Training by Ommission

[Hiraeth]

Well...nevermind

My commentary was not aimed at you. Your opinions are always well formulated and easy to understand. We may not agree on the particulars of training, but you and I are always capable of disagreeing respectfully and without throwing insults or attempting to degrade one another.

The same can not be said for other members on this forum.

 

[Boxergirl]

My commentary was not aimed at you. Your opinions are always well formulated and easy to understand. We may not agree on the particulars of training, but you and I are always capable of disagreeing respectfully and without throwing insults or attempting to degrade one another.

Agree with this, Joao M. I always appreciate your opinions and the respectful way you state them.

 

[Smokeycat]

I would disagree. I have seen many aversive things recommended on this forum, like digging fingernails into puppy gums to stop them from nipping. When someone's FIRST response to an undesired behavior is to cause the dog pain to stop the behavior, they're an aversive trainer.

Much of your advice is valid and normally I'm able to ignore most of your extremely biased bs but if you are going to condemn actually READ the whole post first. In every post where I mention the fingernail I also say it was after trying positive techniques for several months where they did NOT work. I also don't ever recommend it to anyone with a young puppy but only to others who state that nothing has worked with their older puppy/dog. Positive techniques first but don't condemn a dog to bad behavior if those techniques don't work for that dog.

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk

 

[marke]

Joao M wrote:::::Let me add another thing: When I sarted working as a trainee 23 years ago there was an office employee that always explain what she did (basically registrations at the commercial registrar) as something extremely complicated and that what the law referred had nothing to do with what happened in "real life". She was trying to be "smart" and make herself needed by "selling" as very complicated a simple task. She created artificial difficulties to be the only one that could overcome them. Sometimes I wonder if a similar thing isn´t happening in the dog world...

i meant to comment on this the other day , i've hired skilled people for the last 20 plus years to get stuff built , the best workers and teachers i've seen were the ones who saw the simplicity of stuff . the worst were the ones who saw the complications whether real or in their minds ..... after 37 yrs of paying attention , and helping one generation of dogs raise the next , i get my dogs and they get me . no books , no videos , no terminology , no problem , it's pretty simple ...........

 

[Hiraeth]

Much of your advice is valid and normally I'm able to ignore most of your extremely biased bs but if you are going to condemn actually READ the whole post first. In every post where I mention the fingernail I also say it was after trying positive techniques for several months where they did NOT work. I also don't ever recommend it to anyone with a young puppy but only to others who state that nothing has worked with their older puppy/dog. Positive techniques first but don't condemn a dog to bad behavior if those techniques don't work for that dog.

You are one of the MANY people I have seen recommend this technique as of late.

However, I will never condone suggesting to someone a technique that may cause them to receive a bite from their puppy. Usually you're quite reasonable, but it's a dangerous suggestion to give to strangers in an online setting. Had you done that to my last dog, Loki, you would have ended up in the hospital.

 

[Hiraeth]

To add: Even if it DID work for you, and even if it DIDN'T damage your relationship with your dog, you have to realize the target demographic for this forum, and the fallout any advice you give may cause.

So, suggesting that digging a fingernail into the gums worked for you on an older puppy after months of attempted positive reinforcement is likely going to be read and interpreted as such by a new member who doesn't know anything about training and is looking for help: "Well, positive reinforcement didn't work for him and a fingernail to a gum did, so why waste a few months of positive training when a swift bit of pain will stop my puppy from nipping straight away at eight weeks of age?"

No, we cannot control who reads our advice, or how they interpret what we say. We can't walk on eggshells to please everyone. But the hallmark of ANY good dog trainer is knowledge of their audience and the ability to minimize misundertanding and incorrect application of techniques. I guarantee, even if it wasn't your intention, that your fingernail advice has been used on eight week old puppies because you suggested that it worked on your much older puppy.

 

[JamieHalverson]

There are actual definitions of behavior modification and psychology terminology. Aversive conditioning is defined as the use of something unpleasant to stop an unwanted behavior. That's pretty straight forward. As for the term "balanced" - I'm skeptical of any trainer that calls themselves balanced. I feel like it's become the new buzzword but it doesn't really mean anything specific except to the person who's saying it. That's why I think using the terminology correctly is so important. It's not using fancy words, it's having a concrete definition so that the term means the same thing to everyone.

So much yes... I've seen so many different uses of the phrases "balanced training" and "balanced dog". There's a poster in our training facility that states something to the effect that a balanced dog is one that has social skills, obedience and, if I'm remembering correctly, life saving skills. For example - social skills would be not jumping, obedience is a stay command and life saving is a solid recall. Stonnie Dennis says balance is exercise, affection, training, obedience or something to that effect and yet others call balance the use of both positives and aversives in training. It's meaningless, really.

I think, too, that there is such a wide spectrum of expectations that dog owners have of their dogs. If you want a dog that stays in place, doesn't jump, recalls nicely and is generally a good dog and companion, then sure, "correcting" the behaviors you don't along with positive reinforcement for what you want will probably work. Then you have owners who want to train their dogs to a much higher level, for whatever reasons. Whether it's professionally as a trainer, a hobby like me and my dogs, a performance dog or a service dog or whatever. I can't get my dogs to do the things I want them to and have the amount of fun and engagement with them if I use punishment in training. It is not rocket science and it has nothing to do with being in the U.S. Take any other country where they are working and training dogs to a high level and they will be having the same discussions about training. I think a good portion of the problem in the discussions is what people expect and want for their dogs. Of course getting a well behaved dog is (mostly) common sense and isolating any given problem and working on it will yield results. That's what I had with my Rottweiler. She was a great dog, used a prong collar to train her, she was nicely behaved, I never expected much of her except nice behavior, and I never tried for more. Sure she got lots of "no's" and corrections and it didn't damage our relationship as it was. But I want more from my dogs, now, and I can't get it with punishment.

We recently got a kitten. Yogi's level of interest with the new kitten was extremely dangerous and I've spent about a month now working him to bring that interest level down. I've used almost entirely positive/reward based training and tried really hard to keep punishment or corrections to a minimum - I think the most he got was a few "ah ahs" when he made a move towards the kitten and some body blocking to invade his personal space and move him back a bit. Could I have just put a prong collar on him and popped him a few good times when he went for the kitten or told him "no" and pulled him back? sure. Would he have stopped trying to go for the kitten? probably. Could I have trusted him when I'm not around? Doubt it. I want a dog who learns the correct behavior FIRST. I worked to avoid going over his threshold where he tried to chase and rewarded for the calm behavior of NOT chasing the kitten. I'll be the first to admit I have a hard time with this. I started training dogs where we stuck a prong collar on every dog that came through and taught obedience with a pop first. My mind still works that way a lot of the time, and it's a hard thing to break.

 

[marke]

I’ve introduced small animals , kittens , cats , puppies and small dogs to groups of dogs that were pretty prey driven and strange dog aggressive ,many times . some were/are over the top prey driven and/or dog aggressive . as negative as I’ve ever had to get was also a “no†, and not a yelled no , I actually got a couple different no’s my dogs know the meaning of , none of them are yelled , I’m yelled out , I don’t yell at my dogs , they know exactly how to take what I say , dogs are the best interpreters of cues on earth ……..……..some of these/those dogs I know for a fact actually eat/ate small animals , all them killed them , I haven’t had a dog that didn’t kill small animals in the last 25yrs ……. familiarity , time , supervision and interest always fades …… I’d just keep a fence or cage between them and gradually introduce them ……. As far as training to a high level , do you know any businesses that are turning out seeing eye dogs that are trained without corrections ? or police , protection or military dogs ?

 

[Boxergirl]

I don't know about police or military training, but Guide Dogs for the Blind uses positive reinforcement and clicker training.

http://www.guidedogs.com/site/PageServer?pagename=programs_dog_guide

What Guide Dogs for The Blind Have Learned about Dog Training | Robin Bennett

 

[Hiraeth]

The argument that high level working dogs are trained with an emphasis on aversives is archaic and blatantly incorrect. Which anyone who does *any* research into dog training in the big wide world would know.

The Guide Dog for the Blind association saw a increase in pass rate in their graduating canines from 50% to 80% when they adopted a positive-based training regimen in 2005: "WHAT ARE GDB'S METHODS OF TRAINING? - Our dogs are trained with positive reinforcement methods that use high value rewards of both food and praise. An abundance of rewards, including physical and verbal affection, builds motivation, confidence and produces a happy working Guide Dog. Positive Reinforcement methods strive to make the young dog successful and prevent them from making errors. In more advanced training, dogs are given the freedom to make errors. Instructors use verbal cues and collar cues to gain the desired response, which is followed by rewards."

Many bomb sniffing dogs are also trained through positive reinforcement: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/the-education-of-a-bomb-dog-4945104/?no-ist=&page=1

Funny enough, puppies who are eventually going to enter bomb sniffing programs are often trained in prison programs, like Puppies Behind Bars, which also advocate for positive reinforcement!

Here's a K9 Police Trainer who uses positive methods to great success!: http://policek9.com/Resources/Articles/RewardBasedPoliceDogTraining.pdf

Here's an article about a prolific police and military training academy in the Netherlands using "science-based" (i.e. reward based or positive) methods that have reduced their training time to a whopping 1/8th of the time it used to take to train desired behaviors with corrections: Treat Dr. Sophia Yin

And a fun quote from the above article: “If you have a punishment-trained dog, in the new situation when they are not sure what to do, they are afraid they will receive punishment, even if it is mild. Dogs just stop performing and learning slows down or stops. For the most stable dogs in stressful operational situations, its more effective to condition an animal to see the world as an environment in which something positive could occur at any moment.â€

And a tip from a Navy SEAL who trains military dogs: "Reinforce Good Behavior: "Pay your dog for doing his job. Dogs have currency the same way we do—but theirs isn't monetary. Its rewards, treats, chasing balls, affection. You need to know what motivates your dog."

Finally, a quote from the US Army website about training military dogs with positivity and rewards: "All of the dog training is based on positive reward or feedback, the epitome of the classical conditioning model developed by Ivan Pavlov. When the dogs maneuver through one obstacle successfully, they are rewarded. Then, they maneuver two obstacles and are rewarded, so training builds upon previous lessons. Iverson said that eventually, the dogs will do the entire obstacle course without a reward until the end, which is how trainers develop the dogs' instincts to want the reward."



Tl;dr - Many dogs performing real world tasks like military and police dogs are being trained with a heavy emphasis on positive reinforcement. Am I saying that corrections don't happen to these dogs? No, I'm not. However, all of these organizations (police and military) have embraced the scientific results of the last two decades, which have repeatedly proven that dogs trained with rewards and LIMA methodology (Least Intrusive, Minimally Aversive) are far more engaged and trainable. Which has resulted in dogs who are being trained more quickly, graduating programs at higher success rates and are performing their real world tasks to the highest of expectations.

 

[marke]

no , they still use leash corrections as they always have .......... when they start raising and training their dogs without aversive corrections it will be clear and easily proved beyond what this person hopes to do ...... if they have a new puppy raising manual later than this 2008 one , i'd be interested in reading it ........ seeing eye inc. is another one you all could try ......... as far as an "emphasis" on aversive , that's crazy ???????? i've known a bunch of protection dog folks , i don't believe i've ever known one who "emphasized" aversive ....lol .......

http://www.guidedogs.com/site/DocServer/puppy-raising-manual.pdf

it's only 236 pages , but you won't need to read many to get to the aversive parts

 

[Boxergirl]

This article is from 2014.
Guide Dogs for the Blind | The Bark

 

[marke]

the link is from the first article , i had read it before i posted their puppy raising manual ....... here's another puppy raising manual from "leader dogs for the blind" ......... these are actual manuals from both businesses on how to raise their puppies ......

http://www.leaderdog.org/sites/defa...puppy_raisers_manual/Puppy-Raisers-Manual.pdf

this video is 2015 , from guide dogs for the blind , what is the head collar for ? i've never owned one , nor a choke collar , nor a prong collar and haven't owned any type of collar in 20yrs , just roading harnesses .......... but i believe the head collar is for leash corrections ?[video=youtube;pSkYr-AnZYA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSkYr-AnZYA[/video]

 

[marke]

do you word this like this intentionally ????? it's so obvious ... it's also a indication of a lack of a logical argument ......

The argument that high level working dogs are trained with an emphasis on aversives

 

[Hiraeth]

do you word this like this intentionally ????? it's so obvious ... it's also a indication of a lack of a logical argument ......

This question is an indication that you lack a fundamental understanding of the English language. But somehow, I'm not surprised.

 

[marke]

This question is an indication that you lack a fundamental understanding of the English language. But somehow, I'm not surprised.

ok , with my limited understanding of the english language i thought you were saying my position was , "that high level working dogs are trained with an emphasis on aversives" when what i said was

As far as training to a high level , do you know any businesses that are turning out seeing eye dogs that are trained without corrections ? or police , protection or military dogs ?

i actually like the "balanced" term , in that negative consequences hold more weight than positive consequences , so you need a lot more positive consequences to be balanced

 

[Hiraeth]

You've argued here and on other threads that high level working dogs who have real world jobs are always trained with aversives like prongs, leash corrections, etc, and cannot be trained to an elite level without those methods. You have repeatedly emphasized that aversives are *necessary* to train those dogs. And they aren't.

Moving on, I like terms that mean the same thing to everyone, because that increases clarity of communication and opens doors for everyone who trains dogs to work with one another and learn from one another. When some of us use the word "punishment" to indicate an aversive like a swift leash tug and others of us consider that to be a "correction", that muddies the waters.

I've seen people describe themselves as balanced who subscribe to the Koehler method, which incorporates moderate to severe aversives, including hanging a struggling dog from its collar until it chokes and submits. And then I've seen people who use mostly positive training with minimal corrections describe themselves as balanced.

These conversations will continue to swirl in murky circles of misunderstanding and miscommunication until we can come up with a lexicon that we all understand and can use succinctly. Which is why it irritates me a bit when people start throwing the "stop using fancy terminology" and "why does it matter what word I use for a correction/punishment" around. Because using terms with standard, understood and accepted definitions is absolutely vital to the advancement of the dog training community.

 

[marke]

You've argued here and on other threads that high level working dogs who have real world jobs are always trained with aversives like prongs, leash corrections, etc, and cannot be trained to an elite level without those methods. You have repeatedly emphasized that aversives are *necessary* to train those dogs. And they aren't.

you will not find a single post by me talking about a prong collar , i've never used one , how could i recommend one , or not ???? my opinions are based on my experiences , not googled "studies" and message board info .......... seeing eye dogs are as soft and tractable as dogs get , they cannot even be trained without aversive corrections ........ you without question will not find a protection , police or military dog that does not respect a correction , and that will be because they know what they are ........ show me all these "elite" real world working dogs that been raised correction free , shouldn't be hard to do , it'd take intent and an effort ..... whoever is doing it would certainly be proud ? like skinning a cat with a spoon , the thought of it is silly ..........errors and correction are an integral part of learning .... in case some of you have not noticed , a dogs reasoning is quite a bit more limited than a persons

 

[cinnamon roll]

Please keep it civil

 

[Hiraeth]

..........errors and correction are an integral part of learning .... i

This is YOUR opinion. And you constantly state YOUR opinion as if it's fact. Errors and correction are not an integral part of learning, they are an integral part of your teaching process. I suggest you learn the difference.