spent on a behaviorist is better spent towards food and vet care for not only the problem dog but the immediately adoptable ones as well. the only thing I ask for is a written reference. I don't mind. I can't do any serious fostering right now but this is something I can do to help.


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

Dinosaurs are/were doomed (see Pamperedpups photo...). 

NOT Dinosaur Dog Trainers. Different genetics. 

Zim... you might want to take a look at what it would cost you to set up a business and GET paid. This does not have to end rescue work. 

There is a ton of info on the Small Business Administration web site on everything from business plans to low interest loans. Fact is, if you really want to do rescue work, you can even investigate setting up an NPO for this... just ideas... tho being a certified behaviorist will increase your credibility. Good refs and referrals can do as much. 

Just tossing this out there.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Zim 
If you are wealthy and not in need of any funds to help you live properly(food rent clothes etc) then do not even read this. Why not consider newspaper ads or with these rescue places that you help some type of brochures etc so that you can actually push your programs a tad. Extra funds would pay bills and even add a little mobility to what you are trying to accomplish down the road. Extra funds always help when in pursuit of a goal down the road. You can do home visits, I know if I was a troubled dog owner, I would pay to have a knowledgeable person for needed help. People are paying bunches of money for idiot type dog help. Just throwing some thoughts at you.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

Elana55 said:


> You need to remove two words from your discussion of animal training discussion.. ALWAYS and NEVER.


Dogs are not as psychologically complex as humans, but neither are they as unidimensional as pigeons. ALWAYS and NEVER do not apply.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

Interesting thought Wvasko.



and ALWAYS and NEVER DO apply in relation to a human's decisions.

So if a human decides to ALWAYS use one method and NEVER use another....then by default that DOES apply to dogs....just sayin'


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> and ALWAYS and NEVER DO apply in relation to a human's decisions.
> 
> So if a human decides to ALWAYS use one method and NEVER use another....then by default that DOES apply to dogs....just sayin'


But just because a human make the decision to always do "X", or never do "Y", doesn't mean that is always the best choice, or there is never a different way to do it.


----------



## sparkle (Mar 3, 2009)

I am ALWAYS careful to NEVER use the word NEVER when speaking in terms of training dogs as I am ALWAYS proven wrong at some point when doing so. It does appear that some will speak in terms of absolutes however I think it is just an oversight in word usage in most cases and a expectation that most people would not assume a absolute.

Possibly this is what animalsafe was attempting or struggling to come to terms with in such a long drawnout fashion. Had he or she simply phrased the proper question I think a tad bit of energy, frustration, and stress could have been saved.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

Marsh Muppet said:


> But just because a human make the decision to always do "X", or never do "Y", doesn't mean that is always the best choice, or there is never a different way to do it.


but I think when making that statement you are only taking the individual dog into account.

training dogs is a two primary variable equation...the dog AND the trainer.

with positive reinforcement I am so far beyond capable of achieving what I set out to do because I am willing to experiment with the method, push boundaries with it and am totally comfortable with it.

correction based training leaves a "nasty taste in my mouth". it disturbs me. I don't function well within its parameters and thus I don't use it. I have used it. I feel guilt and shame for the results my using it. I won't cause such a disaster again when those methods failed me and positive has not. 

two part equation...dog AND human...


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Elana55 said:


> The problem I have with Positive Punishment and Negative Punishment is that it requires unpleasantness to the dog in the form of physical correction, threats etc.


I wonder just how much unpleasantness there is. If a pup bites and owner during play and the owner gets up and leaves (Negative Punishment) just how much unpleasantness is there? 

If I say a verbal correction to Wally while he's about to eat some poop, and halts and looks up at me like "okay what am I supposed to do with it?" How unpleasant is he? Yes, I do consider verbal punishments positive punishment (I added a stimulus to his environment that aims to reduce a behavior). 




Elana55 said:


> Once the dog is scared or upset, learning STOPS.


I have to disagree with this to a point. 

From working with Wally, I feel dogs can learn when scared/anxious/upset. In fact, what he does now when he is scared (come find me and sit next to me) is because that's what I trained him to do while in a scared state of mind (instead of running for God only knows where). I mean considering he was scared of ME at one point yet still learned to sit, etc, and scared of just about everything outside and learned to walk off leash next to me - something got through to him. 

I don't see how I could teach him how to act when scared when he's calm and perfectly happy. He'll learn what to do - but only in that context ("I am happy and relaxed") when he's not in that context ("I'm scared out of my fur") then he has to learn that behavior again in that context, so he can perform it when in that context.

I treat emotional states as the same as moving to a different location. Only difference is that I don't freak him out to make him scared then train him, but when I see he's in that state, I'll take the opportunity to refresh the behavior if he doesn't do it already.

Heck, sometimes he's just having a day where he's just spooked/anxious for no apparent-to-me reason. Sometimes it feels like we'll never get anywhere and stop for the day. But then the next day - he's doing the behavior PERFECTLY. So _something_ sunk in. He learned something.

Obviously, I didn't use corrections. Correcting fear is pointless, even if I think his fear is pointless. So that's probably +1 for the R+/P- category (I will ignore him if it's something silly like I bumped by leg on the desk and the noise it made causes him to get scared and then give him affection when he's calm again)



zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> correction based training leaves a "nasty taste in my mouth". it disturbs me. I don't function well within its parameters and thus I don't use it. I have used it. I feel guilt and shame for the results my using it. I won't cause such a disaster again when those methods failed me and positive has not.
> 
> two part equation...dog AND human...


I've always wondered something now that I'm hooked on shaping - would the non-reinforcement be considered P- from the dog's point of view? 

Like an example with the retrieving thing with the rope toy (and the new game of pounce on a ball like a cat before picking it up like a dog ). I got him to pick it up by not reinforcing him going to it. He got so mad that he picked it up and "threw" it on the floor. 

Doesn't may non-reaction in attempt to get a new behavior mean I gave him some P- response? After all, I am trying to reduce the more primitive behavior (just walking to it) and increase walking to it and then picking it up.

It just seems that shaping is just a more fun/game-like way to use the same R+/P- combination with the benefit of making the dog think through his actions and their results.


----------



## rosemaryninja (Sep 28, 2007)

I wouldn't say learning during a period of fear or trauma is impossible, but I wouldn't say it's optimal, either. I'm not sure if different physical locations and different emotional states can be equated so neatly. 

I would amend Elana's quote only slightly and say that when the dog is scared or upset, *training* stops. I avoid training in stressful situations. I'm not sure if this is abnormal, but I don't expect much of my dogs when they are fearful. I expect them to follow their instincts in periods of stress, until I can remove the stressor, or remove them from the stressor.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

personally I would amend Elana's statement to say something like

When the dog is scared or upset, "intended learning" stops.

meaning your intentions in training will be skewed by the fear. Dogs learn from their enviroment and are thusly very aware of it. if you are instigating situations that the dog fears there is an excellent chance they will realize such and learn to fear you.


KB

When I make allusions to "correction training" I speak of physical correction. I will do no harm via pinching, leash jerks, physical force ofany kind. 

correction via removal of rewards does in fact facilitate learning...but I only use it when absolutly nessecary.

I don't know how much you know about me but I used to be quite the little hooligan criminal. if I was a dog id be the dogs that I work with in rescue. 

and I know that the physical punishments I received for my wrongs did nothing but make me resent and fear...when I was given hope for the future via incentives I honestly did change my outlook.

rewards work. nilif(incarceration and incentive programs) worked for me and gave me hope...

if it will work for me, why wouldn't it work for a dog? 

see yall in other threads...this horse is a bloody smear on the floor...


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

rosemaryninja said:


> I wouldn't say learning during a period of fear or trauma is impossible, but I wouldn't say it's optimal, either. I'm not sure if different physical locations and different emotional states can be equated so neatly.
> 
> I would amend Elana's quote only slightly and say that when the dog is scared or upset, *training* stops. I avoid training in stressful situations. I'm not sure if this is abnormal, but I don't expect much of my dogs when they are fearful. I expect them to follow their instincts in periods of stress, until I can remove the stressor, or remove them from the stressor.


I don't expect a ton from Wally either - but I DO expect him to find me (if it happens when away from me) and come by my side. 

Whether he somehow learned it or I trained it, or a mix of both - that's what he does now and I certainly give him positive reinforcement when he does (in this case a click or praise when he's giving me eye contact and we go away from whatever it is). It seems like a mix of both, really, like shaping. He offered a behavior (recalling to me on his own) and I rewarded it, and we know shaping is a method of training.


----------



## sparkle (Mar 3, 2009)

Is anyone familiar with the term -spook in place- as used in horse training?

The horse is not in essence being told that it cannot fear something but rather that if something fearful occurs the horse is required to spook in place. The rider uses a form of force training and tension corrections untill the horse calms down. I believe this form of addressing fear issues occurs quite frequently with humans.


----------



## txcollies (Oct 23, 2007)

sparkle said:


> Is anyone familiar with the term -spook in place- as used in horse training?
> 
> The horse is not in essence being told that it cannot fear something but rather that if something fearful occurs the horse is required to spook in place. The rider uses a form of force training and tension corrections untill the horse calms down. I believe this form of addressing fear issues occurs quite frequently with humans.


Yes, I used it all the time back when I was training horses. Except I started them on the ground.

Alot of the really good horse trainiers teach the horses to take responsibility for their own actions (good thing for dogs to learn, also), and teach them to think things through before they act.


----------



## rosemaryninja (Sep 28, 2007)

KBLover said:


> I don't expect a ton from Wally either - but I DO expect him to find me (if it happens when away from me) and come by my side.
> 
> Whether he somehow learned it or I trained it, or a mix of both - that's what he does now and I certainly give him positive reinforcement when he does (in this case a click or praise when he's giving me eye contact and we go away from whatever it is). It seems like a mix of both, really, like shaping. He offered a behavior (recalling to me on his own) and I rewarded it, and we know shaping is a method of training.


Interesting. What's your aim in getting him to offer a behaviour while fearful, in terms of combating the fearfulness? I'm not criticising, I'm just wondering. I haven't thought much about working during that "fear mode".


----------

