|
Post by Am on Sept 10, 2006 15:02:13 GMT -5
Having said that, these days I am making a conscious effort to try to tell my dogs what I do want them to do rather than just saying 'no' or equivalent which is much more effective (when I remember to do it). I've never understood this, perhaps you can explain it to me. I understand that if I want my dog to do something (e.g, sit), I should ask him to sit. I understand that if I want to temporarily distract him from doing something (e.g firing up at a strange dog), I can ask him to do something contradictory (e.g, sit with eye contact). But I don't understand why many PPs say that we should never tell our dogs off for doing something, we should only ever ask them to do something else contradictory instead. Sometimes, it is more practical and kinder to tell a dog what not to do, with body language or a verbal growl, or even correcting him if necessary (at our house, you normally get two verbal warnings to change your behaviour, then a correction. We very rarely have to correct!) Our dogs have never found it confusing in the slightest to be told that a behaviour is unacceptable. I mean, when I go to my parents' house to visit, isn't it kinder to let my dog wander round the living room as he pleases and indicate to him that jumping on the sofa is unacceptable if he goes to do so; rather than keeping him in a downstay all afternoon to pre-empt him jumping on the sofa? But again, I'd argue that's an issue of improper timing. If you're concerned your dog will misassociate the punishment with the other dogs, then one better option would be to ask your dog to perform a contradictory behaviour (sit, eye contact) in the presence of the other dog and reward or correct him doing that. (Though personally I have come to think that gradual desensitisation is the most important element in treating dog aggression, and seems to work best when coupled with both punishment and some form of reward.) Mistiming reinforcement isn't a trivial thing, either. Dogs can become aggressive, fearful or dominant by being reinforced at the wrong time - for example, praising a dog who is showing fear of strangers will often increase that fear. Petting a dog who is demanding affection will only make him pushier. Clickering a dog when he is firing off at other dogs might increase the aggression (how is he to know that you're clickering the minute pauses between his growls, not the whole performance?) I agree with K9Rocky that we're just splitting hairs, here. If you agree that dogs need a leader, then what do you think you're leading, if not some form of pack? And what defines a leader, except having higher status & better access to resources than everyone else? So if you're higher status than the other dogs, and you're leading a pack, that sounds like pack theory to me.
|
|
|
Post by willow on Sept 10, 2006 15:35:21 GMT -5
I mean, when I go to my parents' house to visit, isn't it kinder to let my dog wander round the living room as he pleases and indicate to him that jumping on the sofa is unacceptable if he goes to do so; rather than keeping him in a downstay all afternoon to pre-empt him jumping on the sofa? I would certainly agree that this is the best and least confusing thing to do, but in my understanding of PP training, they would allow the dog to jump on the sofa, not tell him or make him get off, but would wait until he got down by himself and then click/treat to show him that he made the right choice. Which brings up another area of PP training, which I saw a lot of when I was in the breed rescues. It is the case of male foster dogs marking in the house. Now how I handled this was to let them drag a leash around for a day and watch them like a hawk. When they would start to lift their leg to mark, I would say, "NO", or "Ah ah", grab the leash and give a distraction pop. I did not have a training collar on them. Once or twice is all it took for them to get the message that peeing in the house is a big "NO NO". The PP ( ;D) people in the rescues, otoh, would rather put diapers on the dogs than tell them "no" or give them a correction.
|
|
|
Post by kaos on Sept 10, 2006 20:22:16 GMT -5
Ahhh, just wrote a long reply and lost it - will try an abridged version! To clarify I am not intending to speak for positive trainers, as I would surely be doing them an injustice, and don't use 'purely' positive as a label for myself. I would hate to think that anyone here judged the value of positive training by my comments - many much better trainers explain their methods and ideas so much better than I ever could. 'I agree with K9Rocky that we're just splitting hairs, here. If you agree that dogs need a leader, then what do you think you're leading, if not some form of pack? And what defines a leader, except having higher status & better access to resources than everyone else? So if you're higher status than the other dogs, and you're leading a pack, that sounds like pack theory to me. ' No, I don't think I am a wolf taking on the role of the alpha, I think I am a human taking on a leadership role with my pet dogs. I don't need to express myself like a dog or a wolf to do this, and I believe it is perfectly possible to explain NILIF without any reference to pack theory. Thank goodness nobody expects me to relate to my horses the same way they relate to each other as I am simply not physically capable of providing (nor want to) the sort of treatment they can dish out to each other in a struggle to sort out their pecking order in the herd. I am still a leader to them, but in a very human form. I perhaps wasn't very clear with the dominance thing - my intention was to point out that all dogs require leadership to sucessfully survive as a pet in a human dominated world, even those who are not very dominant by nature. I did not mean to suggest that dominant dogs don't require leadership. Am - I don't say that you shouldn't tell your dog off with an 'uh uh', however I am sure we all know households where the dog thinks it's name ends in no, and is left to guess what it is supposed to be doing. I know that making a conscious effort to give my dog more information than just 'no' has had a good effect in my household but I don't say it is right on every single occasion. Re the couch I would think that most positive trainers would prefer to catch the dog before he made it up onto the sofa and ask for the down, which needn't last longer than a minute or so for most dogs to get the idea. I certainly wouldn't wait for the dog to get off the sofa of their own accord, I would ask it to 'off'.
|
|
|
Post by kaos on Sept 10, 2006 20:28:20 GMT -5
'The problem with some PP people is that they'll always avoid (gloss over) dog problems if they can't be answered within the PP training method and if I can turn a dog around using the pack theory, NILIF, and strong pack leadership, I must be a barbarian or something.'
Willow, I don't know who you get this from, certainly not from me! I don't think purely positive people gloss over dog problems, in fact many have specialised for example in aggression and extremely troubled dogs. No, I would not call you (from what little I know of you) a barbarian. I think as trainers we should be able to discuss methods and theories together, even if we choose to disagree. To me this is simply about having a fully informed opinion.
I would take issue, however, with assuming that anybody who doesn't subscribe to pack theory has uncontrolled and disobedient dogs. I certainly don't think that mine fall into that category!
|
|
|
Post by Richard on Sept 10, 2006 22:13:57 GMT -5
That actually was me and no I wasn't referring to you. You articulate your thoughts in a logical and straightforward non- confrontational way. We may not agree at all about our training methods but this isn't turning into a flame war - good vs evil and all that stuff.
If you are satisfied with your dogs behaviour and they do what you want them to do then you are accomplishing your goals in training - if you don't agree or want to do it being an alpha or whatever, that is fine too - it's the end result that counts. As long as you use whatever method you want, at least TRAIN YOUR DOG and be a responsible owner.
See that is the difference between us and the PP extremist types (and no, not you) - we look at all types of training methods whereas they don't and that point is very clearly evidenced by Ms Donaldsons views.
I don't think I said your dogs are untrained or misbehave either. You took the time to learn a method to train and are responsible for your dogs behavior. Many folks around where I live here aren't - that I have an issue with.
If you don't believe the pack theory nor having to think like an alpha that is ok too, it's just symantics playing out here. Call it whatever you want. What I don't like is PP types labelling our methods as cruel - which they are not - if I get the same results as they do with my dogs behavior and training methods - different routes but same destination.
Anyway, interesting discussion but we're covering old ground and a stalemate is just around the corner.
|
|
|
Post by Am on Sept 11, 2006 0:12:08 GMT -5
No, I don't think I am a wolf taking on the role of the alpha, I think I am a human taking on a leadership role with my pet dogs. I don't need to express myself like a dog or a wolf to do this, and I believe it is perfectly possible to explain NILIF without any reference to pack theory... I am still a leader to them, but in a very human form. But I imagine that from your dog's point of view, you're playing the same role that a canine leader would. Although your dog might know you're not a dog, if dogs weren't genetically programmed to seek out a canine leader, I doubt they would ever accept us humans as substitute leaders. Of course, we don't really know what is inside a dog's mind. But in my experience, animals that don't naturally seek out leaders from their own species don't generally accept human leaders. As an example, think of the domestic cat. Your cat has no desire to seek a feline leader, and it also doesn't really seem to understand the concept of a human leader. It is so different to a dog, which understands the concept of a canine leader, and also understands the concept of a human leader. This difference makes me think that when we are a dog's "leader", we are really just substituting for the alpha dog. And the reason that we can't lead a cat is since there is no "alpha cat" for us to replace! IMO though, this is really just semantics. We all seem to accept that we should be leaders, and accept that a leader is something that a dog normally needs. Whether we call it "pack theory" or "taking on a leadership role", it's the same thing, right? That's an interesting response, and I hadn't thought of it. Thanks! But I don't really see that me waiting for my dog to make a sofa attempt then telling him "uh-uh" is any less kind than waiting for the dog to make an attempt and then telling him to " down" for a few minutes. Aren't both of these similar levels of punishment? I don't see what could make the PP way superior. Anyway, interesting discussion but we're covering old ground and a stalemate is just around the corner. I think you're right, but I've still been enjoying the discussion.
|
|
|
Post by kaos on Sept 11, 2006 16:03:36 GMT -5
Thanks guys, interestingly I recently watched (on DVD) a seminar given by Ian Dunbar and he strongly makes the point that the sniping and infighting between the two schools of thought in dog training is counter productive and needs to end. We are not each others enemy but are actually all responsible dog owners and trainers who want to help and educate other owners to better care for their dogs and prevent problems like dogs being put down due to 'misbehaviour' or biting incidents. He goes on to make the point that our two camps are nowhere near as far apart as we seem to think we are. I think he is right, at the end of the day we are working towards the same goals, and we can learn from each other even if we ultimately adopt slightly different philosophies.
I think acusations of cruelty by the positive camp towards those who use more traditional methods are counterproductive, you can disagree without being hostile. Equally sometimes traditional trainers can be quick to scoff at positive approaches without having taken the time to fully understand the methods and without having seen first hand what can be achieved. There are sadly so many dogs out there that are really subjected to cruelty, neglect or simple mismanagement...
|
|
|
Post by kaos on Sept 11, 2006 19:02:22 GMT -5
Am, interesting comments re dogs being basically 'pre-programmed' to look for a leader, and you could well be right now I think about it, definitely one of the reasons we humans chose to work with and domesticate dogs I should think. I still resist the idea that I should try to imitate the behaviour of an Alpha dog in order to achieve leadership status though. Yes, definitely an element of semantics here, but I think human interpretation of pack behaviour is often flawed, and applying our version of these behaviours (such as Alpha rolls etc) is usually unnecessary and in some instances dangerous or counterproductive. We can thankfully very effectively achieve leadership status by using our intelligence, manipulating consequences for the dog, and controlling access to resources.
'But I don't really see that me waiting for my dog to make a sofa attempt then telling him "uh-uh" is any less kind than waiting for the dog to make an attempt and then telling him to " down" for a few minutes. Aren't both of these similar levels of punishment? I don't see what could make the PP way superior.'
I don't honestly think it is any less kind either, but I have found that focusing on telling my dogs what I want them to do rather than just 'no' or 'uh uh' has been more effective. When the dog goes 'down' instead of succeeding in getting on the sofa I would reward with praise which would increase the likelihood of that behaviour being repeated. Ultimately, a very minor point really but I have found the change in my dogs interesting since trying to train myself to think this way more often.
|
|
|
Post by Am on Sept 11, 2006 22:34:39 GMT -5
I still resist the idea that I should try to imitate the behaviour of an Alpha dog in order to achieve leadership status though. Yes, definitely an element of semantics here, but I think human interpretation of pack behaviour is often flawed, and applying our version of these behaviours (such as Alpha rolls etc) is usually unnecessary and in some instances dangerous or counterproductive. I agree with you - partially. ;D I certainly think that we don't need to mimick a wolf in order to be the leader. But I do think that when we try to be "leaders" to our dogs, we end up mimicking alpha dogs in some ways, even if we're not trying to do so. Alpha dogs adopt a calm demeanor, an upright posture, they control access to food and resources, they control the movement of the pack, protect the pack from other dogs, and correct subordinate pack members (with body language, tone of voice, or sometimes teeth). Even if you're not down on all fours trying to copy the behaviour of an alpha dog, I think when you act like a "leader" you're still often displaying similar behaviour to a high status dog. It's not suprising to me that since dogs and humans are both social mammals, that we would naturally express dominance or leadership in similar ways - without mimicking each other. For me, the problem is that the sequence here is supposed to go: a) dog starts to do a "bad" thing, such as jump on a sofa b) owner interrupts the dog by giving him a cue for another behaviour, eg " down!" c) dog lies down on cue and thinks twice about going to jump on the sofa in future, since it resulted in him having to down. Right? So my problem is, what if c) doesn't happen? What if the dog doesn't go down on command but gets on the sofa anyway? Wouldn't you have to then correct the dog then for disobedience, either verbally or physically? And in that case, then why not just correct the dog for jumping on the sofa in the first place?
|
|
|
Post by kaos on Sept 12, 2006 1:08:49 GMT -5
he he - it's very hard dealing in hypotheticals isn't it. In actual fact neither of my dogs will get on any furniture as it has always been a consistent rule in this house from day one and now would never occur to them. I think the problem with the above scenario is that you are assuming the dog is less likely to get up on the sofa because the down is a punishment. I am thinking more along the lines that the praise the dog earned through lying at my feet when I am at the sofa is likely to motivate the dog to do that again as it earned attention.
I am definitely not saying that there is anything wrong with an 'uh uh', and this would be my first instinct, but I like the subtle change in my own dogs since I have tried to alter how I react in certain situations. This is not an extensive scientific study, just a little experiment I have tried out with my own dogs and liked. May not work for different personalities, and I am not trying to convert anybody else who is happy with their own ways.
In my house, a common scenario was often to do with being licked a little too enthusiastically. This behaviour is not the end of the world to me so I don't want to 'stomp' on it, but equally there are times when I have had enough or I have a drink in my hand etc and need it to stop. We used to say 'no' a lot in response to this behaviour but 2 minutes later they would be back trying harder with the licking as they thought we were upset with them, and ignoring them totally had the same effect. Giving them something else to do then quietly praising that behaviour has allowed them to feel like we are not cross with them so there is no need to appease us with more bloody licking - win, win.
|
|
|
Post by kaos on Sept 12, 2006 1:14:37 GMT -5
But I do think that when we try to be "leaders" to our dogs, we end up mimicking alpha dogs in some ways, even if we're not trying to do so. Alpha dogs adopt a calm demeanor, an upright posture, they control access to food and resources, they control the movement of the pack, protect the pack from other dogs, and correct subordinate pack members (with body language, tone of voice, or sometimes teeth). Yup, I'll concede that there are similarities
|
|
|
Post by Am on Sept 12, 2006 2:35:04 GMT -5
I think the problem with the above scenario is that you are assuming the dog is less likely to get up on the sofa because the down is a punishment. I am thinking more along the lines that the praise the dog earned through lying at my feet when I am at the sofa is likely to motivate the dog to do that again as it earned attention. Aaah, so the idea is that you make being off the sofa more appealing than being on the sofa, by praising the dog when he is off the sofa. However, this method will only work when the behaviour you're trying to prevent isn't terribly rewarding, right? I mean, in this hypothetical situation the method works because jumping on the sofa isn't actually that compelling to the dog. But if the behaviour you want to extinguish is very appealing to the dog, then it will be very hard to make any other behaviour quite as rewarding merely with praise. Self rewarding behaviours such as food stealing, counter surfing, getting in the trash, & chasing the cat might be so rewarding that mere praise isn't sufficient to motivate the dog to choose an alternative behaviour, and you'll have to move to giving food rewards to motivate the dog to choose the alternative behaviour, right? You see, although I'm quite happy to reward my dog with food during training sessions, I'm not sure I want to be constantly rewarding him with food merely for displaying basic manners at home. My other thought is that for the most rewarding behaviours for a dog (things that might include chasing ducks, chasing balls, & fighting certain other dogs), no amount of praise or food rewards for alternate behaviours will make an impact in reducing the incidence of unwanted behaviour, since there is simply nothing the trainer can provide that is as appealing as the "bad" behaviour. What does a PP trainer do then? (FYI the only I've found that work in these situation is a) correcting the heck out of him for bad behaviour before he goes completely into "brain spazz" mode - certainly not PP - coupled with b) rewarding good behaviour with prey drive rewards - and although buiding and using drive is primarily a motivational method, it doesn't seem to be much discussed by the "purely positive" crowd for some reason). Enjoying talking with you - it's nice to hear a new perspective.
|
|
|
Post by Nicole on Sept 12, 2006 7:23:44 GMT -5
but I think human interpretation of pack behaviour is often flawed, and applying our version of these behaviours (such as Alpha rolls etc) is usually unnecessary and in some instances dangerous or counterproductive. Just a quick point on alpha rolls so there is no misconception. You are right that the human interpretation is flawed...grossly flawed. In the wild wolves never alpha roll like humans have advocated unless they are going to kill. The real alpha roll by wolves is a VOLUNTARY submissive act by the underling of rolling in response to a dominant or aggressive act by the higher ranking wolf. Some human decided that this was a forced roll when it was not and it is a no wonder it was catastrophic for people to do. The poor dog thought he was going to be killed. It is a great way to get your face bitten and ruin your relationship at the same time.
|
|
|
Post by willow on Sept 12, 2006 9:40:03 GMT -5
I totally agree with Kaos and Nicki that human interpretation of pack behavior is often flawed, i.e., the "Alpha roll". I also believe in the case of "socialization" and that our dogs must be "socialized" with many other dogs so that they will get along with every dog they meet. It doesn't work that way. Just the other night I was watching a "nature" program on t.v. about a wolf pack, and in it a lone wolf invaded the packs hunting territory. The pack attacked and killed the lone wolf, and the narrator said this is usually the outcome when another wolf invades a packs territory. To be clear, it does not mean that I believe then, that aggression by our dog towards other dogs should be tolerated because it is normal behavior, and I think it was Sibemom who said her dogs don't have to love every other dog, but they have to learn to ignore them and not aggress towards them. Behaviorists tell us we should get our puppies/dogs around a lot of other dogs to socialize them so they will love all other dogs, but, sadly, they don't tell us that a lot of dogs do not normally accept all other dogs and what to do if we experience this. So when it happens, most people are shocked that their dog was aggressive towards other dogs, and because we haven't been warned that this could happen and how to handle it, we ignore the behavior until it escalates out of control and we eventually have a big problem on their hands. I believe this is one of the areas positive behaviorists "gloss over" and don't talk about until after the fact. Then they blame the owner and say the dog wasn't "socialized" properly, rather than to re-think their theory on socialization and that it could be flawed. Once most dogs display a show of aggression of any kind, all the cookies in the world will not convince him that what he is doing is unacceptable. Kaos, I agree with you about the "alpha" and "pack" terminology. Truthfully, I am not in favor of it either for the reasons you stated. One question for AM and anybody else: There is "A Pride of Lions", "A gaggle of geese" "A herd of deer" etc. What WOULD a Pack of Cats be called? That made me laugh so hard, but it was a good example/illustration on how not all animals are "pack" animals and therefore inclined to need a strong leader to follow.
|
|
|
Post by Nicole on Sept 12, 2006 9:49:50 GMT -5
One question for AM and anybody else: There is "A Pride of Lions", "A gaggle of geese" "A herd of deer" etc. What WOULD a Pack of Cats be called? That made me laugh so hard, but it was a good example/illustration on how not all animals are "pack" animals and therefore inclined to need a strong leader to follow. A colony!! And did you know that there is a head of the colony...not like a dog pack though, but the most respected. And do you know what determines who that head is...intelligence. ;D The most intelligent cat of the colony is the most revered and so on down the line. They say that orange tabby's (I think that is what they are called) are most likely to be the most intelligent. Interesting right. ;D And not only do cats not need or seek out a leader, they could care less about pleasing you because they have no pack drive. That was an excellent post Loey and I totally agree with you.
|
|