|
Post by willow on Sept 12, 2006 10:01:54 GMT -5
Nicki, Thank you!
I think there must be another word that would fit a "cat pack" better than "colony" though!!! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Am on Sept 12, 2006 14:36:36 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? I've heard the term a "clowder of cats" before! But it struck me as a really silly word, and I'm not sure if it's much used. I agree with the rest of your post, thanks for posting it. People often seem to think that their dogs should love every other strange dog on sight, when in reality, dogs that behave like that are not necessarily the norm.
|
|
|
Post by kaos on Sept 12, 2006 15:51:23 GMT -5
Wow, so many intelligent and thought provoking responses to catch up on 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? Absolutely, and the context I have been using it round the home is to make some very minor adjustments to already well behaved dogs. An alternate behaviour, however, is still how I handle more serious self-rewarding behaviours but that defintely requires more reinforcement - eg one of my dogs likes to chase deer at the forest. Happily I have done lots of work on his recall and this will work to divert him from the deer. I don't need to have food on me for him to obey the recall, but the recall has been reinforced with food during many many many training sessions. He is now so used to turning and running to me when he hears the 'come' that he just about does it on auto-pilot even when the alternative is more rewarding. Some dogs would definitely be more difficult I imagine, but this works for mine. I would take each case on it's merits as I encountered it. 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. I generally use life rewards to reinforce manners around the home, eg be polite and I'll give you attention, sit by the door and wait then I'll open it for you, present the toy politely and I'll play with you etc. Since they have already learnt the basic cues it isn't necessary to reward with food constantly. I do still motivate with food when I do actual training sessions to introduce new obedience moves or refine existing ones, but not for everyday stuff. 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? I think the basic idea is that you train and reinforce a behaviour with low distractions and gradually work up towards heavier distractions. By the time you are in a position to deal with the strongest distractions it is not a case of being more rewarding than the alternative activity, it is a case of being in the habbit of obeying the recall or down or whatever. If you are not at that stage, you manage the situation with a long line or whatever. I have also read somewhere about using 'premacking' eg dog likes chasing squirrels, teach them that if they return to owner when they see a squirrel owner will then release them and allow the chase when squirrel is at a safe distance etc. I haven't tried that myself... I have really enjoyed talking to you to - you have really made me think which is great.
|
|
|
Post by kaos on Sept 12, 2006 18:28:41 GMT -5
Willow, you make some interesting points about socialisation. I do agree that socialisation is easily misunderstood, and I too would be very happy if all dogs could stand next to each other on a lead and tolerate or ignore each other without reacting agressively.
But, on the other hand, dogs that have had very little exposure to other dogs or different types of people can be extremely problematic.
To a certain extent I think it must come down to personal preference and individual expectations, as well as temperament of the dog. I do expect my dogs to mix amiably with other dogs (and people) both offlead when I am out walking or riding, and onlead when I am training or competing. I have socialised them as much as possible and for me this has worked well.
May not be a 'one size fits all' solution?
|
|
|
Post by Am on Sept 12, 2006 20:09:19 GMT -5
I generally use life rewards to reinforce manners around the home, eg be polite and I'll give you attention, sit by the door and wait then I'll open it for you, present the toy politely and I'll play with you etc. So do I - I think it's a great way of training basic manners. I think the basic idea is that you train and reinforce a behaviour with low distractions and gradually work up towards heavier distractions. By the time you are in a position to deal with the strongest distractions it is not a case of being more rewarding than the alternative activity, it is a case of being in the habbit of obeying the recall or down or whatever. I think most people (postive and traditional) believe in introducing distractions gradually, and only after commands have been learned in a more sterile environment. However, even if you introduce distractions gradually, there can still come a point when the temptation of the distraction is more compelling than the "habit" of obedience the dog has formed. Dogs aren't stupid - they are quite capable of working out that a temptation is much more exciting than anything their handler has ever offered them as a reward. I have heard of this, and have used it. But there are also times that it is quite inappropriate - for example, my dog's prime flaw is starting fights with other dogs. Can you imagine using Premack for that? (OK dog, just heel for five minutes, then I'll let you eat that shepherd!) You too. Many of my friends who own similar breeds to myself (pitbull/stafford/amstaff) report that no matter how conscientiously they socialise their dogs, their dogs still become aggressive with other dogs when they hit full maturity (1 - 3 years).
|
|
|
Post by willow on Sept 12, 2006 22:32:59 GMT -5
Many of my friends who own similar breeds to myself (pitbull/stafford/amstaff) report that no matter how conscientiously they socialise their dogs, their dogs still become aggressive with other dogs when they hit full maturity (1 - 3 years). This is one of the areas in which I agree with JD, who says that it is because aggression is bred right into some breeds.
|
|
|
Post by Am on Sept 12, 2006 22:52:46 GMT -5
This is one of the areas in which I agree with JD, who says that it is because aggression is bred right into some breeds. I completely agree with that too, Willow. Dog aggression is definately bred into some breeds. Dog aggression has also been bred right out of some breeds (I have been told that dogs that are bred to work in packs, such as beagles, seem to display dog aggression only very rarely). And most dog breeds are kind of in the middle. Though there are always exceptions to the rule. I know pitbulls and staffords that are total sweethearts with all dogs. And in my own neighbourhood lives the most horribly dog (and human) aggressive yellow labrador you could ever hope to meet. I see it out walking some days and just cringe. It pulls the owners along like a freight train, and it postures and snarls at every dog that it walks past (and some humans too). Ugh.
|
|
|
Post by willow on Sept 12, 2006 22:59:56 GMT -5
There are sadly so many dogs out there that are really subjected to cruelty, neglect or simple mismanagement... Of course we can all agree on this, but sadly too I think, Kaos, that the owners who mistreat, starve or are otherwise cruel to their animals (not just dogs), do not read books, or go to seminars or training classes of any kind so these people are not being reached anyway with the more gentle way to train. Also, I think anyone who can mistreat an animal in any way, shape or form are just twisted, evil people and even if they were reached, it wouldn't do any good. Of course, there are some people who are mentally ill and therefore do not have any concept of how to take care of an animal, but that is different. They really do not know any better. And in the case of simple mismanagement, as you put it, I think that stems from either laziness, ignorance, or thinking that training a dog is cruel. PP training appeals to this latter type of person, but because they can't get past the fact that their dogs are not just furry little children to pamper and love, even PP training is lost to them. For every cruel person out there, there is also the complete opposite type, and in both cases, some people should just not have pets of any kind. ;D
|
|
|
Post by kaos on Sept 12, 2006 23:08:16 GMT -5
Yes, I too agree that breeding / genetics are important. In fact it is what has stopped me from owning an Akita (which I have a real 'thing' for), too much risk of dog aggression. It is very hard to be sure or measure in any way just how much any socialisation attempts would make a difference with dogs that are predisposed to being dog aggressive. I don't think I can take the chance as I would be very sad to own a dog that couldn't be off lead around other dogs.
Yes Am I do think there will be a point where the distraction is too compelling, but this is true for both reward and punishment based training. I do think, however, that most people underestimate how reliably a positively trained dog can work. Personally I am pretty proud of my recall away from deer mid-chase whilst riding in the forest. It is in fact better than I have achieved with previous dogs using aversives.
But, that said, there are some particularly challenging individuals out there, and I haven't personally trained for example a husky who are notoriously difficult for recall.
Am, lol, no premacking definitely isn't applicable in every situation!
|
|
|
Post by willow on Sept 12, 2006 23:15:08 GMT -5
I know pitbulls and staffords that are total sweethearts with all dogs. And in my own neighbourhood lives the most horribly dog (and human) aggressive yellow labrador you could ever hope to meet. I see it out walking some days and just cringe. It pulls the owners along like a freight train, and it postures and snarls at every dog that it walks past (and some humans too). Ugh. Yes, there are some pits and other breeds where the fight seems to have been bred out of them by responsible breeders and this is a step in the right direction. There are also many cases where the owner, who doesn't have a clue, is responsible for the dogs aggression and this is sad too, because it could have been avoided in the first place. The bottom line is that what ever the cause of the aggression, in the end, the dog is the one who loses.
|
|
|
Post by Am on Sept 12, 2006 23:22:53 GMT -5
Yes Am I do think there will be a point where the distraction is too compelling, but this is true for both reward and punishment based training. But, but, but... I know that it is possible to get a pretty good recall away from a distraction using positive reinforcement only (because this makes coming to you more appealing). And it is possible to get a pretty good recall using aversives only (because this makes being away from you less attractive). But surely to get the best possible recall away from the most potent distractions, you should combine the two? Surely this would be the most effective method for training dogs to ignore the most tempting distractions, more effective than either positive reinforcement or aversives alone? It would be a " double whammy", making coming to you more appealing and making being away from you less attractive? Well done, that is good.
|
|
|
Post by kaos on Sept 12, 2006 23:31:36 GMT -5
Of course we can all agree on this, but sadly too I think, Kaos, that the owners who mistreat, starve or are otherwise cruel to their animals (not just dogs), do not read books, or go to seminars or training classes of any kind so these people are not being reached anyway with the more gentle way to train. Yes, absolutely. Maybe that post came out wrong. What I meant was as trainers we need to stop in-fighting with each other and focus on the real issues. I also agree that for positive training to work it has to be clearly understood, taken seriously and carried out consistently as a training regime, and not simply viewed as a lack of punishment. It is hopeless to get involved in positive training thinking that you are going to simply avoid punishment. It is about proactively ADDING positive reinforcement in appropriate ways to achieve a particular goal, not just subtracting punishment and hoping for the best. It is also not about being 'nice' to your dog in an unstructured way.
|
|
|
Post by willow on Sept 12, 2006 23:36:16 GMT -5
Yes, I too agree that breeding / genetics are important. In fact it is what has stopped me from owning an Akita (which I have a real 'thing' for), too much risk of dog aggression. I do think, however, that most people underestimate how reliably a positively trained dog can work. Personally I am pretty proud of my recall away from deer mid-chase whilst riding in the forest. It is in fact better than I have achieved with previous dogs using aversives. But you did say this dog is a "softer" dog by nature, and this is the type I refer to as "training themselves". Usually there are individuals of this type in most every breed. As I said in another thread, I had a black lab like this. I never gave him any type of "formal" training. I would take him when I rode my horse too. There was a busy road we had to ride along to get to the horse trails. When we got to the road I would tell him to "heel" and he would follow behind my horse until we got to the safe area and I would release him from the heel, but even then he never got out of my sight. I "trained" him to do this simply by calling him and telling him to "heel" when we got to that road. This same dog, however, chased a bull out of our camp who was getting ready to charge our children, when I asked him too, eventhough he had never seen a bull, or cow before, for that matter, and I had never asked him to "sic" anything before! With this type of dog, it's not the training, it's the dog, and most PP people seek out this type to train. (I am not referring to you, Kaos.) ;D
|
|
|
Post by kaos on Sept 12, 2006 23:41:08 GMT -5
'surely to get the best possible recall away from the most potent distractions, you should combine the two? '
Good question, and again hard to quantify, but from personal experience I am tempted to believe not. When I say in the past I have trained using aversives, I did always praise too. Yet the dog I am currently training seems generally more reliable and responsive. I see so many dogs during obedience training sessions whose recall seems to have been compromised. Often comes across as passive resistance with a slight slowing down or reluctance.
|
|
|
Post by willow on Sept 12, 2006 23:42:02 GMT -5
Well, ladies, this has been enjoyable, but this old lady has to get some sleep now. To be continued tomorrow.... ;D
|
|