Before You Get Your Puppy

[jdarling]

The click, from what I understand, is supposed to "mark" the exact point where the correct behavior happened (thereby ending the point at which pressure was being applied -- or, in your case, I guess, where "information" and additional "cues" and "directives" were being given). Anything after that should be removal of pressure, and if not, you are not doing something right.

 

I'm stepping off the merry-go-round now. I'm getting dizzy.

[Root Beer]

The click, from what I understand, is supposed to "mark" the exact point where the correct behavior happened (thereby ending the point at which pressure was being applied -- or, in your case, I guess, where "information" and additional "cues" and "directives" were being given). Anything after that should be removal of pressure, and if not, you are not doing something right.

 

I'm stepping off the merry-go-round now. I'm getting dizzy.

 

Sorry to make you dizzy.

 

I'm rather surprised, with all of the objection to clickers and reinforcement and the choice to train without correction (not necessarily by you), that it seems to me that you are saying that we are all just doing the same thing in different ways.

 

If that's the case, then what difference does it make if some people want to train, as you say, "nice"? If we're all just doing the same thing, anyway, why not be nice about it?

[jdarling]

why not be nice about it?

 

Are you implying I'm not "nice" when I train my dogs?

[Root Beer]

Are you implying I'm not "nice" when I train my dogs?

 

Thanks for asking. No, I'm not implying that.

[jdarling]

You're welcome. Cotton candy, anyone?

[Root Beer]

You're welcome. Cotton candy, anyone?

 

Cotton candy - what a nice idea.

[Mariji]

I think the general public don't want to spend the time training using no corrections. They want results and the faster the better, to train using no physical corrections can be arduous with certain dogs and the idea can wear off very quickly for some people. But when you make it through that first year it is soooo worth it. My pup is 10 months and I have used entirely positive reinforcement. I might now occasionally say "No" but she has no idea what a angry tone of sound means so she just bounces around like a goof ball. I will say some of it was extremely frustrating but the dog soon cottons on and If I think of it from her point of view then I feel much better.

 

As for training anything from Rachel Sanders I love. I don't use all her methods but she is such a fun instructor to listen too.

[jdarling]

I might now occasionally say "No" but she has no idea what a angry tone of sound means

 

I am not a "purely positive" trainer, am not afraid to correct my dogs, but I also wouldn't be working with my dogs if I was angry. I use a firm tone with my "no" and my dogs respect it (for the most part). When you say, "no" ... is that positive reinforcement? When you say "no" and she just "bounces around like a goof ball" ... is that okay with you?

[rushdoggie]

I think the general public don't want to spend the time training using no corrections. They want results and the faster the better, to train using no physical corrections can be arduous with certain dogs and the idea can wear off very quickly for some people. But when you make it through that first year it is soooo worth it. My pup is 10 months and I have used entirely positive reinforcement. I might now occasionally say "No" but she has no idea what a angry tone of sound means so she just bounces around like a goof ball. I will say some of it was extremely frustrating but the dog soon cottons on and If I think of it from her point of view then I feel much better.

 

As for training anything from Rachel Sanders I love. I don't use all her methods but she is such a fun instructor to listen too.

 

I have never found that training with positive reinforcement took longer than training with corrections...in fact there's a lot of stuff that goes WAY quicker with a clicker and a treat than correction-based training ever did for me!

[Mariji]

I am not a "purely positive" trainer, am not afraid to correct my dogs, but I also wouldn't be working with my dogs if I was angry. I use a firm tone with my "no" and my dogs respect it (for the most part). When you say, "no" ... is that positive reinforcement? When you say "no" and she just "bounces around like a goof ball" ... is that okay with you?

 

Yes firm tone is what I meant but couldn't think of the word. With all her training I have pretty much used purely positive and only occasionally a verbal correction will slip (as I used corrections with my first dog until she was 6 months old when I discovered Shaping) but it usually because I left something out which is my fault anyway but I don't have time to get to her. Like I said it very rarely happens because she is so well behaved.

 

If you had asked me a year ago whether I was alright with her bouncing around like a goof ball I would have said outright No. But you know what? I am happy with that as it shows me how well I have done in training her with no verbal or physical corrections. Some would argue there are downsides to a dog no understanding no, but I try my hardest for there never to be a reason for me to tell her off. I will manipulate her environment to help her get this right and if she does something wrong it is because she hasn't been taught what is right or better to do than what is wrong. I have mellowed in my training and allow her to jump and bark when we are training as it shows drive as long as she will be calm and quiet when I ask. I think corrections after having my first dog dampened her personality and never really let her show me what she was capable of as I was forever telling her off for what she was doing wrong rather than showing her what was right.

 

And I do think it takes longer at first to shape a dogs responses and it is the same with no corrections. It is so firmly placed (generalizing here) in society to tell the dog it is wrong rather than reward when it is right. So at first it can take a bit for the dog to understand and it can be harder for the owner to control themselves from correcting. Once you and your dog have got it, it is a breeze!

 

From the untrained eye shaping takes longer to accomplish than pushing a dog into a sit. I think once people understand the method then they will see that shaping may take a bit longer but the outcome is better and more reliable.

[jdarling]

I think the part that I disagree the most is not with the "purely positive" training method, but rather the owners' attitude towards those of us that don't use it. In two posts, I have been basically told that because I am not using the purely positive stuff that my tone is "angry" (and now taken down a notch to "firm" after a suggestion ... click, treat!) and that I will have a harder time controlling myself from correcting.

 

Are you kidding me? Do you feel that my training is uncontrollable because I don't use purely positive methods?

 

I know you will find this amazing and very difficult to understand, but when I correct my dogs, I am in full control of my emotions and my tone of voice ... and ... drumroll please ... myself! Imagine that!

 

When I am working my dogs on my livestock, I don't have time to "manipulate [their] environment" so as to make sure nothing goes wrong. If one of my dogs is hanging off my sheep's nose and going for a ride, I'm not going to wait for it to let go so I can click and treat it for letting go. Call it what you will.

 

I know you mentioned that you teach the dog what is right, and allude to that correction based methods teach what is wrong ... I don't agree. The basic theory behind my training (not sure of others) is ... make right easy and wrong hard.

 

I've introduced quite a few dogs to livestock over the years, and there are times when it's very obvious that the dog has been trained using purely positive methods. They have no idea what to do when faced with stress and pressure. In my opinion, manipulating a dog's environment is not doing the dog(s) any favors.

[Mariji]

I think the part that I disagree the most is not with the "purely positive" training method, but rather the owners' attitude towards those of us that don't use it. In two posts, I have been basically told that because I am not using the purely positive stuff that my tone is "angry" (and now taken down a notch to "firm" after a suggestion ... click, treat!) and that I will have a harder time controlling myself from correcting.

 

I am thoroughly confused. I was explaining MY training. You questioned ME on being "angry" when I trained in which I reiterated to mean firm in MY training. I haven't put down anyones training method. Although I will disagree with those that use check chains and hitting corrections, the corrections we are talking about here are simple verbals. There is NOTHING wrong with that. I was just going to try another way. Where are getting this all from?!

 

I haven't put down correction based training as I did it for 2 of my dogs and are currently using some method of correction with a foster dog. I am saying positive reinforcement made a huge change to my life and my dogs lives. It doesn't work for everyone including my foster dog. I never attack those that choose a different method it is up to their circumstance.

 

You have come flying at me with accusations that are unfounded, if anything it was you that started on me about whether I think it is acceptable if my dog doesn't understand the word "No". I never mean any malice out of what I say, but I cannot talk for you. I am not here to argue with you over nothing. I am sorry you have come at this completely the wrong way but I am not talking about stock work but more so general puppy obedience. I am taken aback that you have come out so furious I am sure you should re read my posts.

[jdarling]

Funny how people see things two different ways. You're talking about how you train ("purely positive"), and I'm looking at what you're comparing it to ("correction based").

 

You said:

I might now occasionally say "No" but she has no idea what a angry tone of sound means so she just bounces around like a goof ball.

... because the opposite of that would be you training with a correction based method, so you would be constantly correcting with an angry tone.

 

You said:

So at first it can take a bit for the dog to understand and it can be harder for the owner to control themselves from correcting...

... because people who use correction based training methods just can't control themselves from correcting.

 

By the way, "furious" and "malice" and arguing" ... that's all a bit dramatic. We're having a discussion about dogs and training methods, let's not get carried away here. Because I disagree with you doesn't make me the devil, nor does it make me upset.

[Donald McCaig]

Etalk has a way of producing these teapot sized tempests. Unless one is unusually sensitive to language it is too easy to offend. This particular discussion (behaviorist vs traditional training methods) is on the boil before post #1.

 

Bill Koehler's jibes ("humaniacs") may have lit the fire but many "positive" gurus have added fuel. If their training is "positive" what are other methods? Uh, er, "negative"?

 

Fortunately, our dogs don't send emails and don't care what training methods we use - they'll figure things out whatever we believe we're doing.

 

Donald McCaig

[Northof49]

Etalk has a way of producing these teapot sized tempests. Unless one is unusually sensitive to language it is too easy to offend. This particular discussion (behaviorist vs traditional training methods) is on the boil before post #1.

 

Bill Koehler's jibes ("humaniacs") may have lit the fire but many "positive" gurus have added fuel. If their training is "positive" what are other methods? Uh, er, "negative"?

 

Fortunately, our dogs don't send emails and don't care what training methods we use - they'll figure things out whatever we believe we're doing.

 

Donald McCaig

 

Actually dogs do care what training methods we use. The problem is, if they tell us in dog language, which is the only languagre they are able to speak, they get into even more troube. Our dogs would much prefer to have us quit using shock collars, pinch collars, hanging them by choke chains until they just about pass out (Koehler's method for agression issues - works well if you have a tree branch you can use for leverage), shoving their heads into a hole of water until they just about pass out to teach them not to dig holes (Koehler's method to get dogs to stop digging holes), grabing them and shoving them down to the ground and shake them to teach them whose boss, hitting them, squeezing their muzzles hard, putting their lips between their teeth and squeezing hard, wrapping barb wire around a duck or a dumbbell to "teach" them to have a soft mouth, picking them up and bashing them against the corrall fence to teach them to stay off their stock, etc.

[stockdogranch]

Just curious, who is the "us" here that uses all of these methods?

have us quit using shock collars, pinch collars, hanging them by choke chains until they just about pass out (Koehler's method for agression issues - works well if you have a tree branch you can use for leverage), shoving their heads into a hole of water until they just about pass out to teach them not to dig holes (Koehler's method to get dogs to stop digging holes), grabing them and shoving them down to the ground and shake them to teach them whose boss, hitting them, squeezing their muzzles hard, putting their lips between their teeth and squeezing hard, wrapping barb wire around a duck or a dumbbell to "teach" them to have a soft mouth, picking them up and bashing them against the corrall fence to teach them to stay off their stock, etc.

A

[Northof49]

The "us" that I am referring to here is referring to dog owners/trainers. I am most certainly not referring to anyone in particular.

Yes these are just a few things that are stiill widely used and accepted as training methods.

[jdarling]

still widely used and accepted

 

By who?

[Northof49]

By who?

 

I thought I made that clear - by lots of dog owners and trainers all over the place. People that just have dogs for pets, pet dog trainers, obedience trainers, stockdog trainers, gundog trainers - all types of people and groups of people.

[jdarling]

So do you see this happening a lot? I mean, while all this is going on, what are you doing? Do you intervene? Do you videotape it? Do you report them to someone for dog abuse?

[Journey]

Man, I must have my head in the sand! Beating dogs, wrapping with barb wire, partially drowning.....if I ever see something like that you can bet the owner will know all about it as well as other authorities. Have we been invaded? When did "no" become a no-no? Shees, Doc was told "NO" a bunch this morning when I was doing tags and tails....should I have just let him smash into the week old lambs?

[jdarling]

should I have just let him smash into the week old lambs?

 

No! I mean, um ... wait ... don't leave .... I'm so sorry.

 

TAGS AND TAILS???? Are you off your rocker???? That's mean! That's ... why that's ... SHEEP ABUSE! I'll bet you use a machete for those tails, eh? Perhaps an ax? Oh wait, though. Before you chop that tail off, you hang it upside down by that tail to drill the hole with the post hole digger in the ear for the tag, don't you?

[Root Beer]

Fortunately, our dogs don't send emails and don't care what training methods we use - they'll figure things out whatever we believe we're doing.

 

Donald McCaig

 

Then why does anyone on this board care that some of us prefer to train out dogs without the use of correction?

 

We find that it works and it's enjoyable for both dog and owner.

 

If our dogs will "figure things out" no matter what, why insist on one way or the other? Why try to convince the so-called "purely positive" folks that the results that we see firsthand in our own dogs don't really exist?

 

For the record, I'm not talking about training on stock here. I'm talking about general pet training.

[Donald McCaig]

Dear Doggers,

 

When I suggested that dogs don't much care what training method we use, Ms North of 49 replied (in part)

"Actually dogs do care what training methods we use. The problem is, if they tell us in dog language, which is the only languagre they are able to speak, they get into even more troube. Our dogs would much prefer to have us quit using shock collars, pinch collars, hanging them by choke chains until they just about pass out etc . . ."

 

I can read dog talk. If I couldn't I wouldn't be able to run an open sheepdog.

 

In a quarter century working dogs I have seen many varieties of fools, including, I might add, some prominent behaviorists and "positive" trainers. Nothing I know of and certainly no particular training method can protect dogs from fools.

 

I have seen dogs abused by every method, including "positively trained" dogs that were so baffled,confused and neurotic, they were unsalvageable..

 

I have also seen happy pet dogs trained exclusively with Koehler method, happy pet dogs trained exclusively with ecollars (shock collars to we sheepdoggers), happy pet dogs trained with clickers and treats and happy pet dogs trained with prong and choke collars. I've seen any number of happy dogs that simply "fit in" to their owner's homes without benefit of any formal training whatever.

 

These dogs physical and emotional needs were met. The world made sense to them. And no, they didn't give a damn which method their trainer used. Human beings care about such things. Dogs can't read "The Koehler Method of Dog Training" nor "Don't Shoot the Dog".

 

 

Although I wouldn't train a dog to do tricks with sheepdoggers' methods and wouldn't train a sheepdog with a clicker, the training goals which can only be efficiently attained by one specific method are rare.

 

For most pet owners, they all work - unless the trainer is a fool. In which case, none do.

 

Donald McCaig

[Root Beer]

When did "no" become a no-no? Shees, Doc was told "NO" a bunch this morning when I was doing tags and tails....should I have just let him smash into the week old lambs?

 

If you want to say "no" to your dog, then say "no" to your dog.

 

If I choose to tell my dog what I want when my dog is in the process of learning something new, rather than say "no", that's a perfectly valid choice. It gets the job done.

 

Why is my choice, or the fact that I share that choice openly, somehow taken as a judgment of your preferred use of the word "no"?