[BHB]

My wife wouldn't let me discipline the kids the way I was in my childhood. That may have been a good thing because I was treated pretty rough. All I know is that my dogs behave better sometimes than my kids. I'd get frustrated with the kids and take it out on the dog. Hmmm, there must be a correlation there...

My kids behave very well as long as I am holding the ecollar transmitter...;-) The dogs are collar shy too.

BHB

 

[mostlygold]

I train and run field, obedience and agility. I find that a great number of purely agility people espouse the "no correction" rhetoric and that extends to some pretty bad behaviors. Ignore the bad and praise the good does indeed work for a lot of training, but it does nothing for aggressive issues. It scares me some that people continue to treat aggression issues like that. Obedience people fall into one category or the other. They are either "no correction" like the agility folks or they believe in correction as a tool to training. I have moved over to a less correction method of training, but I believe it is because I have been doing this long enough to understand when a correction is needed and when an explanation is needed. I also understand the value of correctly timed praise. It is just as important as properly timed correction and not understood enough by new trainers. I use correction when needed in all venues. I have been told by my agility cohorts that I should NEVER correct in the agility ring, but have found that avoidance in that venue responds just as quickly to a proper correction as avoidance in obedience or the field. Give the dog a chance to do it right, explain what went wrong in a way they understand and give a timely, non aggressive correction, followed by sincere praise usually works for me. For most things, I prefer to give the dog the benefit of the doubt and re-explain, but I do not hesitate to give a correction when needed.

I won't even go into the whole child thing. I can hardly stand to go into a store or restaurant these days.

Regards
Dawn

 

[agile.labs]

. . Give the dog a chance to do it right, explain what went wrong in a way they understand and give a timely, non aggressive correction, followed by sincere praise usually works for me. For most things, I prefer to give the dog the benefit of the doubt and re-explain, but I do not hesitate to give a correction when needed.

Exactly. If the dog understands when it is wrong, then it has he opportunity to be right and be rewarded. Getting no response over and over seems like it would be very frustrating for a dog trying to "figure out" what is right.

I always give the benefit of the doubt first as maybe it was my body cue, but if it warrants a correction, I will no hesitate to do it and get it over with so we can move on to doing things right.

 

[agile.labs]

I find that a great number of purely agility people espouse the "no correction" rhetoric

And unless you are really out there in agility, many people have no clue to the extent this goes. When I first started agility, I swore I was in the twilight zone with the things I saw

And just to add, I have no problem with training for someone if it works. And to me, proof of it working is in the results. Kudos to you, but don't sit back and tell me what a horrible person I am for doing what works for me(that is a huge peeve of mine)

 

[limiman12]

It really is sad how kids act. My wife doesn't like it when I compare child raising to dog trainging but they really are a lot alike. .

The best parenting book we have read is "the dog trainers guide to parenting" We got it as a joke from a friend but it is really good...

Sometime pay attention when a parent is telling a two year old what to do, then listen to yourself with your dog, pretty similar....

I have long been an advocate that before anyone should be allowed to have children they should have to raise/train a dog for two years and have the dog pass some sort of HT OB or something.

Dad is a teacher, lives in a rural area, he has long said that he can predict which kids are goin gto be "hellions" as teenagers by how the family dog is treated/behaves.....

Too many parents are more concernd with how their kid/dog feels than with how they turn out.

 

[limiman12]

(dog aggression and peeing on the equipment are the only 2 legal places to correct, but those won't be my issues!). Anne

If it is reconized that "corrections" are the quickest way to stop bad behavior for these "serious" problems, why do they not think that the lesser ones will be fixed the same way?

 

[limiman12]

By the same token, don't we all use the "retrieve" as positive re-enforcement. Dog takes cast/marks fall it gets to retrieve. Dog blows you off one too many times, you call it in and remove the reward at teh blind pole....

 

[Gun_Dog2002]

Be careful. Victoria Stillwell is gonna ban some of you from her website.


/Paul

 

[agile.labs]

Be careful. Victoria Stillwell is gonna ban some of you from her website.


/Paul

Darn I was really hoping she would come to my house when she came to the US

While I have respect for other peoples methods(if they work), she said something during a show that made me lose any and ALL respect for her

 

[agile.labs]

The best parenting book we have read is "the dog trainers guide to parenting" We got it as a joke from a friend but it is really good...

Sometime pay attention when a parent is telling a two year old what to do, then listen to yourself with your dog, pretty similar....

I have long been an advocate that before anyone should be allowed to have children they should have to raise/train a dog for two years and have the dog pass some sort of HT OB or something.

Dad is a teacher, lives in a rural area, he has long said that he can predict which kids are goin gto be "hellions" as teenagers by how the family dog is treated/behaves.....

Too many parents are more concernd with how their kid/dog feels than with how they turn out.

I absolutely agree. There are a ton of similarities. Teach...mean what you say... Be fair...

 

[Gun_Dog2002]

Darn I was really hoping she would come to my house when she came to the US

While I have respect for other peoples methods(if they work), she said something during a show that made me lose any and ALL respect for her

What? I can't believe that you don't respect the opinion of an unemployable actress who took up dog walking to pay for her studio apartment while she took acting lessons and now is a dog training expert condemning real dog trainers who have proven accomplishments.

"Bloody Shocking" (in my best British accent...)

/Paul

 

[afdahl]

Hmmm, this is an interesting topic coming from an agility person esp!
One of my major pet peeves about agility is I've been told there will be "NO no's" in agility class. I know I'm not the only person w/ that sort of intructor too...

I've wanted to respond to this issue, that has been mentioned in a number of posts. I'm guessing the agility instructors are either really dogmatic, or are trying to simplify training for students they fear will go too far in the opposite direction.

We use the principle of not saying "no," or not correcting, in retriever training, too. Rex Carr labeled it "attrition," because unwanted behavior "wears away" as training progresses. I've noticed in my own training that dogs tend to refine their behavior to be more efficient. This works for good and bad. If the hand reaching down is always followed by the "drop" command, they'll take a shortcut, not wait for the command, but spit out the bird when they see the hand. That's the bad. If every time they take a quick turn to run around the water they get stopped, then end up being cast into the water, they'll eventually give up trying to run around. Waste of time getting stopped and cast in when they can just jump in. That's the good.

Modern training theory discusses *extinction* and says that behavior that is not reinforced (what we usually call "rewarded") will eventually go away on its own. There are many instances in which this is true. In many of those, extinction is probably the most efficient way to stop a behavior, because corrections can be too much or too little or misunderstood by the dog, creating a new training problem that is a distraction from training. With a bunch of novice trainers in agility, I'm guessing corrections are apt to be clumsy, increasing the risk of causing problems.

We have other times that we don't correct. I think it's pretty common to follow the advice "don't correct for coming when called on the retrieve." The concept is that the dog is doing something we (very much) want him or her to do, and we don't want to discourage that. I don't run agility, but from what I can tell, the emphasis is on *doing*, as opposed to not-doing. Although there is a variety of tasks, the same principle would apply--trainers want to avoid creating inhibitions about the positive things they want their dogs to do. They want the dogs to problem-solve in learning to do the task correctly, and this problem-solving could be derailed if the dog became apprehensive about some component action.

There is a lot of variability in dogs. My own opinion is that some of them learn better when we apply the shortcut of telling them what will NOT be productive, what the modern trainers call a "no reward marker" or NRM. I use "no" in that manner. Some dogs really do seem to get frustrated when we withhold that information. It's like trying to pretend that we, as trainers, aren't part of the picture, and that the dog is trying to figure everything out in a vacuum. Labs in particular seem to thrive on being told what to do and what not do to, relative to some other dogs--probably especially when compared to the border collies favored by a lot of obedience and agility people. (I am speculating here as I really don't respond much to border collies; I find them boring.) I have noticed that a lot of modern trainers don't think much of Labs. Could this be because the Labs don't respond ideally to their, rather formulaic, methods? I suspect so.

To summarize this rambling post, IMO there *is* a valid principle behind the, sometimes frustrating, "never say 'no'" philosophy. But I also think there is validity to the gut reaction of several on this thread that that's not the way to train a Lab, or at least, that a Lab might learn better if the approach were tempered somewhat. JMHO.

Amy Dahl

 

[rmilner]

Amy,
That was a superb explanation of the proper way to apply training principles. You have a great talent for commnication of training concepts.

Best Regards,

 

[agile.labs]

Interesting post Amy. And yes, there are times that ignoring the behavior is appropriate but not as often as seen in agility, IMO.

I am quick to lecture the students about yelling no to their dog because it very well could have been their handling mistake that sent them in the wrong direction, so that I understand. The dog gets the benefit the first time(or if I am seeing the handling issue)

BUT if I know my handling is OK I will NOT sit and ignore my dog while they run through the tunnel 8 times in a row until they decide to come in my direction(then I am supposed to reward that). Dang skippy my dog will be corrected for something like that. He doesn't get to decide to do what what I say when HE wants, he must do it when I want.

I see too often, the dog running around course doing what they feel like the whole time being ignored(wrong behavior), the instant they come they get a treat. So what did the dog just learn? Those are the issues I have with it.

 

[Pete]

[QUOTEModern training theory discusses *extinction* and says that behavior that is not reinforced (what we usually call "rewarded") will eventually go away on its own. There are many instances in which this is true. In many of those, extinction is probably the most efficient way to stop a behavior, because corrections can be too much or too little or misunderstood by the dog, creating a new training problem that is a distraction from training. With a bunch of novice trainers in agility, I'm guessing corrections are apt to be clumsy, increasing the risk of causing problems.

][/QUOTE]

Amy , can you give a couple of examples of what you mean. In where a behavior that is not rewarded or corrected goes away faster,,than if it were corrected or rewarded
Thanks
Pete

 

[Guest]

The aggressive dog threads always make me think.

Today, so many people are sold on the purely positive aspect. No corrections, just positive rewards when they do something right(doesn't matter if they do it wrong four times first).

And because of this recent trend, we are seeing more and more ill behaved dogs and the numbers of dogs in shelters is growing(even before economic times) and many of the shelter research says 80% of the dogs turned in are due to behavior

Is this sway toward a more positive training, effecting everything else.

Kids too. More and more kids are unruly because parents don't discipline like they used to. A swat on the behind today is now course for child abuse.

What do you think. If we went back to "old times", would some of the other issues resolve??

Wait a minute...

So you're implying that there may be a connection between artificially inflating a subject's (whether canine or human) successes that should be considered routine to the point that the subject truly believes that it poops ice cream could, in fact, be detrimental to the subject's overall well-being and functionality?

I'll have to digest that for a minute.

There is nothing wrong with doling out the "Attaboy's" but you can't ignore the "Aw sh*t's"

 

[Hunchaser]

I live in the Canadian prairies, completely surrounded by ranchs and farms. All the farm kids I know are excellent citizens and hard workers. There are not abused just given responsiblity. The work and sense of responsiblity tends to mature them and they are a treat to be around. Same with a working dog. Teach, not beat and give them a job. Allow them the ability to make mistakes. I fully understand that dogs don't do things because they love you. They do it because they are forced. It's the degree and intelligence use of force that is applied to each individual dog that is important.

That's my two cents worth.

 

[agile.labs]

I live in the Canadian prairies, completely surrounded by ranchs and farms. All the farm kids I know are excellent citizens and hard workers. There are not abused just given responsiblity.

That is fantastic. I wish I would see ore of that around here. Exactly the point I see where we don't have kids doing this.

The work and sense of responsiblity tends to mature them and they are a treat to be around. Same with a working dog. Teach, not beat and give them a job. Allow them the ability to make mistakes. I fully understand that dogs don't do things because they love you. They do it because they are forced. It's the degree and intelligence use of force that is applied to each individual dog that is important.

That's my two cents worth.

IMO force is a misunderstood word and can take on several meanings.

We in sense "force" our children to go to school. It isn't beaten, bribed, or anything else it is simply expected. There is a consequence if they don't go. Force doesn't always have to be physical.

At the same token, we see sports teams giving every kid and every team a trophy, simply for showing up. Where do they learn how to accept losing.

When I was teaching, we had to accept late papers and give them the same grade for finishing. Where do they learn deadlines.

Giving every kid something so they don't feel left out on someone's birthday. Where do they learn to accept that life isn't always fair.

We see kids being bought simply to keep quiet in a store. Where do they learn they just need to be quiet simply by being told.

Now I am not saying it isn't good to make a child feel good about something they did, but they must also have to learn how to deal with things in life that aren't always fair and fun.

Isee everything sugar coated nowadays in order to make kids "feel good", but sadly, that isn't life.

I think being given responsibilities and jobs is a wonderful thing, sadly it isn't the norm around here.

 

[rmilner]

I would say dog training boils down to two principles:

1. Dogs do what pays. That pay might be a retrieve, might be food, might be praise, might be something else. It varies somewhat with the dog and his past experiences.

2. The other basic principle is that dogs avoid or escape pain or discomfort. That might be a physical pain or an emotional response resulting from a past association with pain.

In my view, a good trainer maximizes the use of #1 and minimizes the use of #2.

 

[afdahl]

Amy , can you give a couple of examples of what you mean. In where a behavior that is not rewarded or corrected goes away faster,,than if it were corrected or rewarded
Thanks
Pete

Let me try. I find every example I think up is open to quibbles about terminology, but I'll try anyway. I will also say that the behavior may not go away *faster,* but it goes away in a manner that gives better results in the long term.

One example that comes to mind is a technique used in steadying, which is to deny the dog the retrieve if he or she breaks. One can whistle stop the dog, or have a bird boy pick up the bird. This is a method that has been in use for decades, and was well-known before the advent of the e-collar. My view is that retriever training practices are for the most part highly effective--arrived at by experience, or trial-and-error, they are effective applications of the principles of training. Denying the retrieve to a dog that breaks is one. It works, and it fits the modern explanation of principles.

Why don't we just punish with the e-collar? Because doing so can have all kinds of side effects. Yes, I can describe them because yes, I have tried to use collar correction as a shortcut for this and for other things. You can get no-goes; the dog can become jumpy at the line, his excitement level ramped up because he anticipates a good thing--a send--and a bad thing--a correction. You can quickly get some troublesome line-manners problems. This is actually one example where I think the dog "gets it" faster with extinction than with punishment.

Training through attrition is similar. Whether we want the dog to stop cheating water or cover, to stop giving in to factors, or something else, we've learned, collectively and through trial and error, that we get better results by simply not allowing the unwanted behavior to result in completing a retrieve, than by correcting it. E-collar correction on retrieves is generally avoided by a lot of people as it can cause "hot spots" in the field or other reactions to some situation or feature of the retrieve.

On the subject of line manners, I use a similar approach for dogs that want to beat me to the line. If the dog gets in front of me, I stop. Getting ahead doesn't pay; it doesn't get us to the line faster. This works well for me.

All of these examples could be classified under "rewarding an incompatible behavior" rather than pure extinction. In real life training situations, a lot of things don't fit one label 100%.

Some behaviors are intrinsically rewarding, or "self-reinforcing." These will not go away merely because we withhold an external reward. Digging and barking are among them. Interestingly, I know a number of committed modern trainers (not retriever people) who have all arrived at the conclusion that bark collars are the way to teach dogs not to bark. They all use citronella collars, but the principle is still punishment--because it's a behavior that frequently does NOT go away on its own. (With my current puppy, I'm working on teaching her to bark only when she needs to go out to air, and hope not to resort to a bark collar. We'll see.)

I think it is part of Labrador nature to be so incredibly optimistic that a whole lot of behavior is self-reinforcing to Labs when it wouldn't be to many other dogs. This is part of the reason I think Lab people may be justified in feeling that feedback along the lines of "stop that" is a necessary part of training.

Here's an example of extinction in Labradors that I just remembered. My neighbors used to have about 20 guinea fowl that would hang around our property. New dogs in training would generally chase them. The guinea fowl put no more effort into getting away than they have to. They walk fast, squawking, and will fly a little way if a dog gets too close. If a dog is really determined, they will fly up into the trees. The dogs never catch them, they never get them to "flush" in an exciting way, and we never shoot them. The dogs all give up chasing the guinea fowl and get so they will ignore them, even if they have to run through them on a retrieve. Since some of the guineas are white, they can sometimes confuse a dog, and we have to try to shoo them away ourselves, because we can't get any of the dogs to do it.

HTH,

Amy Dahl