|
Post by willow on Sept 21, 2006 9:06:29 GMT -5
Very good post, Sibemom! The same thing happened to me as it did with Sibemom when I got my first computer and discovered the world of dog training forums. As she said, suddenly I was doing everything wrong and I was mistreating my dogs! What greatly helped me was finding the forum where the other "old timer's" here were. (You know who you are) ;D At first I could not believe my eyes at what I was reading! There were actually people out there who basically trained their dogs, and very successfully, thank you , the same way I did. They really helped me get over my confusion and get back on a more balanced view of dog ownership/training. Thanks, guys! One other thing I have come to realize is that the more competition sports or games people get into, such as agility etc. is when they change to PP because if you don't, you can't train/compete. Since I do not do agility etc., I am not saying that their positive way of training is wrong, because for these types of training, it does work, but then people get all caught up in the PP thing and human psychology and think it will work for every dog in every situation, which just is not true. Also, as I stated in the "other" thread. Just because you train using a training collar and leash does not mean you go around jerking/hurting your dog. The collar/leash is used as a reminder to the dog to get his focus back on you when it strays. Once the dog knows what is expected, yes, then if he knowingly disobeys you, you have the means of giving a correction. The strength of the correction corelates with the offense, which is much more humane than giving treats for good behavior and ignoring bad behavior the way hard core PP people operate, and which leads to a lot of confused dogs.
|
|
|
Post by espencer85 on Sept 21, 2006 9:23:18 GMT -5
Like i quoted in the other tread, by givint treats to the dog then he learns how to manipulate you, the dog will know that doing the behavior and then stopping he will get a reward, just like telling your dog "good boy, you havent break any lamp inside the house today, have an ice cream", the dog will know that braking lamps will result in an ice cream the next day that didnt break one
NILIF and food should not come because the dog stopped doing something bad but because he is "working" for his food and "working" does not mean just being a good dog, even good dogs need to "work" for their food
|
|
|
Post by sibemom on Sept 21, 2006 9:25:20 GMT -5
Exactly I agree that for some forms of Dog Sport treats are a great benefit, and that does not always mean food treats it can be a squeaky toy, a ball etc... Like when you are training a Schutzhund Dog, to bring the Intense Drive out of the dog, you would use something to escalate it. I always use Ball on a Rope ;D but what I think alot of people forget is that BEFORE YOU CAN TRAIN A DOG FOR DOG SPORT, their manners and behaviors have to be in place, which alot of people would argure is the BEHAVIORIST PRINCIPLE but in essence it is the foundation for other types of training. To me training and behavioral science go hand in hand. In order to understand what and how a dog will respond to certain types of training you also have to impliment behavioral sciences, and with dogs that would mean getting them to respect you. Getting them to understand that if they exhibit unwanted behavior, then there will be a consequence and sometimes an unpleasant one, NOT AN ABUSIVE ONE, but something that they can understand in their DOG BRAIN that is an uncomfortable REACTION to their ACTION. If I ignore all the behavoirs my dog has that are unacceptable, and only reward with treats for good behavior that would be like ignoring my toddler picking up matches and starting a fire, and then when he put them down giving him a cookie. WOULD THAT WORK OR WOULD I HAVE TO TAKE OUT A HIGHER FIRE INSURANCE POLICY ON MY HOME Conditioning a dog to respond to your command and from the beggining showing the dog that YOU ARE IN CHARGE and it is not a democracy it is a dictatorship, fair, but still no voting goes on is the only way you are truely going to get a ROCK SOLID DEPENDABLE COMPANION. We refer to examples in the human world where dogs are concerned and that is fine, but the mistakes we make are actually thinking dogs think the same way we do and applying human emotion and psychology to an animal. THAT DOES NOT WORK.
|
|
|
Post by sibemom on Sept 21, 2006 9:35:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by kaos on Sept 21, 2006 15:39:47 GMT -5
Ok, I think there is some very confused thinking here. Yes, dogs are not human and don't have human emotions. Sometimes it is useful to give an example that humans can relate to in order to illustrate a point. Being a strong leader categorically does not cure all dog problems or in itself prevent fear developing or cure it in severe cases. If this were the case no traditional trainers would ever own a dog aggressive dog, or encounter a training problem which we know is not the case. This is just way too simplistic. Plenty of 'strong leaders' have failed to successfully train individual dogs even having resorted to harsh punishments such as ear pinches etc. The answer to ever single dog issue is not 'be more alpha with your dog'. You are right we often can not know what triggered a fear response, but we can certainly benefit from recognising the fact that the behaiour is fear related as opposed to some other reason. In the toddler with matches analogy (see I am not the only one that brings in human analogies) I would not punish the child who is not able to understand the danger. I would manage the situation to ensure that matches were not left at toddler height again, and I would take the matches away and replace them with a more appropriate toy. No different to a puppy who can be redirected into a more appropriate activity. I find it interesting that you should be under the impression that pp trainers switch methods due to dog sports. The obedience world has a long history of training using anything but pp methods, and many trainers continue to do so. I still regularly see practices that make me cringe. Sibemon, no I think I have a healthy understanding of behavioural science, and apply these principles to ever traing session. Yes, my dogs have manners and boundaries, but that doesnt mean I need to apply leash jerks dog achieve this. Dog, I think you are really not understanding the principles of positive training. You do not need to and obviously choose not to train this way, which is fine, but if you are going to intelligently debate the pros and cons I would recommend you do some reading outside of the dog whisperer in order to be fully informed. I don't understand why you are stressing that dogs need to work for their food? As someone who trains with food, I utilise this concept every day - do you imagine I sit around randomly feeding treats because I have a nice dog?
|
|
|
Post by sibemom on Sept 21, 2006 18:24:05 GMT -5
Yes of course I use human examples because as you said we are humans discusing issues about dogs. And your right in the toddler example you should put the danger out of reach. In the matter of being a strong ALPHA, PACK LEADER ETC... these are terms that I NEVER USED before it seemed to be so POLITICLY CORRECT. The terms I used were I am my dogs MASTER to me that meant exactly the same thing. Why do I feel that becoming stronger in your role as the master can prevent MOST behavioral issues? Because if you are a strong leader you will not allow these behaviors to start, and if the adverse behavior never starts THERE IS NOTHING TO FIX. Yes some dogs do present these issues anyway, and then you do have to go a step beyond just being a strong leader, but in order to get the dog to fully understand that what you are requesting from them must be done by using STRONG LEADERSHIP SKILLS. We all know that some dogs are extremly status seeking with other dogs, we like to use the term dominance. They are also show this behavior towards their humans and if you do not take a firm stand they will rise in the pack order. All known studies about dogs were first based on wolves, and yes our dogs are not wild animals but they have very similar atributes to the wolf, of course they would because that is where they came from. So in the wild if we really believe in animal behavioral science, why do we sometimes do just the oppisite of what the Alpha wolf would do to a subordinate who is stepping out of line? The alpha would correct by a bite and sometimes a fight to the finish would not tolerate any disobedience what so ever and YES MADE THE REST OF THE PACK WORK FOR THEIR FOOD. Alpha eats first and what is left over is given to the rest of the pack. They work together in the hunt but the food is always presented to the Alpha first. I understand that the domestic dog is just that a domestic animal but the only realy conclusive study we have to understand true canine behavior is to observe the wolf. Even then the truest of scientists will admit that there still is no conclusive data available to prove 100% what makes them tick and their never will be. HECK WE CAN'T EVEN FIGURE OUT OUR OWN SPECIES much less try and figure out a dog I do believe that dogs need to work for everything they get even food. That could be as simple as sitting nice and quiet while you fill their bowl and not daring to make a step forward untill you allow it. THAT IS THE WAY WE DO THINGS HERE. We have structure, and yes even with me being a very strong leader of course I have had my share of problems BUT BY MY OWN MAKING. I ADORE my dogs, and even though I know they are not HUMANS it is my nature to get all mushy and kissy with them and sometimes I slide and let them get away with more than I should and that is when I have a problem, like I said it's my own fault and I am not afraid to admit that. Kaos I doubt that you sit around and feed treats all day, and I am sure you have very well behaved dogs. Like we said before debate is a great thing and I am a die hard of trying to convert people to my way of doing things not because I think I am right all the time I make alot of mistakes, but because I truely do things the way I do for the betterment of my dogs life. I really do consider all aspects of a dogs personality before a I implement a training plan. I do not condem the way you choose to train your dogs I would never do that. The response to Juan though I will comment on that. Not everyone is a trainer, not everyone is a behaviorist, not everyone has lived with dogs or owned dogs for lots of years, and so when Juan quotes Cesar I LOVE IT This man has written a book that everyone can understand. He has simplified the things that we over anylize and made owning a dog fun again. Yes it's work but so is breathing, he has just made it so simple. Juan has also choosen the very quotes from the book that I whole heartedly agree with. He is also undestanding a concept that so many people do not so yes I think if Juan choses to follow Cesar's Way to start out with then he has made a wise choice. I will admit there are some things that I am not in total agreement with Cesar but very little. But then again I do have a few years on the man and I have maybe found a few tricks that work better thus your way of thinking and doing things Kaos. I also do not believe that working with a fearful dog takes a softer approach. I believe it takes a more direct approach, and to truley get rid of the fear in a sense you almost have to ( I know I am going to get creamed for this statement but please do not take it out of context ) you almost have to put them through a "SCARED STRAIGHT PROGRAM" by making them face the fear stopping their reaction, yes correcting them if they get snappy and making them LET YOU THEIR LEADER HANDLE THINGS. As long as they know that you are not afraid and will handle as the Border Collie people like to call it "THE GRIZZLY BEARS" they loose the fear. That has never failed me yet, and I doubt it ever will. Even a very NERVE BAG type dog as Nicki called them, can learn to be confident and secure knowing that their MASTER will handle the GRIZZLY BEARS. With aggresive dogs no matter what kind dog on dog, dog on people, it's like what the military does to new recruits they strip away every single bit of indivduality and then when they have made them feel like CRAP ON THE BOTTOM OF A SHOE, they start building them back up into respectable structured individuals who follow, well with humans a not so stable leader but still some one higher up in the pecking order . This I know for certain, no amount of PP rehab is going to cure an EXTREMLY AGGRESIVE DOG, BEEN THER DONE THAT and honesly NOTHING ELSE WORKS if we are talking TRUE AGGRESION. I guess it's that saying again "the only thing trainers/behavioists will ever totaly agree on is that they disagree" and we do it so well here and with respect Thank you for the good workout my brain has had today It was tough but it did me LOTS OF GOOD
|
|
|
Post by willow on Sept 21, 2006 20:11:22 GMT -5
I think some thing else that contributes to so many messed up dogs is because years ago there were no Humane Societies. A dog had issues the owner didn't want to deal with....well..... Also, there were not as many dogs in cities. When I was a kid and lived in Milwaukee, my parents refused to get me a dog as much as I begged and pleaded because we lived in a third floor walk up apt. and they said it was no place for a dog. They also said "no" to the horse I begged for. Now it is acceptable to have a dog no matter where you live. No matter that you don't have time for the dog etc., and that it will be cooped up in an apt. or house all day while you work. So people get that cute little puppy and don't exercise it or train it and it grows up out of control and ends up in a shelter. Another person comes along and feels sorry for the dog (especially the one cowering in the corner which clearly shows it has been abused) and they take it home thinking all they have to do is shower it with love and attention and that will solve all its problems.
|
|
|
Post by willow on Sept 21, 2006 20:24:45 GMT -5
Being a strong leader categorically does not cure all dog problems or in itself prevent fear developing or cure it in severe cases. I don't recall that I said that any where. I do feel, however, if you start your puppy out right from the beginning, and know what you are doing, it will not develop problems. Problems develop because people let their dogs run the household, just as some parents let their children run the house hold. (Human comparison there. Is every one happy now?)
|
|
|
Post by willow on Sept 21, 2006 20:34:35 GMT -5
I find it interesting that you should be under the impression that pp trainers switch methods due to dog sports. The obedience world has a long history of training using anything but pp methods, and many trainers continue to do so. I still regularly see practices that make me cringe. But isn't it true that if a "traditional" trainer begins to train for agility they cannot correct the dog in anyway? I also wasn't referring to obedience competition. I started out in ob and it must have changed since then if they use ear pinches! I never saw anyone use that back then, but I do know that today a lot of trainer's use that when they field train dogs and I find it deplorable, along with a lot of the other methods they use. We also trained retriever's for Field Trials etc. and never resorted to ear pinches, toe pinches or even e-collars for that matter. I am considered a "traditional trainer" because I use training collars and "gasp" actually, the dreaded choke collar is my collar of choice and always has been, unless I am working with a large out of control dog, then I will use a pinch....OTOH, I don't automatically slap a training collar on a dog and start "jerking" them around and I resent it when PP people say all "traditional" trainer's use training collars and jerk/choke/abuse the dogs they train, and they do say that. I can train a dog without a training collar if the dog is not out of control because of not having any rules, boundaries etc. before I got him....which is hard to find today with an adult dog.
|
|
|
Post by kaos on Sept 21, 2006 20:57:51 GMT -5
lol - yes happy I am not the only one making human comparisons now I also agree that if most dogs are brought up from a puppy by someone knowledgeable who treats them consistently they will not develop major issues. I used to firmly believe that 'you get the dog you deserve', but a few cases I have come across personally of dogs that turn out great despite terrible owners who do everything wrong, and great owners who still end up with some problem behaviours have somewhat softened that view. Now I think you USUALLY get the dog you deserve. Interesting point Willow about Humane Societies, and I HATE the way so many people consider their dogs disposable. I also agree that whilst love and attention will get you so far it simply does not replace the need for training and consistency. Sibemom, I do agree that solid leadership along with general training will go along way towards preventing or dealing with MOST problems too. But, there are some scenarios that arise that I think reqire a little more lateral thinking. When I said I use behavioural science I meant that I use scientific theory in order to modify my dogs behaviour. I am sure you are aware that I am not a great believer in needing to imitate the way dogs or wolves react towards each other. I have certainly read enough of your posts to believe wholeheartedly that you do 'truely do things the way I do for the betterment of my dogs life'. Whenever I would have given different advice or approached a situation different I certainly do not mean you any disrespect. I would much prefer to get along with a good trainer who has different ideas to my own than someone who fails to put any thought or effort into training their dog at all - those people frustrate the hell out of me. I do disagree regarding rehabilitating agressive dogs, but you already know that I am sure. Re my comments towards Dog, sorry if that came across badly (you have to be so careful how you phrase things), I am more than happy to read quotes from the dog whisperer when they are relevant to the discussion and Dog obviously has a good understanding of Cesar's theory. I was simply meaning where he had commented on positive methods he seemes to be a little confused.
|
|
|
Post by kaos on Sept 21, 2006 21:09:12 GMT -5
'But isn't it true that if a "traditional" trainer begins to train for agility they cannot correct the dog in anyway?'
I guess it depends who you train with, how you define a correction and of course we are also in different countries so that may also change things too. I have certainly witnessed agility training that wouldn't fall into the 'purely positive' basket. Obviously in competition of most types any correction is not allowed.
|
|
|
Post by kaos on Sept 21, 2006 21:18:43 GMT -5
I don't automatically slap a training collar on a dog and start "jerking" them around and I resent it when PP people say all "traditional" trainer's use training collars and jerk/choke/abuse the dogs they train, and they do say that. I think we need to get away from steotyping people into two camps in dog training. An individual who happens to be a positive trainer may say or believe those things but we are not a cohesive bunch and that individual does not speak for me or any other trainer. It is just as frustrating when a 'traditional' (for want of a better word) trainer makes assumptions that because I use mainly positive methods I am 'soft' and my dogs will run riot without knowing the first thing about me or my dogs. I hope the discussions on this forum go some way towards just seeing each other as individuals.
|
|
|
Post by willow on Sept 21, 2006 22:14:43 GMT -5
I certainly agree with what you have said here. ;D Not everone on "either side of the fence" as far as their training method of choice has an "all or nothing" attitude, and that is what makes a good trainer. One who is confident and knowledgable enough to change a method to suit the dog. As far as the traditional training method, or maybe traditional rehabilitating method is a better term, not being the best one for aggressive dogs, I truly don't know, Kaos, because I have never seen/heard of an aggressive dog being successfully rehabilitated using positive methods only. If you know specifically of some, I would surely be more willing to consider what you have said. Over in this country, what infuriates us traditional trainer's about PP trainer's/behaviorists/rehabilitators is that they condemn using traditional rehabilitation methods, but their "cure" for aggressive dogs is to just put the dog down instead of admitting PP didn't work and trying other methods to find one that does work. If I was a PP trainer I hope I would be balanced enough to try what ever would work to save the dog. Unfortunately, over here, most PP trainer's are pretty unbalanced and that is why we traditional trainer's are on the defensive. Maybe it works the other way around with a lot of traditional trainer's too, who will not change their thinking or method even if it isn't working or if some one can truly show them that there is a gentler way of doing it, even with aggression. Please show me! Oh, and I don't object to human comparison between people/dogs and I often say there is a lot of similarities in raising children and puppies, but what I object to is using human psychology to explain dog behavior.
|
|
|
Post by kaos on Sept 21, 2006 23:53:19 GMT -5
Willow, I am not the best person to discuss agression with as I am really much more involved and interested in helping mainstream dogs with basic training in a club situation as I think in most cases we can stop a problem escalating to that degree. If I see a dog with serious agression issues I would refer to a behaviourist for one-on-one work. Mild situations we can usually help with. So as you can see rehabilitation of serious cases is not my area of expertise.
However, that said I have read lots of theory and case studies from better trainers than me, and watched the behaviourist at work with dogs I have referred. I can honestly say that I have personally witnessed a number of seriously dog aggressive dogs become non reactive and at least able to walk past other dogs on leash without reacting. I haven't been involved in any people aggressive cases personally but I can't see why the same principles wouldn't work.
All that said, if I was in the position of being told that the behaviourist who uses positive methods had failed to the point of suggesting the dog be put down, and a non-positive trainer seriously felt they could turn the dog around, I would be willing to give them a chance as at that point there would be nothing to lose.
Willow, it sounds like you have some experience of rehabilitating very serious cases, and that is great. It would be a lot more convincing for you to discuss with a positive trainer who specialises in this area I suspect. Mild cases I have worked with personally have responded where the owner has been prepared to make a serious commitment.
|
|
|
Post by Am on Sept 22, 2006 0:11:57 GMT -5
As far as the traditional training method, or maybe traditional rehabilitating method is a better term, not being the best one for aggressive dogs, I truly don't know, Kaos, because I have never seen/heard of an aggressive dog being successfully rehabilitated using positive methods only. If you know specifically of some, I would surely be more willing to consider what you have said. I have. But in all of the cases I have heard of, the aggression was fear based. The method involved the owner either concentrated on getting the dog to associate the presence of the feared object with something "good" like food treats (i.e this was classical conditioning); or by the owner gradually desensitising the dog to the object while selectively supplying something good (like food) for calm behaviour (i.e operant conditioning). Usually this was done while using NILIF or similar at home in order to be a better leader for the dog. One OK book outlining this method is "Click to Calm", not sure who wrote it, but it's available on Amazon. I am pretty sure the same methods wouldn't work for dogs that are aggressive but not fearful. I mean, the cases I have heard of seem to work because the aggressive dog is fearful and stressed and unhappy the way it is, so it is motivated to learn a different way of reacting to the situation. Whereas a dog that is aggressive because it seeks status or just genuinely likes to fight, for example, is IMO unlikely to take a food treat as a substitute for getting to display aggression. JMO.
|
|