# don sulivian's dog training system



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

Hi all, I noticed while channel surfing lately that there have been a lot of those informercials for this trainer by the nsme of don sulivian now I have never heard of him before but apparently he's ppretty well known. I was just wondering what you guys thought of hin & his methods.


----------



## LazyGRanch713 (Jul 22, 2009)

dogdragoness said:


> Hi all, I noticed while channel surfing lately that there have been a lot of those informercials for this trainer by the nsme of don sulivian now I have never heard of him before but apparently he's ppretty well known. I was just wondering what you guys thought of hin & his methods.


http://www.dogfather.tv/training.php

No thanks.


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

Thanks for the link, I mean I don't slove it or hate. It, I've onlly seen the infomercials which don't give much info on the mechancs of the system. After reading it, it sounds a lot like nilif I have never really approved of methoda such as victoria stillwell's I think they are just too treat dependant. His method sounds like it would be ok depending on the dog of course.


----------



## LazyGRanch713 (Jul 22, 2009)

dogdragoness said:


> Thanks for the link, I mean I don't slove it or hate. It, I've onlly seen the infomercials which don't give much info on the mechancs of the system.


Any 'system' that refers to _any and all _food using in training as "bribery" and tells you you need to order a "special" collar (conviniently sold by the owner of the "system") gets a thumbs down from me. Ask multitudes of peope currently food training for high end competition, and tell them they're simply bribing their dogs  
I happened to "bribe" Tag through some minor rally proofing this evening, off leash, and I'm feeling more and more confident about competition...


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

Yeah but I also dabble in agility & can always get my dogs to take the courses without treats I have never used my treats in any of my training, I just mostly use thre simple system of making the right decision easy & the wromg one dificult


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

LazyGRanch713 said:


> I happened to "bribe" Tag through some minor rally proofing this evening, off leash, and I'm feeling more and more confident about competition...


Go you! You know Tag is going to get in there and tear it up, and you're either going to reach the end wondering why you were so nervous in the first place, or wondering how you got to the finish sign when you were just standing at the start star. 

But yeah. Don Sulivan is garbage, don't waste your money. Anything telling you he has the "secrets of dog training" is making things up. There _are_ no secrets to dog training. Reward what you like, punish what you don't. It really is that simple. It's not _easy_, and it takes a huge amount of skill and intuition, but there's no secrets. Reward what you like, punish what you don't.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

dogdragoness said:


> Thanks for the link, I mean I don't slove it or hate. It, I've onlly seen the infomercials which don't give much info on the mechancs of the system. After reading it, it sounds a lot like nilif I have never really approved of methoda such as victoria stillwell's I think they are just too treat dependant. His method sounds like it would be ok depending on the dog of course.



There's no such thing as treat dependent if the treats are used properly (i.e. AFTER the behavior is performed, or, in the case of shaping, as a way to lead the dog to the correct behavior in ever increasing steps).

Do what works best for you and certainly there's many a humane and successful trainer that's used prong collars (which is basically what his collar is imo) and long lines (the "freedom lines", imo) successfully. I'm sure if you started a thread asking for info about this method of training or treatless training, you'd get lots of info and without having to buy a "secret system" to do it. I'm living proof. I've learned a TON just by being here and I'm a first time owner with a once-fearful dog that I helped him overcome with no small part to help/info from here. Never bought a system. 

You can always reward without treats as well. *Whatever motivates your dog can be used as a positive reinforcer.* If she likes to play, use that. Short game of tug or such, for example. Sounds like you may like using 'life rewards' instead of food - perfectly viable if your dogs is game for it.

BTW, NILIF/Premack doesn't inherently require treats. Want dinner? Lay down first. Want out? Sit first. Want to play? Walk in heel until we get to the park. Things like that are also NILIF/Premack and not a treat to be found.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

If the method was of any value he wouldn't need an infomercial. That's what I think of him.


----------



## poodleholic (Mar 15, 2007)

dogdragoness said:


> I have never really approved of methoda such as victoria stillwell's I think they are just too treat dependant.


Do you work at a job for nothing? No, you get a paycheck, or you wouldn't bother to show up. Dogs earn "paychecks," too, in forms of treats, toys/tug, and praise. 
Victoria Stillwell knows what she's doing.
don sullivan = B.S.


----------



## petpeeve (Jun 10, 2010)

With infomercials ... you get an INFERIOR off-shore product, at an OVER-INFLATED price.

It's fundamental.




I thought everybody knew that.


----------



## LazyGRanch713 (Jul 22, 2009)

dogdragoness said:


> Yeah but I also dabble in agility & can always get my dogs to take the courses without treats I have never used my treats in any of my training, I just mostly use thre simple system of making the right decision easy & the wromg one dificult


I dabble in agility also, and like you my dog doesn't need treats anymore on course. I might jackpot him occasionally for a really great effort, but toys and food treats sit on the shelf untouched anymore 90% of the time. Agility is self reinforcing for him. I don't see the problem using treats while training if your dog is motivated by them.


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

That's another thing that I don't like about this guy like I said, most of what I reasd on the 'about product' section aee just common sense plus the fact that its mentioned that his clients pay him $1000's of diollars to train their dogs personally I was like... 'what?' Lol. Plus for whatvim going to pay for all that equipment I could just go to petsmart & get a set of different length l,eashes with a prong collar (not for a puppy of course) & with a little common sense achieve the same result lol.


----------



## LazyGRanch713 (Jul 22, 2009)

have never really approved of methoda such as victoria stillwell's I think they are just too treat dependant.

Problem is that most "treat free" trainers who say the dog works to please you actually has dogs that work to avoid aversives. Plus, you can pick out avoidance/aversive trained dogs anywhere if you've got the eye for it. I don't want my dog shying away from my hand or tensing up if I touch the collar/go to unsnap the leash. If non-treat training works for you, I say wonderful, and more power to ya. But saying those who use food methods PROPOERLY "rely" on the food is ignorant. I've met my share of people/dogs who DO rely on the food; food training wasn't used correctly and the food almost becomes a cue to work. Just like compulsion training done improperly creates leash-dependent or collar-wise or ring-wise dogs.

Go you! You know Tag is going to get in there and tear it up, and you're either going to reach the end wondering why you were so nervous in the first place, or wondering how you got to the finish sign when you were just standing at the start star. 

*Thanks  We're going to achieve working rally E off leash before attempting to compete for a novice, on leash. I think it would make me feel better knowing he's really REALLY ready; if I know he's capable of hard stuff off leash going into the novice ring onleash will seem not-so-scary. And hopefully the judge won't shoot us with a death ray if we don't get 100 points *

But yeah. Don Sulivan is garbage, don't waste your money. Anything telling you he has the "secrets of dog training" is making things up. There _are_ no secrets to dog training. Reward what you like, punish what you don't. It really is that simple. It's not _easy_, and it takes a huge amount of skill and intuition, but there's no secrets. Reward what you like, punish what you don't.
*It is easy. It makes me really sad when people make it so hard for themselves. Many many times I see people correcting or punishing dogs who are pulling or milling around...2 minutes later the dog is sitting in front and watching the owner when the owner is too busy yakking to the person next to them and miss a GOLDEN oppourtunity to reward beautiful behavior. Sigh.*


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Well here's couple of dog training secrets.

1. Hard work and lots of it.

2. Secret hidden in above secret, If you like what your doing, guess what, the work is not hard.

Oh and above stuff is absolutely free.


----------



## LazyGRanch713 (Jul 22, 2009)

wvasko said:


> Well here's couple of dog training secrets.
> 
> 1. Hard work and lots of it.
> 
> ...


Can I order a copy of the Dinosaur Dog Training System? I'll pay $1,999.99, but not a penny more.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

LazyGRanch713 said:


> Can I order a copy of the Dinosaur Dog Training System? I'll pay $1,999.99, but not a penny more.


Oh My, That's enough money to start my brand new info-mercial program, I guess I'm on my way to the big time part of dog world. 
Thank You LGR713


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

Lol I never thought that don was all that, I just didn't know much about him & had been seeing him a lot on the informercial networks I was just curious about him. Though true I haven't seen ian dunbar on asn lol lol.


----------



## LynnI (Mar 27, 2010)

dogdragoness said:


> Yeah but I also dabble in agility & can always get my dogs to take the courses without treats I have never used my treats in any of my training, *I just mostly use thre simple system of making the right decision easy & the wromg one dificult*


Please explain how you do this. What level of agility are you at?


----------



## qingcong (Oct 26, 2009)

I do like the one bolded line - "superficial imitation of obedience that would soon crumble under the distractions and temptations of real life." To me, it's true that basic obedience "commands" are pretty superficial and don't do much to alter your dog's behavior if he is into barking and lunging at other dogs on the leash. But he clearly doesn't understand the power of non-compulsive training and is taking some cheap shots on reward training. Any method based on a kind of collar is obviously a fraud. There is only one way to teach, and it's animal learning, not a piece of equipment around the neck.


----------



## LazyGRanch713 (Jul 22, 2009)

qingcong said:


> I do like the one bolded line - "superficial imitation of obedience that would soon crumble under the distractions and temptations of real life." To me, it's true that basic obedience "commands" are pretty superficial and don't do much to alter your dog's behavior if he is into barking and lunging at other dogs on the leash. But he clearly doesn't understand the power of non-compulsive training and is taking some cheap shots on reward training. Any method based on a kind of collar is obviously a fraud. There is only one way to teach, and it's animal learning, not a piece of equipment around the neck.


Oh, I think part of his ideas are right on, but he sure didn't invent them. 
(I feel the same way about CM!) The problem I have with him is what you mentioned; taking cheap shots on reward training and anyone who doesn't do it "his" way. If his methods were that awesome, he wouldn't have time to take those cheap shots; he'd be too busy helping dogs and owners. Animal learning and teaching humans how to read dogs...it's why I've never had the desire or want to be a pro trainer because I figure the people are hard to train. But slapping a special collar on a dog and calling it trained is a bit like taking asprin 4 times a day for chronic headaches when you don't address the problem in the first place. (FTR, before anyon has an attack, I'm not against using management collars. I use them myself, a prong for the GSD if needed. But I don't call him perfectly leash trained when the prong is on or off )


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

> Oh, I think part of his ideas are right on, but he sure didn't invent them.


Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm!! 
Ahem Ahem
I was here before all these silly guys dreamed of training dogs/collars etc. I'm just sayin'.. It's cool because mistakes that I possibly could have made :dohnot admitting any, strictly hypothetical) nobody was alive to see. Now that I'm a legend in own mind just not gonna happen again.:lalala:


----------



## LazyGRanch713 (Jul 22, 2009)

wvasko said:


> Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm!!
> Ahem Ahem
> I was here before all these silly guys dreamed of training dogs/collars etc. I'm just sayin'.. It's cool because mistakes that I possibly could have made :dohnot admitting any, strictly hypothetical) nobody was alive to see. Now that I'm a legend in own mind just not gonna happen again.:lalala:


LOL, so did you help domesticate the Dog or what?


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

LazyGRanch713 said:


> LOL, so did you help domesticate the Dog or what?


Well I still have the club used to capture wife and drag-er back to cave.:wink: Actually I helped domesticate the Raptor and then moved on to dogs.


----------



## LazyGRanch713 (Jul 22, 2009)

wvasko said:


> Well I still have the club used to capture wife and drag-er back to cave.:wink: Actually I helped domesticate the Raptor and then moved on to dogs.


Shall I call you Fred Flintstone or Barney Rubble? 
You can call me Doogie...er...Donna Howser! I got 27 years under this belt and therefore I know everything :rockon:


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

LazyGRanch713 said:


> Shall I call you Fred Flintstone or Barney Rubble?
> You can call me Doogie...er...Donna Howser! I got 27 years under this belt and therefore I know everything :rockon:


Ahhhh!!
Don't bring up Fred & Barney they're just kids. I taught-em everything they know.

I agree, one is indeed very knowledgeable at age 27. It's as one ages they get stupid rapidly at least that's how it's working out for me.


----------



## LazyGRanch713 (Jul 22, 2009)

wvasko said:


> Ahhhh!!
> Don't bring up Fred & Barney they're just kids. I taught-em everything they know.
> 
> I agree, one is indeed very knowledgeable at age 27. It's as one ages they get stupid rapidly at least that's how it's working out for me.


I've always figured humans have to live at least 30 years before they know anything. Unfortunately, I seem to be getting dumber by the minute and walk into any given room 5 separate times before I realize what I'm there for. Most days I run in circles and get nothing done. My nicname is Edith (Dingbat Bunker), and I'm afrai by the time I'm her age I'll be so insane I'll be able to do nothing but pick up the phone and yell


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

LazyGRanch713 said:


> I've always figured humans have to live at least 30 years before they know anything. Unfortunately, I seem to be getting dumber by the minute and walk into any given room 5 separate times before I realize what I'm there for. Most days I run in circles and get nothing done. My nicname is Edith (Dingbat Bunker), and I'm afrai by the time I'm her age I'll be so insane I'll be able to do nothing but pick up the phone and yell


The good news is at that age you'll forget quicker as there is a much more efficient memory/mind eraser goin on then. All will be good.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

wvasko said:


> Ahhhh!!
> Don't bring up Fred & Barney they're just kids. I taught-em everything they know.


Whoa, you mean you were back before they learned how to use animals as a makeshift technology? 

Wait...were you the one who trained all those animals to that stuff? How'd you train the rabbit to receive tv signals? I could dump DirecTV and just get a rabbit.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

KBLover said:


> Whoa, you mean you were back before they learned how to use animals as a makeshift technology?
> 
> Wait...were you the one who trained all those animals to that stuff? How'd you train the rabbit to receive tv signals? I could dump DirecTV and just get a rabbit.


I'm so sorry even though you are "The Wally's" person/caretaker/daddy etc. all that technical stuff is on a need to know basis and while Wally has proper tech clearance, you don't.


----------



## Cracker (May 25, 2009)

You guys are on silly gas. LOL

Op, Don Sullivan's training collar is just a plastic prong. He trains primarily with positive punishment (aversives) and claims using treats creates AGGRESSION. He's no better than Brad Pattison. For these type of trainers it is all about power and coercion (being alpha) and not about motivation and reward. It's sad really.

You say you are a fan of natural training methods, Natural Dog Training ala Kevin Behan uses motivation and social pressure AND rewards, including foods for teaching the games like "Push". Never using food (or water) is taking away a primary reinforcer for behaviour...in my mind the equivalent of cutting off your nose to spite your face.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

Cracker said:


> You guys are on silly gas. LOL
> 
> Op, Don Sullivan's training collar is just a plastic prong. He trains primarily with positive punishment (aversives) and claims using treats creates AGGRESSION. He's no better than Brad Pattison. For these type of trainers it is all about power and coercion (being alpha) and not about motivation and reward. It's sad really.
> 
> You say you are a fan of natural training methods, Natural Dog Training ala Kevin Behan uses motivation and social pressure AND rewards, including foods for teaching the games like "Push". Never using food (or water) is taking away a primary reinforcer for behaviour...in my mind the equivalent of cutting off your nose to spite your face.


Yup I'm sure using his methods gets results, but his methods are no secret.. You could watch all the vids at Leerburg and get the same methods too, with food rewards mixed in for better effectiveness. The plastic prong collar is a joke.

Dogs learn just like we do, from consequences. Good consequences or bad ones.. The real secret is to train regularly as in daily, and be very consistent in your training.

Personally I don't rule out his methods, I would and probably have used a few of the ones he pushes but it's very dog dependent for me as to what I'll use. Some dogs I would use nothing negative at all on, some I will use them on. Depends on the dog and the dogs reaction to different methods.

With a puppy my goal is to train well enough with positive methods to never need much negative ones, but I tend to get adult rescued dogs already a few years old that already come with big issues from bad upringing and not a clean slate like a puppy.

But not using food? ROFL.. that's just silly. But it can turn into bribery if you use food rewards wrong.


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

qingcong said:


> I do like the one bolded line - "superficial imitation of obedience that would soon crumble under the distractions and temptations of real life." To me, it's true that basic obedience "commands" are pretty superficial and don't do much to alter your dog's behavior if he is into barking and lunging at other dogs on the leash. But he clearly doesn't understand the power of non-compulsive training and is taking some cheap shots on reward training. Any method based on a kind of collar is obviously a fraud. There is only one way to teach, and it's animal learning, not a piece of equipment around the neck.


Ok,, in all fairness, don't supporters of pure pos renforcement take the same 'shots' at traditional-like methods? I'm all for what works for the dog, if its pos renforcement then I will use that as the base for a training program, usually 'soft' type personalities do well with pos renforcement, whilist I have found that traditional-type methods work with more dominant types. I mean ian dunbar is a respected expert as well & I see that it costs to downlad his 'secrets' as well. Also some of what he says I don't really believe either. Again to be fair these are only examples.


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

I don't know of any positive trainer that is arguing that traditional training doesn't work. Of course it works. Our way just works _better_.


----------



## qingcong (Oct 26, 2009)

Yeah that's true, Jean Donaldson and Karen Pryor will never miss an opportunity to take a shot on punishment based methods. That got on my nerves when I used to be a leash jerk kind of guy, and it still gets on my nerves after I've picked up the clicker. 

Why would you say that dominant dogs require traditional methods? Just curious, what do you mean by a dominant dog?


----------



## Shandwill (Jul 23, 2010)

RaeganW said:


> I don't know of any positive trainer that is arguing that traditional training doesn't work. Of course it works. Our way just works _better_.


Nice! 
I explored and researched several different "camps" for myself and my dogs and have found positive training (specifically the Volhards' Motivational Method) to work best for me. It seems, from my experience, that training is more about getting us humans to send the right signals in the right way to get the desired response. If I have to intimidate my dog into anything, it isn't worth it! As for treats...as a trained psychologist, I have to say that a variable ratio schedule of reinforcement truly does work best.


----------



## lil_fuzzy (Aug 16, 2010)

> I mean ian dunbar is a respected expert as well & I see that it costs to downlad his 'secrets' as well.


Dunbar has a whole heap of free advice on his site, you could literally train a dog using all of his free stuff and never pay for anything. There are also free ebooks for download. I guess a lot of people choose to pay for some of his books, but you don't NEED to pay for anything if you want to do it the Dunbar way.


----------



## Cracker (May 25, 2009)

dogdragoness said:


> Ok,, in all fairness, don't supporters of pure pos renforcement take the same 'shots' at traditional-like methods? I'm all for what works for the dog, if its pos renforcement then I will use that as the base for a training program, usually 'soft' type personalities do well with pos renforcement, whilist I have found that traditional-type methods work with more dominant types. I mean ian dunbar is a respected expert as well & I see that it costs to downlad his 'secrets' as well. Also some of what he says I don't really believe either. Again to be fair these are only examples.


Don Sullivan offers NOTHING of his methods for free. Dr. Dunbar, Pryor et al all have free information on their sites, including videos and Dunbar even has free ebook downloads. Yes there are pos. trainers that are pretty irritated with the dominance based training culture (and vice versa)..but there are very few that say that traditional training doesn't work...because it does. OC is OC. The main difference in the two camps (or four or five camps depending on where on the fence you sit) is that positive trainers believe it is UNNECESSARY to use force to compel a dog to do something and prefer to use methods that safeguard the emotional AND physical health of the dog. 

You will also find that the majority of positive trainers in the last thirty years are crossovers, people who DID do balanced training or force based training, learned about R+ and moved on into positive training with a very good background in both of the methods. I'm sure there are a few who have gone back the other way too, but I would hazard a guess they are few and far between.

I am a crossover trainer. I have used choke chains, ecollars, prongs, various halters, citronella collars, collar pops,scruffing, staring down etc and I have no problem admitting it. I would have a problem with continuing using these methods because the success I have had with positive training AND the reduction in stress on all the participants, including myself, is well worth the learning curve it took me to get here. 

Not dissing you, just saying like I see it. 

BTW, you didn't discuss the natural dogmanship comment I made earlier...are you not playing the moose?


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

dogdragoness said:


> I'm all for what works for the dog...


If this were true, you'd use a brick to effectively get your dog to down. The truth is you don't because YOU AREN'T all for what works. You also weigh your humanity, and not all methods are equal on the humane scale.


----------



## LazyGRanch713 (Jul 22, 2009)

RaeganW said:


> I don't know of any positive trainer that is arguing that traditional training doesn't work. Of course it works. Our way just works _better_.


And positive doesn't mean _permissive_. I hate that assumption  And not all positive trainers ignore the bad, I wouldn't ignore my dog if he decided to try and take a chunk out of a passer-by. But if I tell my soft dog to sit and he downs instead, I'm not going to leash pop or electric stim him over it.


----------



## spotted nikes (Feb 7, 2008)

Don S seems like the dog version of Pat and Linda Parelli for horses. You pay several hundred dollars for their special "tools" like a "carrot stick"...a short stick with a "flag" on it. You could make one for less than 5 dollars.


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

Curbside Prophet said:


> If this were true, you'd use a brick to effectively get your dog to down. The truth is you don't because YOU AREN'T all for what works. You also weigh your humanity, and not all methods are equal on the humane scale.


Whoa that was a tad much, don't you think? I was refering to positive VS traditional methods I have never nor would I ever use phsyical punishment to an animal EVER! What I meant was if positive methods work for a dog, as they did for one of my parents dogs then I will (& did) use them. As with my acd, Izze I used a traditionally-based program though I do not alpha roll or scruff shake or any of that bull.


----------



## qingcong (Oct 26, 2009)

dogdragoness said:


> Whoa that was a tad much, don't you think? I was refering to positive VS traditional methods I have never nor would I ever use phsyical punishment to an animal EVER! What I meant was if positive methods work for a dog, as they did for one of my parents dogs then I will (& did) use them. As with my acd, Izze I used a traditionally-based program though I do not alpha roll or scruff shake or any of that bull.


I must not have been around dog training long enough to know this; what do you mean by traditional methods?


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

BTW, you didn't discuss the natural dogmanship comment I made earlier...are you not playing the moose?[/QUOTE]

No, no I'm not lol & yes I do support natural dogmanship, but not the monstrocity that some trainers make it with alpha rolls & such. Nor do I like kohlers method, which many confuse with natural dogmanship but they are 2 different things... at least to me.

Also I have to say, that 'cracker' is a cute name.


----------



## Cracker (May 25, 2009)

Thank you. Cracker is a crackhouse pup. I'm honouring her roots. LOL

I was asking because the natural dogmanship sig made me think of Natural Dog Training ala Kevin Behan. Where the driving concept of ,well, increasing or decreasing, drive is based on prey/play behaviour...he calls it "being the moose". It's an interesting concept and they do use prongs, not as punishment, but as a tool to INCREASE drive.


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

qingcong said:


> I must not have been around dog training long enough to know this; what do you mean by traditional methods?


That all depends on what you ask lol, a lot of people think that the dog whisperer is traditional. I agree that he may take some of his methods from the traditional side of the fence but I don't think even he is purely traditional, though some people may disagree. I also believe that he practices a lot of natural dogmanship as well, we tend to humanze their dogs & treat them like they have human needs, when in fact they do not.

Cracker- I'm not familiar with that person I will have to google them & find out more I know when I talk I sound really like a 'tough mama' lol but I can't help that I have a natural leadership personality & am very active & 'busy' on top of that. But I have never scruffed, alpha rolled a dog or puppy in my life I do believe that tools like prong collars & choke collars do have their place, but average dog owners & even some trainers can & do misuse them.


----------



## Cracker (May 25, 2009)

Ahh, the anthropomorphization thing....I sense a change of purpose in the thread...

Can you clarify what you mean by "treat them like they have human needs"? These are my ideas about that, please don't take them as argumentative, just how I feel about it and interested in your view.

I treat my dogs like I would want to be treated, with respect and leadership and manners and I love them dearly. Is that humanizing them?
I believe the dogs have the same emotional basis/feelings that we do (I believe all animals do) though they are species centric and "less evolved", ie they don't express them the same way we do in many instances. I think they can experience moral conflict (ie a basic sense of right and wrong, pertaining to THEIR survival and the survival of others of their type). 

I think that a failure to anthropomorphise to an extent results in a defecit of empathy for the animal involved. So I get frustrated with the "it's just a dog" people (not the folks here obviously) as it is very easy if the animal is not considered a thinking, feeling entity to treat them inhumanely.

So, a little bit of anthropomorphizing is a good thing, though assuming they THINK and feel EXACTLY like us is a mistake but ignoring the basic sensitivities in our domesticated dog is unfair to all involved. It's a matter of taking the feelings and thoughts in context with what we know about dog body language and communication.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

dogdragoness said:


> That all depends on what you ask lol, a lot of people think that the dog whisperer is traditional. I agree that he may take some of his methods from the traditional side of the fence but I don't think even he is purely traditional, though some people may disagree. I also believe that he practices a lot of natural dogmanship as well, we tend to humanze their dogs & treat them like they have human needs, when in fact they do not.


Do you think that there are any/many/few professional dog trainers that treat dogs like humans? Not amateurs strictly professionals. Just curious.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

dogdragoness said:


> Whoa that was a tad much, don't you think? I was refering to positive VS traditional methods I have never nor would I ever use phsyical punishment to an animal EVER! What I meant was if positive methods work for a dog, as they did for one of my parents dogs then I will (& did) use them. As with my acd, Izze I used a traditionally-based program though I do not alpha roll or scruff shake or any of that bull.


A bit much? Yes, a brick over the head would be a bit much to effectively get a dog to down - this exaggeration was intentional. The point remains though, it's not about what "works", it's about what we are able to do, what we are skilled enough to do, weighed against our humanity, and to its effect. It's not about what "works"...it's much more than that. 

Furthermore, in the context I used the brick, it was not used as a punisher...though it could have been to the dog. Further still, I have no idea what "traditional-based methods" are. Everyone seems to have a different definition that only explains how they reinforce and punish behavior. In the end, you can only get behavior through reinforcement. It's not an either/or situation...that is a law of learning.


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

Curbside prophet- No, I was refering to the average dog owner lol or else we wouldn't need shows like its me or the dog & the dog whisperer. I to value my dogs as seperate entities & allow them to have their individual personalities & quirks & all that, but being 'ranch hands' they must listen & obey when I Tell them to regardless.

Example: if I'm going to get a horse from the pasture my dog is now allowed to follow me in, regardless of her strong instinct to follow, for everyone's safety, that's how I train all my dogs.

Curbside prophet- No, I was refering to the average dog owner lol or else we wouldn't need shows like its me or the dog & the dog whisperer. I to value my dogs as seperate entities & allow them to have their individual personalities & quirks & all that, but being 'ranch hands' they must listen & obey when I Tell them to regardless.

Example: if I'm going to get a horse from the pasture my dog is now allowed to follow me in, regardless of her strong instinct to follow, for everyone's safety, that's how I train all my dogs.


----------



## LazyGRanch713 (Jul 22, 2009)

dogdragoness said:


> That all depends on what you ask lol, a lot of people think that the dog whisperer is traditional. I agree that he may take some of his methods from the traditional side of the fence but I don't think even he is purely traditional, though some people may disagree. I also believe that he practices a lot of natural dogmanship as well, we tend to humanze their dogs & treat them like they have human needs, when in fact they do not.
> 
> Cracker- I'm not familiar with that person I will have to google them & find out more I know when I talk I sound really like a 'tough mama' lol but I can't help that I have a natural leadership personality & am very active & 'busy' on top of that. But I have never scruffed, alpha rolled a dog or puppy in my life I do believe that tools like prong collars & choke collars do have their place, but average dog owners & even some trainers can & do misuse them.


I know a lot of splendid dog trainers and dog owners who have that natural leadership personality. I'm a tough mama on my dogs as well. I don't allow them to do things because "they're just excited" or "they just want to (fill in the blank)". I've used prongs and choke collars before, and I much prefer prongs between to two, but if able I use neither. Contrary to a lot of PR beliefs, I use negative reinforcement more than I probably realize. If my dog goes to break position, I move towards them and move away when they're back in position. If they go to go out the door, I body block or tell them to knock it off, and once they do, I take the physical and/or verbal "pressure" off. I've seen R+ training and R- training totally butchered, along with P+. Done _in_correctly P+ and R- can only be described as inhumane.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

> Curbside prophet- No, I was refering to the average dog owner lol or else we wouldn't need shows like its me or the dog & the dog whisperer. I to value my dogs as seperate entities & allow them to have their individual personalities & quirks & all that, but being 'ranch hands' they must listen & obey when I Tell them to regardless.
> 
> Example: if I'm going to get a horse from the pasture my dog is now allowed to follow me in, regardless of her strong instinct to follow, for everyone's safety, that's how I train all my dogs.


We don't need shows like Dog Whisperer and It's Me or the Dog. Neither of those shows are meant to be very educational, they are 98% entertainment and 2% education. Just like everything on TV, if you want to learn properly, you need to learn from a professional in classes, in the library, or on the internet. 

However, you make a statement like your example as though it is a reason why "Traditional" (whatever that is) methods are required. My 8 month old German Shepherd puppy could do a off lead down stay 10' away in the presence of horses trotting by, regardless of her instinct. That was acquired without the use of punishment.

Positive trainers require absolute obedience just as much as any other method's trainers. They just know how to more effectively acquire a behavior with long-term results.


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

LazyGRanch713 said:


> I know a lot of splendid dog trainers and dog owners who have that natural leadership personality. I'm a tough mama on my dogs as well. I don't allow them to do things because "they're just excited" or "they just want to (fill in the blank)". I've used prongs and choke collars before, and I much prefer prongs between to two, but if able I use neither. Contrary to a lot of PR beliefs, I use negative reinforcement more than I probably realize. If my dog goes to break position, I move towards them and move away when they're back in position. If they go to go out the door, I body block or tell them to knock it off, and once they do, I take the physical and/or verbal "pressure" off. I've seen R+ training and R- training totally butchered, along with P+. Done _in_correctly P+ and R- can only be described as inhumane.


Yeah that's what I do to! I just don't understand why so many people here think that's a bad thing, I also believe that a dog who knows its place is a happier dog, because there is balence, consistancy & it makes a better relationship for all when everyone knows where they stand & what their place is. My dogs do not beg from the table, steal food or get in the trash. The way I train allows me to devlope a deep, personal relationship with my dogs that I swear we can read each other's minds lol.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

dogdragoness said:


> ...but being 'ranch hands' they must listen & obey when I Tell them to regardless.
> 
> Example: if I'm going to get a horse from the pasture my dog is now allowed to follow me in, regardless of her strong instinct to follow, for everyone's safety, that's how I train all my dogs.


I'm trying to understand, but what does this have to do with how dogs, horses, humans, slugs, or any other living, breathing animal acquires behavior? The laws of learning do not change by our wants/desires (what you stated above). Our methods change by what we're able to do, by what we believe is humane, and by how effective we determine our method to be. Agreed? 

Whether I want my dog to down-stay as a scurrying-fuzzy crosses her path, does not change the fact that I get that behavior from reinforcement. Always. I'm not trying to manipulate my words here, but you don't get behavior from defining your boundary. The boundary you set only determines whether the dog is behaving or not. This isn't the training on how you got there.


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

That's what I was getting at, dogs & horses have their own set of instincts being predetor & prey animals therfore they do effect each other, by setting boundries with the dogs on what they can chase, how they behave around the horses & other animals we have here. The point of my post was that I believe in doing this I create a well rounded dog that is not intimidated or exhibiting 'learned helplessness'.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

dogdragoness said:


> Yeah that's what I do to! I just don't understand why so many people here think that's a bad thing, I also believe that a dog who knows its place is a happier dog, because there is balence, consistancy & it makes a better relationship for all when everyone knows where they stand & what their place is. My dogs do not beg from the table, steal food or get in the trash. The way I train allows me to devlope a deep, personal relationship with my dogs that I swear we can read each other's minds lol.



I guess my thing is that I don't really care what Wally's "place" is or even what he thinks his place is. Yeah, I expect certain things from him at certain times. However, I don't think "yeah, he's put in his place". Based on his expressions and excitement, I don't think he is either. He's concerned with "winning" the next reward, not with "being submissive" or "put in his place". 

Heck, he might even think he's controlling the whole thing. As long as I get what I want - he can think as he wishes. I just wish I knew exactly what he was thinking and how he reasons things in his head. Considering the borderline fit he can throw during shaping when a behavior doesn't give the expected result (does he think he's controlling 'the machine' and is frustrated when the defies his wishes?) it wouldn't surprise me.

After all, if he sits and the door magically opens - who's to say he doesn't think that his sitting actually makes the door open - i.e. he has some measure of control over the door? And generalized, some control over his environment? Wouldn't that make him "dominant" in some situations by traditional definition in HIS mind? (doesn't matter that we think we're opening the door only after he sits so we control the door - he might think he's sitting to make his human open the door - who's correct and thus "dominant"?)


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

> Heck, he might even think he's controlling the whole thing. As long as I get what I want - he can think as he wishes. I just wish I knew exactly what he was thinking and how he reasons things in his head. Considering the borderline fit he can throw during shaping when a behavior doesn't give the expected result (does he think he's controlling 'the machine' and is frustrated when the defies his wishes?) it wouldn't surprise me.


Oh My, 
How naive you are. To those of us in the know, we all understand who's doing the controlling in "The Wally's" household and it's not the KBLover. I'm just sayin'....


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

wvasko said:


> Oh My,
> How naive you are. To those of us in the know, we all understand who's doing the controlling in "The Wally's" household and it's not the KBLover. I'm just sayin'....



Well, that's why I'm here, to learn from those who have walked the path before me. 

I is naive puppy.


----------



## LazyGRanch713 (Jul 22, 2009)

I guess my thing is that I don't really care what Wally's "place" is or even what he thinks his place is. Yeah, I expect certain things from him at certain times. However, I don't think "yeah, he's put in his place". Based on his expressions and excitement, I don't think he is either. He's concerned with "winning" the next reward, not with "being submissive" or "put in his place". 

*I think social hierarchy exists in dogs (and in humans), but I honestly don't think most dogs spend their lives mentally climbing the social rungs, and aren't as obsessed with it as much as most people are. There is certainly a social hierarchy at my job...but everyone likes my boss because she's not a "put them in their place" type. She's benevolent and doesn't spend her life slamming her weight around and "reminding" everyone she's in charge. People like her because she's a natural, confident leader and can ge her point across without acting like a lunatic. (I liked the analogy I read on the board earlier..."who would you follow out of a burning building, the guy who's walking in a direction with a purpose or the guy whos running and screaming?") The whole "dominance/submission" thing kind of cracks me up anymore, because a lot of people read submissive behaviors (pawing, jumping up, peeing with excitement, etc) as dominant traits. It only gets worse as they try to "correct" these dominant traits out of their dogs. I've only met one dog in my life who I would have considered a born social climber, and he was (apparently) horrible to live with. I didn't like that dog. He wasn't what I would consider a true alpha, he was more of a pompous ass bully. He didn't walk, he would strut everywhere he went. If you made eye contact with him, he was immediately on his toes, ears forward, tail over his back. He was a dog who went everywhere looking for a fight. OK, I didn't like him was an understatement. I hated boarding that damn dog. *

Heck, he might even think he's controlling the whole thing. As long as I get what I want - he can think as he wishes. I just wish I knew exactly what he was thinking and how he reasons things in his head. Considering the borderline fit he can throw during shaping when a behavior doesn't give the expected result (does he think he's controlling 'the machine' and is frustrated when the defies his wishes?) it wouldn't surprise me.

*I think a lot of dogs view clicker as being somewhat in control of the situation, which is why (IMO) clicker is such a great way to work with fearful or shy dogs. Instead of saying "I will sit because you told me to" it's more or less "I'm going to make you click by putting my butt on the ground". I don't really see anything wrong with that, because the clicker is a tool that I use for probably 10 minutes a week. It's not like my dogs are controlling every situation by offering things and "making" me click. It's an educational game, if you will.*After all, if he sits and the door magically opens - who's to say he doesn't think that his sitting actually makes the door open - i.e. he has some measure of control over the door? And generalized, some control over his environment? Wouldn't that make him "dominant" in some situations by traditional definition in HIS mind? (doesn't matter that we think we're opening the door only after he sits so we control the door - he might think he's sitting to make his human open the door - who's correct and thus "dominant"?)

*I really don't think my dogs sit there and think "I sat and MADE my mom click. Therefore, I am dominant", anymore than if I ask one of my friends to pick me up a 7-Up on their way back from town "makes me dominant" over them. I don't spend my life trying to climb the social rungs of my life, and anyone who's life revolves around doing so makes me think they must be seriously insecure, kwim?*


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

Yeah like I say intimidation isn't the way for me either, I work on my dogs feelings, I never raise my hand to her, when she is naughty (which is rare but she is imperfect as us humans are so she does makes the occasional mistake, which is ok) I shake my finger to her & tell her she is a bad dog, she hates that lol but could she merely hate the fact that I'm upset with her more then the words? Perhaps.

I know there are trainers out there that think a dog should never heara negitive word or get a correction... period, I think that's a whole lot of bologna I always curb the corrections on an impressionable puppy, instead practicing the 'no don't do that, do this' method, but once they know what they are doing, it becomes no nonsense.

Yeah like I say intimidation isn't the way for me either, I work on my dogs feelings, I never raise my hand to her, when she is naughty (which is rare but she is imperfect as us humans are so she does makes the occasional mistake, which is ok) I shake my finger to her & tell her she is a bad dog, she hates that lol but could she merely hate the fact that I'm upset with her more then the words? Perhaps.

I know there are trainers out there that think a dog should never heara negitive word or get a correction... period, I think that's a whole lot of bologna I always curb the corrections on an impressionable puppy, instead practicing the 'no don't do that, do this' method, but once they know what they are doing, it becomes no nonsense.


----------



## qingcong (Oct 26, 2009)

dogdragoness said:


> (which is rare but she is imperfect as us humans are so she does makes the occasional mistake, which is ok) I shake my finger to her & tell her she is a bad dog, she hates that lol but could she merely hate the fact that I'm upset with her more then the words? Perhaps.


I would hope that since you are into natural dogmanship, you would be on the side where you believe the words are meaningless and that being "bad dog" is meaningless to her. Otherwise, that's humanizing, don't you think?


----------



## LazyGRanch713 (Jul 22, 2009)

qingcong said:


> I would hope that since you are into natural dogmanship, you would be on the side where you believe the words are meaningless and that being "bad dog" is meaningless to her. Otherwise, that's humanizing, don't you think?


Tag will slink away like he's had a whip to his back if I slowly say "You are Bad". Anymore, all I have to do is say "You..." in the same tone, and he's gone. I just hissed at him "you-are-bad!", in the same tone I use for getting him riled up, and he perked his ears and wagged his tail. 
When I was a kid, I'd tell my old terrier that she was a very good girl in a low tone, and she'd "act guilty". Next, I would say "you're SUCH a BAD GIRL!" in a happy voice, and she'd sneeze and prance around, lol.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

LazyGRanch713 said:


> Tag will slink away like he's had a whip to his back if I slowly say "You are Bad". Anymore, all I have to do is say "You..." in the same tone, and he's gone. I just hissed at him "you-are-bad!", in the same tone I use for getting him riled up, and he perked his ears and wagged his tail.
> When I was a kid, I'd tell my old terrier that she was a very good girl in a low tone, and she'd "act guilty". Next, I would say "you're SUCH a BAD GIRL!" in a happy voice, and she'd sneeze and prance around, lol.



If I say good boy in a deep tone - Wally still looks for the reward. If I say anything else like that he's giving calming signals at the least. Hmm...

I yelled "Dora!" at him really evil like just now and he's frantically looking for the Dora picture I printed out with his tail up and moving around like he would when say do my "*gasp* It's Dora! Where is she?" in my excited playful voice.

Hmm...if it's just tone of voice, why these "non-following" behaviors (i.e. deep/angry tone doesn't make him stop/appease with these two words like if I said anything else, even his name, like this)? Hmm....


----------

