# Clicker training critics



## dogtrainingguy (Oct 28, 2009)

Hi,

Here are some things i've heard critics say about clicker training. And, i must say, i haven't heard any good answers to these remarks. What are your answers?

1. It's just bribing the dog. Bribing is when you tell someone you're going to give them something if they do something. How is click-and-treat any different to bribing. Clicker trainers say "put the treats out of site" etc but, come on, dogs are smart, they know when you hold the clicker in your hand it means food! They know you have treats. So they know that if they do what you ask they will be treated. How is it different from bribing?

2. What happens if you have guests over and you say "Go to your space" to your dog to make it go to it's space like you've trained it, but you don't follow it with a reward. If you keep doing that without rewarding him won't he just stop listening to you after a few times of not being rewarded? So doesn't that prove that positive reinforcement is just bribing and the dog will only do what you want if it knows it will be given a treat?

Let me say "thanks" for your feedback to these questions/concerns in advance. Hopefully someone can give me some better answers to these questions than i came up with.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

I'm negative trainer and I have no bad critique of clicker training. As far as I'm concerned if people use the "kiss dog's butt training program" and it works and they are happy, go for it. 

This is the training that every time dog does something you like, you kiss the dog's butt. This and clicker training do not hurt dogs in any way so what possible problems could occur. 

I don't use either method but I will fight for the right for people to use whatever methods they feel comfortable with. I hope this is just not gonna be another, "use this or that method only thread"


----------



## Shaina (Oct 28, 2007)

Both of your questions can be answered by the same things: fading the clicker and intermittent reward systems. Most "clicker" trainers only use the clicker to help precisely mark the correct behaviors during initial training and when refining the behavior, but fade the use of the clicker to a verbal marker once the behavior is under stimulus control. 

Once the clicker has been faded, one would move to an intermittent reward system so the dog wouldn't necessarily expect a reward every time...or every fifth time...or just once in a blue moon. For something like "go to your space" you could train it so the dog expects a reward but not right away, so you can go about your business and reward the dog when you have a chance to do so (even if it's after the guests leave). 

As to the whole...the dog will only work if s/he knows a treat is coming...well change that to "the dog will only work if s/he thinks a reward of some sort might be coming", well then yeah that's probably true...I wouldn't be getting ready for work right now without the expectation that I'm getting paid at some point...but how tolerant your dog is of delayed and intermittent rewards is a function of your training thoroughly. At to what that reward is...well that's up to you. When my dogs go to place when a visitor arrives, they stay there because they know if they do they will likely be released at some point to say hi to the visitors...much more reinforcing than any treat/toy I could give them. You could say I'm "bribing" my dogs with people (that sounds odd) if you like, but it works. If for some reason the people don't care for dogs and leave before I release my bunch, then we play a game or get a food reward after they are gone, when such things have value again. 

Out in the real world I may not even have food (and the dog knows this), but they will still work for the promise of other things...getting to sniff an especially nice pee-mail spot, getting to meet a new person/animal, getting to perform their favorite tricks, etc.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

If you were to exact good behavior from a child by using treats, it could be considered bribery (which has its time and place, BTW). Dogs are not children. Dogs have far less ability to calculate the odds of reward distribution. A dog's behavior is, therefore, more easily conditioned and habituated.

There are valid criticisms of treat training, but those two examples are not in that category.


----------



## Cracker (May 25, 2009)

> 1. It's just bribing the dog. Bribing is when you tell someone you're going to give them something if they do something. How is click-and-treat any different to bribing. Clicker trainers say "put the treats out of site" etc but, come on, dogs are smart, they know when you hold the clicker in your hand it means food! They know you have treats. So they know that if they do what you ask they will be treated. How is it different from bribing?


The clicker is paired with a treat or food in the beginning for EASE of delivery so you can get many repetitions. Food is a primary reinforcer (like water, sex, play etc) Once the behaviour is learned the clicker is faded and the rewards are gone to variable and to things other than food over time. Rewards are ANYTHING the dog finds rewarding..praise, treats, sniff, play, a toy etc. When the clicker is in your hand your dog is working on learning...rewards reinforce the learning. If you do not constantly lure the dog then you are not "bribing". I don't work for free and neither do my dogs. What do YOU use to teach your dog a NEW skill? The clicker itself is just a tool.



> 2. What happens if you have guests over and you say "Go to your space" to your dog to make it go to it's space like you've trained it, but you don't follow it with a reward. If you keep doing that without rewarding him won't he just stop listening to you after a few times of not being rewarded? So doesn't that prove that positive reinforcement is just bribing and the dog will only do what you want if it knows it will be given a treat?


Once you have built a reinforcement history the behaviour pretty much becomes ingrained and then you go to variable rewards. If the dog NEVER gets SOME kind of feedback/reward (not even praise) then yes, I would assume that eventually you would end up sending the behaviour into extinction....they are not martyrs. But if you've trained, proofed and have it under stimulus control you do not NEED to reinforce it every time. I always give praise at the very least, because I think it's a good part of our communication and let's her know what she does COUNTS.

By the way, both of these questions could be transferred to any form of training..not just clicker training.

So again I ask...how do YOU teach your dog to do something new? How do you reinforce it? How long does it take to be learned and set in as a behaviour? And does your dog ENJOY working with you?


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

I have no critique of it, it works.

The treats are faded away over time.

Look at it another way. Say you beat your dog to make it go lay in it's corner. The dog would do it out of fear of being hit, would you have to keep hitting the dog every time or it would stop going to it's corner when told?

Of course not, it would do it forever once ingrained, only occasionally reinforced with a harsh tone, just as it would cringe from you forever.

Just flip that over to treats and praise instead of a hit and a harsh tone.

A clicker is simply a very efficient method to link a specific behavior to a reward, a very efficient method.


----------



## TooneyDogs (Aug 6, 2007)

dogtrainingguy said:


> Hi,
> 1. It's just bribing the dog. Bribing is when you tell someone you're going to give them something if they do something. How is click-and-treat any different to bribing. Clicker trainers say "put the treats out of site" etc but, come on, dogs are smart, they know when you hold the clicker in your hand it means food! They know you have treats. So they know that if they do what you ask they will be treated. How is it different from bribing?


The clicker is not supposed to mean treats. It's just a sound that tells the dog he did something right (a marker). It's like saying, "Yes, that's what I wanted!" In between the click and the treat is Praise. This is very important because you're going to fade not only the clicker but the treats....both to be replaced by just praise. 




> 2. What happens if you have guests over and you say "Go to your space" to your dog to make it go to it's space like you've trained it, but you don't follow it with a reward. If you keep doing that without rewarding him won't he just stop listening to you after a few times of not being rewarded? So doesn't that prove that positive reinforcement is just bribing and the dog will only do what you want if it knows it will be given a treat?


Again, you praise the dog for doing what was asked of him. Maybe even throw in a random treat, a game of fetch or some play with a favorite toy. You must acknowledge/encourage the good behavior(s) you want. That's what positive reinforcement means.


----------



## sparkle (Mar 3, 2009)

If I am not mistaken any process can have failures especially if not implemented correctly/properly for the circumstances at hand. ...depending on.......xyz

It makes sense to me that if you have to always correct or always reward then something is not working right and needs fixed/changed. 


I also believe that there is a place for lures and bribes and that when used appropriately they lend to gainful conditioning.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

There were critics of gravity too. Just say'n.


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

dogtrainingguy said:


> Hi,
> 
> Here are some things i've heard critics say about clicker training. And, i must say, i haven't heard any good answers to these remarks. What are your answers?
> 
> 1. It's just bribing the dog. Bribing is when you tell someone you're going to give them something if they do something. How is click-and-treat any different to bribing. Clicker trainers say "put the treats out of site" etc but, come on, dogs are smart, they know when you hold the clicker in your hand it means food! They know you have treats. So they know that if they do what you ask they will be treated. How is it different from bribing?


You don't keep doing it forever. The clicker marks Exactly when the right behavior has occurred (or a portion of the right behavior has occurred) and the praise that follows with a treat quckly delivered is a reward for that behavior. As the dog keeps offering the behavior, getting marked and rewarded you start to add a verbal cue and fade the clicker, but NOT the praise and then reward. 

As the dog becomes more reliable with responding correctly to the verbal cue, you start to reward intermittently and then not at all. Intermittent must be completely random so the dog never knows if a reward is coming or not. 

Eventually the dog will respond with the correct behavior to a cue and then will accept verbal parise and/or petting as reward w/o food. 

That is what has worked for me. 



dogtrainingguy said:


> 2. What happens if you have guests over and you say "Go to your space" to your dog to make it go to it's space like you've trained it, but you don't follow it with a reward. If you keep doing that without rewarding him won't he just stop listening to you after a few times of not being rewarded? So doesn't that prove that positive reinforcement is just bribing and the dog will only do what you want if it knows it will be given a treat?
> 
> Let me say "thanks" for your feedback to these questions/concerns in advance. Hopefully someone can give me some better answers to these questions than i came up with.


When your dog understand the verbal cue and will respond you go to praise and intermittent reward (must be random) and eventually just praise. 

For some cues that are really deadly important (like come when called) I will give rewards of food once inawhile for the dog's life. You cannot reward recall enough IMO. 

Ha! CP.. My Cats test gravity daily. They do not believe it will work w/o testing. In fact, my cats know that Earth gravity will cease to work unless they are there to keep it up to standard!


----------



## Hallie (Nov 9, 2008)

I'm not a clicker fan but I use it when I have to shape a behavior. I only use it when introducing a trick to her, once she does a few times on her own (with me luring) then I don't need the clicker anymore. There's not much different between a clicker and just saying yes as dogs associate both with rewards. Hallie gets so focused on treats I don't think she even hears the clicker sometimes 
As for not rewarding for a behavior, when I tell Hallie to sit I expect her to sit whether I have a treat or not and she does. I've phased out the need to reward after every single desired behavior. I'm a strict mom! If I ask her to do it she needs to do it, I shouldn't have to hold a treat in front of her face to get her to do something after a year of training.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

Hallie said:


> I'm not a clicker fan but I use it when I have to shape a behavior. I only use it when introducing a trick to her, once she does a few times on her own (with me luring) then I don't need the clicker anymore. There's not much different between a clicker and just saying yes as dogs associate both with rewards. Hallie gets so focused on treats I don't think she even hears the clicker sometimes
> As for not rewarding for a behavior, when I tell Hallie to sit I expect her to sit whether I have a treat or not and she does. I've phased out the need to reward after every single desired behavior. I'm a strict mom! If I ask her to do it she needs to do it, I shouldn't have to hold a treat in front of her face to get her to do something after a year of training.


Same here, I find it too inconvenient to keep a clicker with me etc. Easier to use my voice for most training.

But I do resort to a clicker when I need to be more specific in marking a behavior or shape abstract behavior sometimes, and I'll be using it for the next few months for sure.

But I can shape without it as well. 

For instance I taught my latest rescue I got 2 weeks ago to shake hands by shaping just the other day. I showed her a treat in my hand, and closed it, after many tries to get her to paw my hand open for it I had to take her paw, put it on my hand, and move my hand back so her paw opened my hand.

After a couple of times she got it, that she could open my hand for the treat with her paw. Repeat many times with great praise.

Next I had her open my closed hand, but gave her the treat with the other hand. Repeat many times with great praise.

When that was reliable I started added a verbal cue, and slowly switched to her to pacing her paw into my empty open hand, for the treat from the other hand. Repeat many times with great praise.

All this in 2 days, and now she shakes hands pretty well.

But the clicker is far better for things that aren't so straight forward behavior for the dog to pick up as that, which was a behavior of directly getting at the food and working with a couple of easy direct steps. More abstract behaviors are much easier to communicate correctly with a clicker it seems.


----------



## Labsnothers (Oct 10, 2009)

I have never used a clicker, but am not about to knock what some people are very successful with. 

I like always having a ready ''Yes!'' or ''Good dog''. Maybe I should have tried a clicker to train Tux to fetch. Never got the ''Give!'' I wanted. As long as I had a treat, he wouldn't leave me to get the stick.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

Heh, well no more clicker training for me I guess..

I wanted to get the clicker out and start using it a lot to get some training done with my two girls..

Turns out my new rescue is simply scared witless of it. I hadn't seen that discussed here or mentioned, but it actually sends her in bad fear state where she won't even accept a high value treat.

So I guess I'll have to get that marker word chosen for her and go that route. Even using it for my big girl, who it works perfectly for is out of the question now, can't click it anywhere in the house.

I am very bummed out over this, but I guess you can never tell what a dog will freak out over sometimes.


----------



## Alex927 (Nov 2, 2009)

Shaina said:


> Once the clicker has been faded, one would move to an intermittent reward system so the dog wouldn't necessarily expect a reward every time...or every fifth time...or just once in a blue moon. For something like "go to your space" you could train it so the dog expects a reward but not right away, *so you can go about your business and reward the dog when you have a chance to do so (even if it's after the guests leave). *


I'm not sure I get this.....are dogs capable of associating the reward to a desired response that was provided hours before? Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought that was not possible.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

Alex927 said:


> I'm not sure I get this.....are dogs capable of associating the reward to a desired response that was provided hours before? Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought that was not possible.


Assuming you asked for a settle on a mat, and after the guest leaves the dog is still settled on the mat, even if you reward after the guest leaves, you're still rewarding settle at the time it is occurring. 

If you asked for a sit hours before, the dog sits, but breaks the sit, and you reward him hours later, no, he's not likely to associate the reward with the behavior.


----------



## sparkle (Mar 3, 2009)

Alex927 said:


> I'm not sure I get this.....are dogs capable of associating the reward to a desired response that was provided hours before? Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought that was not possible.


It is highly unlikely but when you speak in terms of several minutes later verses hours this provides for a different likelyhood in my opinion. 

This also applies to the myth that correcting a dog for a infraction anytime after that behavior cannot/does not provide for a association,is not fair, and does not work. 


I have observed many times over dog being trained to go down range and gather sheep/livestock (fetch) doing so incorrectly by running straight towards the livestock (right down the middle and split them up) rather than circling to the left or right and getting behind the livestock recieve a much delayed correction for the infraction. The handler often times has to run down range 1 or 2 hundred yards and get all over the dogs case to do so ....which takes some time.

The dog is then again sent from the handlers side down range and this time the dogs does a nice outrun and swings out and around to get behind the livestock to bring them (fetch) back to the handlers position.

Does this count as a delayed correction?


----------



## Michiyo-Fir (Jul 25, 2009)

The clicker is usually faded out into using just petting or just a good boy or good girl praise. I've taught Nia to do a few things with clickers and have had no problems taking away the treats.



wvasko said:


> I'm negative trainer and I have no bad critique of clicker training. As far as I'm concerned if people use the "kiss dog's butt training program" and it works and they are happy, go for it.


I'm just curious, if you have a shy dog that's fearful of other dogs and its barking at another dog, how would you stop it using negative methods?

A dog in our neighborhood screams at other dogs like literally shrieks when other dogs are near him, they've tried positive methods, didn't work and they want to try negative like a choke collar but so far choke collar hasn't worked. Made the dog more scared and tries to run home when it sees another dog.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

sparkle said:


> The handler often times has to run down range 1 or 2 hundred yards and get all over the dogs case to do so ....which takes some time.
> 
> Does this count as a delayed correction?


I believe that counts. It's certainly a poor way to teach, but once the dog knows the task (intelligent disobedience) it's kosher.




Michiyo-Fir said:


> I'm just curious, if you have a shy dog that's fearful of other dogs and its barking at another dog, how would you stop it using negative methods?


You can't correct a dog for being scared and expect to make him not-scared. You can correct a dog for refusing a known command. You still have to do the work of desensitizing the pup, but enforcing commands in the presence of distractions that are unpleasant or arousing to the dog can be part of the process.


----------



## Michiyo-Fir (Jul 25, 2009)

Marsh Muppet said:


> You can't correct a dog for being scared and expect to make him not-scared. You can correct a dog for refusing a known command. You still have to do the work of desensitizing the pup, but enforcing commands in the presence of distractions that are unpleasant or arousing to the dog can be part of the process.


So you would still have to use positive reinforcement to desensitize the dog? But I'm pretty sure some trainers just give punishment for reacting out of fear. And sometimes it actually works. A Scottie I know was dog aggressive, took 2 months of lessons with a choke collar and now he's no longer dog aggressive. I saw him myself meet 4 or 5 new dogs without aggressive reactions, how does that work??


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

That doesn't mean the dog is no longer dog aggressive. It means he's learned how to control himself (through whatever means) and that attacking another dog is not worth what it used to be,


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

Most dog leash aggression starts because the dog gets the idea that he has to "take care of" whatever he is aggressing at. 

I am currently in a class (mostly as an observer) that deals with dog aggressive (and in one case human and dog aggressive) dogs. I am watching this class and have so far not been impressed with the results. Most of the problem lays with the owners who will NOT do their homework. Probably why the dogs are undersocialized and aggressive in the first place.

What they are doing in this class is teaching the dog a fool proof recall and fool proof drop on command. Both are being taught using correction based methods. The object is to stop the aggression by replacing it with a lie down or with a recall. 

_Here is the funny part.. My dog was trained to do both these things using a clicker and/or a marker word (Yes!). Of all the dogs in the class, guess which dog has the best recall and drop (down) on cue? My dog............._

I will be fair in this.. my dog is also far advanced past the dogs in this class (some of the other dogs in this class are not aggressive, just to clarify). I went to this class to see a different training technique (correction based). I also knew the trainer did not preclude dogs that had aggressive tendencies so I wanted to see how they were handled by this individiual.


----------



## Cracker (May 25, 2009)

Michiyo-Fir said:


> So you would still have to use positive reinforcement to desensitize the dog? But I'm pretty sure some trainers just give punishment for reacting out of fear. And sometimes it actually works. A Scottie I know was dog aggressive, took 2 months of lessons with a choke collar and now he's no longer dog aggressive. I saw him myself meet 4 or 5 new dogs without aggressive reactions, how does that work??


Yes some trainers use punishment to train out the BEHAVIOUR of the aggression, but it does little to relieve the fear or anxiety that is behind the behaviour. This can have unexpected side effects...where the dog is "fine" for a while, the owner becomes convinced dog is "cured" and then one day he is taken over threshold and BOOM there is a very bad incident. My preference would be to use R+ and CC to change the dog's perception of what he is afraid of, but many people don't want to take the time and work necessary to succeed with it. We are a very impatient animal, us humans.

If you want to help your friend...check out www.fearfuldogs.com for some great tips on how to use classical conditioning and desensitization for fear related behaviours.


----------



## sparkle (Mar 3, 2009)

Cracker said:


> This can have unexpected side effects...where the dog is "fine" for a while, the owner becomes convinced dog is "cured" and then one day he is taken over threshold and BOOM there is a very bad incident. .


I do appreciate that you point out that unexpected side effects CAN occur verses W I L L occur (a picture that so many people tend to paint on various issues for example those who refer to the COOKIE camp people) as this is a VERY important difference. Another one of those DEPENDS situations it seems to me.

I too find value/entertainment in pointing out to others what I think can happen verses what I think will happen or is I prefer to suggest more likely to happen when addressing the use of ALL of the operants as so many variations are possible and could agree on some possibilities being more probable DEPENDING On the details. I love those details because they are important in making intelligent decisions and judgments.

So reflecting on my own experiences with just the 30+ dogs that I have owned over the years several of them pulled from rescues for sever aggression issues that had failed resolution from professionals using the "other" approaches.... 

Having used corrections for aggression issues the "one day" that you describe never happened for me so I guess I am fortunate . My dogs (not to include the many that I have rehabbed outside of my own) were/are involved in lots of interaction with other people/animals and antisocial/aggressive dogs over the years and were extremely calm, cool, and collective. Part of my process is to proof the behavior of aggression response/understanding and which equates to setting up possible threshold scenarios that might trigger the dog for aggressive reaction.

Could someone describe a few different sceneries where a dog is corrected for a aggressive behavior and give a example of being taken over the threshold at a later date/point in time? I think such scenarios /examples needs a closer look at in judging some of the details.

I would then describe several that I have experienced (I am sure others have had this experience also) that would counter ones that have different outcomes although it is impossible to prove some of the assertions that are being made.

I think we could better understand (more accurately) the possibilities and probabilities with some good/varied examples. In all honesty however having extensively traveled to dog events of many several disciplines , and working with the publics dogs over the past 20 years to include working with rescues..both organizations and dogs... that many of the dogs trained/managed with relatively no corrections where/are the most likely to exhibit aggression.. Go figure?

Could I be wrong in this observation?

Or is it possible that are in fact many different possibilities to what is being said in terms of a dog that receives corrections for aggression issues are just a ticking time bomb that can go off at any time? I wonder what special circumstances existed in my experiences and cases with all of the other dogs that I have worked with that delayed/prevented this explosion for so many years?

Cure is a very strong word to be used for any association to behavior, I am not sure behaviors can truly be cured as I know for a fact that aggressive response can be presented by any dog regardless of it's past or conditioning experiences.

I KNOW from experience (and others share this experience/observation) that many people who do not profess to or have never used corrections have also never push thier/a dog to really test it's temperament under many situations... and when many do they "often" experience aggression that they never knew existed or laying dormant ready to hatch under the right condition. I deal with this reality ALL of the time in working with the public and there dogs. 

Oh and we should always keep in mind that in some/many situations for dogs with aggression issues.....time/resources.... is not something that can be on the dogs side. I have known several dogs that failed at rehab from all kinds of "PROFESSIONALS" across the spectrum after over a year or more and then a day came that something worked... Patience has it's limitations for many situations and the point is not everyone fits into the same mold on this important issue regardless of what someone else might dictate or hope for.


----------



## Foyerhawk (May 7, 2009)

I don't, and have never, had a dog that barked at other dogs on walks, out my windows, or was aggressive at the park. I use a combo of methods. Clicking certainly does work! However, if I had a dog that growled or barked or jumped around at the sight of another dog on a walk I would certainly give a leash correction, and say something like, "NO way!" which my dogs know means STOP THAT!


----------



## sparkle (Mar 3, 2009)

Foyerhawk said:


> IHowever, if I had a dog that growled or barked or jumped around at the sight of another dog on a walk I would certainly give a leash correction, and say something like, "NO way!" which my dogs know means STOP THAT!


I would point out that from what I understand from is being said is .....that if you do/did use a correction for some of these kinds of things that the dog might not show the behavior the next time ..but...at another time and point would. Also the description/senerio possibly you provide seems more like a reactive management response verse one of "training" would I be wrong in this observation/assumption? In addition your dog may not be showing fear aggression by simply barking jumping around which is another detail in the picture to ponder.


----------



## Foyerhawk (May 7, 2009)

I think it's most important that they have plenty of dog access, live in a group, and see other dogs daily. Their only reaction to other dogs is joy or total disinterest.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

It’s elementary logic IMO. Regardless of why the dog is aggressive, the dog IS confused with what WE want. My choices are to teach the dog what I want or force the dog to choose a different behavior. I don’t want the dog to have this choice, he may not guess what I want. 

Since you don’t get behavior from punishment, the onus is on me to choose reinforcement (and a whole lot of management too); since aversion tends to escalate anxiety, if the aggression is a result of that, the onus is on me to avoid negative reinforcement also. There really is no first choice for the use of aversion, or choose your euphemism for introducing aversion, when it comes to aggression and behavior mod.

The exception MAY be when the dog is closer to a euthanasia table than not.


----------



## Alex927 (Nov 2, 2009)

Curbside Prophet said:


> Since you don’t get behavior from punishment, the onus is on me to choose reinforcement (and a whole lot of management too); *since aversion tends to escalate anxiety,* if the aggression is a result of that, the onus is on me to avoid negative reinforcement also. There really is no first choice for the use of aversion, or choose your euphemism for introducing aversion, when it comes to aggression and behavior mod.
> 
> The exception MAY be when the dog is closer to a euthanasia table than not.



I know the definition of the word aversion but could you explain it in the context in which you used it above (I've bolded the text).


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

Alex927 said:


> I know the definition of the word aversion but could you explain it in the context in which you used it above (I've bolded the text).


Anything the dog is trying to avoid, AND anything the handler introduces for the dog to avoid. 

An example: say one dog barks aggressively at black dogs. Giving the dog a leash "correction" for the barking should be considered aversion and even keeping the dog in the same area where he would bark at the black dog should be considered aversion. On different levels? We can only guess, nevertheless problematic and complicating.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

Cracker said:


> Yes some trainers use punishment to train out the BEHAVIOUR of the aggression, but it does little to relieve the fear or anxiety that is behind the behaviour. This can have unexpected side effects...where the dog is "fine" for a while, the owner becomes convinced dog is "cured" and then one day he is taken over threshold and BOOM there is a very bad incident. My preference would be to use R+ and CC to change the dog's perception of what he is afraid of, but many people don't want to take the time and work necessary to succeed with it. We are a very impatient animal, us humans.
> 
> If you want to help your friend...check out www.fearfuldogs.com for some great tips on how to use classical conditioning and desensitization for fear related behaviours.


I would tend to use both positive reinforcement to try the change the dogs perception, plus corrections for unwanted behavior watching carefully for whether it was helping or hurting.


----------



## sparkle (Mar 3, 2009)

Curbside Prophet said:


> It’s elementary logic IMO. Regardless of why the dog is aggressive, the dog IS confused with what WE want. My choices are to teach the dog what I want or force the dog to choose a different behavior. I don’t want the dog to have this choice, he may not guess what I want.
> 
> Since you don’t get behavior from punishment, the onus is on me to choose reinforcement (and a whole lot of management too); since aversion tends to escalate anxiety, if the aggression is a result of that, the onus is on me to avoid negative reinforcement also. There really is no first choice for the use of aversion, or choose your euphemism for introducing aversion, when it comes to aggression and behavior mod.
> 
> The exception MAY be when the dog is closer to a euthanasia table than not.


For me to provide a example of contrasting viewpoints...in many cases I find success/resolution/value ( depending on how one defines success/resolution to which I understand can be entirely different for different people obviously) under specific situations in teaching what I DO NOT want in terms of a boundary.

I believe that a dog ALWAYS has a choice and is always under some level of probability to experiment/disregard wants (regardless of conditioning processes) and conditioning processes using aversives can be useful in effecting this value/level. Not to say that any process is absolute or provides for a cure to behavior as there are some that just seem to provide for more resolution than others again depending on the case at hand and ones viewpoint.

Some people tend to find more value (place more priority) than others in simply how long it will take to gain resolution for various issues however defined. And of course there are extremes to any perspective to include the many who feel that even a dog that is on the euthanasia table does not qualify for triggering the allowance of having aversives used in a rehab processes that might possibly change this fate.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

sparkle said:


> For me to provide a example of contrasting viewpoints...in many cases I find success/resolution/value ( depending on how one defines success/resolution to which I understand can be entirely different for different people obviously) under specific situations in teaching what I DO NOT want in terms of a boundary.
> 
> I believe that a dog ALWAYS has a choice and is always under some level of probability to experiment (regardless of conditioning processes) and conditioning processes using aversives can be useful in effecting this value/level. Not to say that any process is absolute or provides for a cure to behavior there are some that just seem to provide for more resolution than others again depending on the case at hand and ones viewpoint.
> 
> Some people tend to find more value (place more priority) than others in simply how long it will take to gain resolution for various issues however defined.


For me a solution is dependent on why a dog is aggressive, severity of the problem, and other personality characteristics of the individual dog in question.

Is it fear? Is it possessiveness? Is it prey drive?

I use different approaches to each, and different approaches for different dogs in each.

A correction can have the effect of a dog choosing a different behavior, or not, as can showing the dog what behavior you prefer, or both might be more effective.


----------



## sparkle (Mar 3, 2009)

TxRider said:


> I use different approaches to each, and different approaches for different dogs in each.
> 
> A correction can have the effect of a dog choosing a different behavior, or not, as can showing the dog what behavior you prefer, or both might be more effective.



I like that perspective and have experienced great sucess in that understanding.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

sparkle said:


> For me to provide a example of contrasting viewpoints...in many cases I find success/resolution/value ( depending on how one defines success/resolution to which I understand can be entirely different for different people obviously) under specific situations in teaching what I DO NOT want in terms of a boundary.
> 
> I believe that a dog ALWAYS has a choice and is always under some level of probability to experiment (regardless of conditioning processes) and conditioning processes using aversives can be useful in effecting this value/level. Not to say that any process is absolute or provides for a cure to behavior as there are some that just seem to provide for more resolution than others again depending on the case at hand and ones viewpoint.
> 
> Some people tend to find more value (place more priority) than others in simply how long it will take to gain resolution for various issues however defined.


I really don't have a problem with any of that, so long as the handler proceeds ethically. In doing so the use of aversion comes after more humane methods are proven ineffective. Experience is usually at fault here. 

I don't, at any moment, give up humanity for time's sake...or at least I try not to. We enter the contract in owning a dog for a lifetime, irregardless of future circumstance. How much more time do we need? 

Often the answer to that question is complicated by the dog's owner. Understood. However, a "professional" must established, in advance, his ethics, and the "professional" must understand they can't save every dog trading humane methods in order to save time.


----------



## sparkle (Mar 3, 2009)

Curbside Prophet said:


> I really don't have a problem with any of that, so long as the handler proceeds ethically. In doing so the use of aversion comes after more humane methods are proven ineffective. Experience is usually at fault here.
> 
> I don't, at any moment, give up humanity for time's sake...or at least I try not to. We enter the contract in owning a dog for a lifetime, irregardless of future circumstance. How much more time do we need?
> 
> Often the answer to that question is complicated by the dog's owner. Understood. However, a "professional" must established, in advance, his ethics, and the "professional" must understand they can't save every dog trading humane methods in order to save time.


I agree it ALL can be complicated when peering thru the looking glass to possibilities , probablities, situations, and resources.

I find that it simply ALL just DEPENDS


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

One of the major difficulties with "aggression" issues is the human element, and how we humans sometimes project our own emotions onto the problem. 

The person who admires a "tough" dog, might see aggression where there is fear. A highly empathetic person may see fear where there is nothing more than pure pugnacity.

Breed stereotypes can get in the way, as well. It might be hard to see a Rotty as reacting out of fear, just as it is incongruous to see a Maltese as a bloodthirsty killer.

It's hard to agree on solutions when we can't even agree on the definition of the problem.


----------



## sparkle (Mar 3, 2009)

Marsh Muppet said:


> One of the major difficulties with "aggression" issues is the human element, and how we humans sometimes project our own emotions onto the problem.
> 
> 
> It's hard to agree on solutions when we can't even agree on the definition of the problem.


I agree and one of the most important details in all of the issues.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

Marsh Muppet said:


> One of the major difficulties with "aggression" issues is the human element, and how we humans sometimes project our own emotions onto the problem.
> 
> The person who admires a "tough" dog, might see aggression where there is fear. A highly empathetic person may see fear where there is nothing more than pure pugnacity.
> 
> ...


The problems can be so specific and different too.

My two dogs I have had 4 different issues with aggression, with 4 different approaches to resolve. With two very very different dogs of the same breed. 5 issues if I count prey drive towards cats/squirrels.


----------



## PeanutAndOmar (Oct 18, 2009)

Hm.

I am not a fan of anectdotal evidence as gospel.

However, I have a very stubborn, bullheaded, SA, easily spooked and distracted basset hound. Yes, a scent hound. Who is totally led by the nose, and cares not what is said or done, unless you can keep his attention with some very smelly treats.

I have been doing the "crate games" stuff, and clicker training.

So far, we've got sit, stay, walk on loose leash, potty training, "go to your room", leave it, go get it, come and lay down from the clicker. 

Some people think my dog is deaf because he will flat out ignore you unless you have something he wants (treats, attention).

But the clicker seems to be getting thru to him.

*shrug* try training a hound. It's not easy lol.


----------



## sparkle (Mar 3, 2009)

PeanutAndOmar said:


> Hm.
> 
> I am not a fan of anectdotal evidence as gospel.
> 
> ...


Hmmmm small world and I whole heartidly agree with you on the issue of anectodal evidence to include testimonials in any value I might find in them.

As a matter of fact we had/have a Basset hound and a few other scent hounds on the SAR group that I belong to that would have fit this description by most accounts depending on who you talked to about it. 

Problem was that these 3 dogs ( one basset and two *****) that I am refering to just in this case (as there are others) were developed into outstanding SAR dogs except for one critical factor.. Despite all of the attempts to get them ready to pass a CGC test and some other temperament tests that are required for complete certification ...after more than 2 years none of the 'professionals' to including the ones that were hired on different occasions to resolve the training issues could succesfully train the dogs to pass these tests. 

I bet you know by now where I am going with my testimonial. I am also sure lots of people have these types of experiences one way or the other.

To make a long story short after hiring the first trainer that used a combination of methods/tools (including a prong collar) had these dogs for just one week they all past the CGC test given by a independant outside tester and now can be included in all of the social gatherings that once were off limits to them because of agression and other behavioral issues.


However I do understand the values in breed specifics/genetics in scent hounds and other breeds in general terms. There are definity NO DOUBT some breeds that in general do not respond easily/well to certain wants, desires, or approaches regardless of the incentive or aversive correction used. 

I am just saying it all DEPENDS and sometimes on possibly who the trainer is....resources.


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

I don't, at any moment, give up humanity for time's sake...or at least I try not to. We enter the contract in owning a dog for a lifetime, irregardless of future circumstance. How much more time do we need? 
>>>

curbside, I know that time is always a variable that is dependent on the situation, people involved and circumstances. However, the common critisizm of the positive methods of training for agression (by those that use correction based training) is time. I have heard statements many times like this "two years into training and the dog is "better", maybe the dog will actually be reliable by before it dies of old age"


Some people think my dog is deaf because he will flat out ignore you unless you have something he wants (treats, attention). >>>>.

yeah my coonhound can be the same way at times



sparkle said:


> Or is it possible that are in fact many different possibilities to what is being said in terms of a dog that receives corrections for aggression issues are just a ticking time bomb that can go off at any time? :



I tend not to like the time bomb analigy. for instance dogs trained with corrections (or insert method here) will sometimes bite - does that corralate the method causing time bombs? Or a pit bull (or inset breed here) will always bite someone somewere or sometime - is the breed a timebomb?


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

jiml said:


> However, the common critisizm of the positive methods of training for agression (by those that use correction based training) is time. I have heard statements many times like this "two years into training and the dog is "better", maybe the dog will actually be reliable by before it dies of old age"


What else are they going to say? It's not like they can criticize the laws by which dogs learn. If I care to demonstrate my humanity further than my critics, what would be suggested as an alternative? I doubt the answer to that question would be more important to me than improving one's mechanical skill with more humane methods. The two years it may take me is surely someone else's few months. I'd rather pursue that then excuse my humanity and criteria for time. Saving time isn't reason enough, but as I said earlier, the closer the dog is to a euthanasia table, it becomes complicating.


----------



## sparkle (Mar 3, 2009)

Curbside Prophet said:


> Saving time isn't reason enough, but as I said earlier, the closer the dog is to a euthanasia table, it becomes complicating.


I might get pronged for this comment but from another perspective I have learned ,experienced, and thus dabble with the thought that in some cases for some dogs when considering the quality of life some go thru in terms of lack of resolution over time for certain behavioral issues...it might just be more humane in the scheme of things and hindsight to have spared the dog all of the stress and discomfort at failed attempts in the usage of any or all approaches to resolve certain behaviors which I would define as tortured in many cases..and had pull the trigger to save the dog from a lengthy discomforting life of status quo.


Additionally for example I (and others I know of) find it somewhat torturous to observe /know of so many dogs that go thru life with certain types of tension and restraint around the neck and muzzle areas for more than a few weeks at most. I may have gone off on a tangent here... Does that mean that I think that a person should terminate the dogs life for the betterment of the dog in after a year of this???? Now I am talking to myself.


No but when you start to include other things into the mix like restraint, exclusion, and under extended peopds of heavy containment and incarceration it makes me wonder. 

Now I am answering myself


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

jiml said:


> curbside, I know that time is always a variable that is dependent on the situation, people involved and circumstances. However, the common critisizm of the positive methods of training for agression (by those that use correction based training) is time. I have heard statements many times like this "two years into training and the dog is "better", maybe the dog will actually be reliable by before it dies of old age"


Time can also be much more immediate.

Say a dog is about to attack a child, or a small dog or is doing so. I'll use a strong aversive without hesitation. As strong as it takes to change that behavior right now up to and including severe physical harm to the dog.

May not stop that behavior in the future, but it might.

I had a very large dog in my neighborhood years ago that was quite aggressive. Aggressive to me, to other dogs, to any animal, to anyone and any thing. It's owners response was "shoot him, I don't care, I can't keep him under control"...

It decided to come into my garage and be very aggressive to me, and I used a strong aversive, namely a mallet to the head with great force. It was never aggressive to me again, it was quite submissive and avoided me from that day on. Permanent change of behavior, though it was still aggressive with others.

Some folks use remote shock collars for example quite effectively for some aggressive or obsessive behaviors that are quite life threatening with very good results. Many do not have the luxury of time for their circumstance.

My own dog has a rather out of control prey drive, I'm pretty confident a remote shock collar used properly would curb her of wanting to have anything to do with a cat or squirrel or rabbit if I chose to go that route. She would learn to fear them enough to override her prey response.

But I question what side effects it might have so it will not be used, at least not until I have exhausted other options.

As Curbside says, I have plenty of time, and I have several options to approach it and meanwhile I can manage it. As long as I manage her responsibly and no lives are at stake positive means will be most of what I try.

It takes a lot of my fun out of our walks, it means she cannot come with me to my families houses, she will not be going to the dog park any more, that she cannot be off leash outside controlled circumstances, but that's just how it will have to be. It is a rather sad set of limits on her quality of life and of mine too IMO. Maybe the shock collar would be best?

And she could well die of old age with the problem, before positive means can eliminate or control it.


----------



## sparkle (Mar 3, 2009)

TxRider said:


> Time can also be much more immediate.


Although the immediate/reactive usage of aversives in this case is not considered in my opinion along the lines of using aversives in a training process you certainly seem to me to be a person with a strong sence (the force) of DEPENDS It can be stressful ( the influences of the darkside) can it not young skywalker?

My husband is always saying that to me..sometimes I wish we had a son so that he could feel better about using that approach .


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

sparkle said:


> Although the immediate/reactive usage of aversives in this case is not considered in my opinion along the lines of using aversives in a training process you certainly seem to me to be a person with a strong sence (the force) of DEPENDS It can be stressful ( the influences of the darkside) can it not young skywalker?


ROFL... I'm not one who gets easily stressed but I know what you mean.

I'm quite adaptable, I'll use anything that works preferring positive methods but using aversive/negative methods if it seems better for the situation.

Nature certainly uses both, our dogs as well as us are evolved to learn from both, so I see no problem with it.

I have had my share of negative side effects from using negative methods in the past though, so I can see where the positive only people are coming from. When you screw up with it you can't just take it back.


----------



## sparkle (Mar 3, 2009)

TxRider said:


> ROFL...
> I have had my share of negative side effects from using negative methods in the past though, so I can see where the positive only people are coming from. When you screw up with it you can't just take it back.


Well again I am not certain there is such a thing as positive only people ( but I know what you mean) so I would agree there are people that I would define/classify as preferably or primarily positive *only* people I have met a lot of closet positive only people lately for some reason however. LOL!

Now I am really confused as I thouight by using primarily incentive based methods almost any dog can be fixed? revised..except a injury that is recieved by the improper administration of a *attempted* correction.

I probably best not keep playing around..have a good one


----------

