Has Cesar turned over a new leaf?

[kajarrel]

For my part, if I had to live in a rural area I'd end up throwing myself under a bus most likely... individual differences, again... but I digress.

 

Nope, no buses.

 

Kim

 

(My apologies for digressing even more, but I couldn't resist.)

[SoloRiver]

Um, OK. A Gator then?

[kate40541]

Melanie, you said what I've been thinking as I read this thread. Like it or not living in a highly urbanized environment is a fact of life for an awful lot of us. The attitude and opinions of other people, idiotic or not, are a fact of life for a lot of us. Our dogs have to conform to a different model in many instances than some dogs do.

 

In the beginning of their training some dogs do need more guidance than others to learn how to make decisions, then they can be allowed to take more initiative in how to behave. It's like the mother I saw at the supermarket one time, her little boy (about 4 years old) kept bouncing away from her as they walked through the parking lot, she'd say "don't do that, don't do that, don't do that" but he was never given any kind of suggestion as to what to do instead. How about beginning with just saying "Hey sweetie, come walk by me" without specifying which side? It is replacing one action with another but it's not removing the ability to make independent decisions, it's guiding the process into a channel that will work better for the environment in which the child or dog find themselves.

 

Suzanne

[Rebecca, Irena Farm]

Tractor.

 

Julie, your weird dog is definitely weird wherever he is. And now he's lilac and weird. Be afraid, be very afraid. . . .

 

So, I'm somewhat confused now. Why is my training inadequate, if my ideal is to equip a dog to think through his fears, no matter where he is? Yes, I start here where it's quiet - it's part of making what's right easy - but eventually we'll visit the shopping centers, parks, airports, business parks, and veterinary offices that he'll have to deal with for the rest of his life. My goal is to give these dogs the tools they need to deal with any situation, because it comes from inside, not externally from something I told him to do.

[kate40541]

I doubt if your training is inadequate, or least I hope not, because my goals are exactly the same as yours. I think that most or all of us have that same goal, we just all have different circumstances that may influence how to get there.

 

Some people do want to tell their dogs what to do for the rest of their life. I knew a woman like that and it wasn't any fun to be around her for me or her dogs. To me that says her training was inadequate but I also knew a man who actually used his dogs to make his living and he was as compulsively controlling as she was. They stand out because they aren't the norm.

 

Me? I'm too lazy to do all their thinking for them, I'd rather set them on the path that goes where we want to go and then expect them to think for themselves. I think it's not a black or white situation of either you tell them everything to do or you don't, there's a middle road of running along holding the bicycle until the rider (the dog) learns balance and control, I think that's where most of us are. Metaphorically of course

 

Suzanne

[mbc1963]

So, I'm somewhat confused now. Why is my training inadequate, if my ideal is to equip a dog to think through his fears, no matter where he is?

 

I didn't hear an implication that your training was inadequate. In my case at least, I'm trying to explain why different methods also worked - and why maybe the urban environment in which I live helps explain the methods I chose.

 

My main point was that I don't believe non-sheep people end up with challenging dogs just because their philosophy is different from that of sheepdog trainers. "Let's just work him" was presented as a representative sheepdog trainer attitude, and possible explanation of why sheepdog trainers see fewer problem dogs. Being trained to work sheep probably would be a pretty decent remedy for a lot of our fearful, anxious, or reactive BCs. But for most of us, it's not even a remote possibility.

 

I see nothing wrong with methods good sheepdog trainers use when training working dogs. I'm 100% certain they're more effective at training a dog to work sheep than my methods are! I also see nothing wrong (and a lot right) with the way I used replacement behaviors to get my dog to integrate into this busy urban environment when I first had him. My embracing one method doesn't disallow my understanding that another method could be equally good or better in another situation.

 

I guess it's the nature of the 'net to produce discussions that produce these unhelpful dichotomies. ::Sigh::

 

Mary

[painted_ponies]

"Let's just work him" was presented as a representative sheepdog trainer attitude, and possible explanation of why sheepdog trainers see fewer problem dogs. Being trained to work sheep probably would be a pretty decent remedy for a lot of our fearful, anxious, or reactive BCs. But for most of us, it's not even a remote possibility.

 

Mary - not singling you out, certainly, because I think there are lots of folks who believe working sheep is a remedy for bc behavioral issues. But you reminded me.

 

Do y'all think this is so?

 

On the one hand, I can see how working sheep would get the dog listening to the handler and get the handler working with the dog. Faith, for example, is (somewhat ) easier to live with since she began on sheep, because she's learned to listen to me and this has transferred to her behavior at home. But I'm not sure if the same thing wouldn't have happened if I'd decided to do agility or obedience or water work with her. (And if she doesn't quit diving and gripping by fall, she's going to find out how she likes agility or water work. )

 

However, Faith's not fearful, anxious or reactive - just a happy gonzo puppy - so maybe that's not the best example.

 

Do y'all think sheep work is therapeutic for dogs with, erm, psychological issues?

[bcnewe2]

Do y'all think sheep work is therapeutic for dogs with, erm, psychological issues?

 

Yes.

All my dogs are well behaved and they all work stock or have worked stock at one point of another. The fear reactive one is older now, I dragged her kicking and screaming all over the place when she was young. She loved to work sheep and would get over her snarkiness with sheep work but would go right back to being fearful after work. Years later, you can hardly tell she ever had any issues. I think it's because I kept taking her and ignoring the issues she had. I kept her out of harms way and from harming other dogs but she was little and easy to manage size wise.

I think she got better with the natural conditioning of stockwork and being hauled all over creation. So I think that goes with the "lets just work em" analogy.

She really doesn't go anywhere now, and would probably be more nervous than she used to be but still way better than she was when I first got her. BTW all in her littermates were at one point or another put down due to behavior issues (don't think they were sold to sheep people) which I never knew till way later. I always figured she was fearfull because I got her at 10 months and till that time she was kennel dog, no social human or dog interaction and no sheep till she came home with me.

 

Kristen

[Lenajo]

Being trained to work sheep probably would be a pretty decent remedy for a lot of our fearful, anxious, or reactive BCs. But for most of us, it's not even a remote possibility.

 

You don't have to have sheep to have the same attitude and presentation of "work" when training a dog. The sheep are just a great way because it provides additional incentives that makes sense to these dogs.

 

As Becca pointed out, most basics and behavior solutions occur in confined area similar to what most of us have available. Her's is her sidewalk within 30 feet of the house, mine is the store room/laundry room. No sheep in sight.

 

When I've seen high level sheepdog trainers at work with problem dogs they solve more in the first few minutes standing there with the lead than in the next hour on sheep. The sheep are just a glorious reward for relaxing and becoming a partner. I rememer a friend talking about her first experience with Jack Knox. Her dog came in a long term train wreck - as per his usual he was flailing about on the lead, scream whining, worried, reacting to other dogs. Jack picked up the lead and gave it a tug and said "act like a man laddie now". The dog said "huh?" and tried again. A little pop and it was over. Then Jack put the dog to work and it got to see...as Don McCaig put it "the boundaries of grace". Fluke? Works only for Knoxs? Not from what I'm seeing. (granted it does work really well for Knox's LOL)

 

I see many many dogs who improve markedly because their owners simple believe and make it happen. Ime when the excuses get elaborate, the training gets excessively detailed and scientific rather than sensible, we fall into the trap of "my dog can't". It's like saying no good human parenting results occurred before Dr Spock and SuperNanny became available.

 

We've all give fair credence to dogs here that are not "normal" and who's owners chose other ways for specific reasons. I don't understand myself why we can't simply enjoy the discussion and look into why each side is having success. "Unhelpful dichotomies" say we are all wasting our time if we don't agree with one camp or the other, that debate is a waste of time. Nothing could be further from the truth.

 

Perhaps we all need a pop with the lead (correction) and be told to "leave the emotion out of it" (directive). Some of us will even come up with other things correct to do if we don't get the directive. After all we are intelligent sensible beings if given the chance.

[Laurae]

Well, this may be more relevant to PB border collies, but it did not turn out to be the case for Sophie.

 

I actually started the whole stock work thing with Sophie in an attempt to give her some sort of focus or outlet for her over-the-top drivey energy (see another attempt in the recent thread about flyball). Sophie was reactive and lacked impulse control as a younger dog (and still to this day, though to a much, much lesser degree now).

 

It turned out that Sophie seemed to have some talent on stock, but she liked to do things her way, regardless of what the handler working with her wanted to do. This alone pretty much ended any "serious" working career for her, but I would have still played around with her because she enjoyed it—except that after a while it became clear that working sheep was not helping her attitude off sheep. She was a bit more, um, confrontational with me and with other animals when she was taking lessons. So Sophie actually became a little more difficult to handle. Of course, in more capable hands, things might have been different, but actually in those days I pretty much knew nothing about stock work and my trainer at the time was handling her 100% of the time.

 

So, I don't believe working stock helps all difficult dogs, though again Sophie is a mix, so other factors were likely at work. That said, I do think working stock would be hugely beneficial for many border collies bred to work.

 

Here are a couple of shots of her second time on sheep:

 

[Root Beer]

Being trained to work sheep probably would be a pretty decent remedy for a lot of our fearful, anxious, or reactive BCs. But for most of us, it's not even a remote possibility.

 

I found that working with sheep did Speedy a world of good. This was in conjunction with a reward based behavior modification program that does not include use of corrections in that process. Which does not mean that he can do whatever he wants whenever he wants - it means that he has never been "corrected" for being fearful, anxious, or reactive, nor for expressing fear, anxiety, or over-threshold behavior nor will he ever be.

 

Interestingly, it was not the use of corrections in stockwork that was beneficial to him. The instructor knew him well and did not use a single physical correction, nor any verbal directives that went beyond a tone that said, "I'm serious about this". Even those were used as sparingly as possible.

 

For him, the interaction with the sheep just had a good effect on his mind. It was a wonderful complement to the work that I had been doing, and was continuing to do with him.

 

I wouldn't call it a "remedy" for his problems, but it was a very significant piece in his recovery - which continues to this day. I take him a lot of places, do a lot with him, and have a lot of expectations of him. Those who don't know his history don't see anything but a normal dog when they look at him.

 

In the end, though, if I had to choose which was the bigger factor in his transformation, it was definitely the reinforcement based behavior modification program. Simply putting him on sheep never would have caused him to become the dog that he is now if that were all I had done with him. It was great to have the opportunity for him to work with sheep and benefit from it, but in the end that was not what taught him to master his own emotions and behave normally in the world at large.

[Shetlander]

I see many many dogs who improve markedly because their owners simple believe and make it happen. Ime when the excuses get elaborate, the training gets excessively detailed and scientific rather than sensible, we fall into the trap of "my dog can't". It's like saying no good human parenting results occurred before Dr Spock and SuperNanny became available.

 

Have any of you read Bringing Light to Shadow by Pam Dennison? I've only read pieces here and there, so maybe I shouldn't comment on it. But a big reason I didn't read all of it was because it was making me nuts. I had to "rehab" a fearful by genetics Sheltie. No aggression though. His was a long road but filled with incredible rewards and a closer bond than with any of my other dogs. I didn't know enough to clicker train back then and looking back I do think it would be helpful, so I'm not sure why Dennison's book seemed so overwhelming. It was very much a "gut reaction" on my part rather than a carefully thought out "this is what I have issues with" response to what she had to say.

 

I don't understand myself why we can't simply enjoy the discussion and look into why each side is having success. "Unhelpful dichotomies" say we are all wasting our time if we don't agree with one camp or the other, that debate is a waste of time. Nothing could be further from the truth.

 

Training seems to be a hot botton issue (along with diet, crating, and vaccines to name a few). I still like trying to have the discussion because I learn so much from other view points including Pam Dennison -- just not that one book.

[kajarrel]

Do y'all think sheep work is therapeutic for dogs with, erm, psychological issues?

 

This question disturbs me a little because I envison people taking their "disturbed" dogs and turning them loose on sheep (I know this isn't what you meant, but it is one possible interpretation). It's not the sheep's responsibility to train the dog, it's the owner's. I think working with sheep (livestock) is an effective way to forge a working relationship (the basis for good behavior) because it "makes sense" to (decently bred) border collies. But, as a person who really likes sheep too, I don't think that it should be done lightly. Unless you're committed to training your dog, and your goal is a competent working dog, then I think you should consider some other method. A well-trained stockdog moves sheep with minimal stress. But getting to that point is not always easy on the sheep.

 

Kim

[Root Beer]

I don't understand myself why we can't simply enjoy the discussion and look into why each side is having success. "Unhelpful dichotomies" say we are all wasting our time if we don't agree with one camp or the other, that debate is a waste of time. Nothing could be further from the truth.

 

I don't know about the rest of you, but I enjoy the heck out of these discussions! The real waste of time would come, I think, if we all just decided to write each other off because we don't agree. Or even if we just said, "well, we're all different - I'll do my thing and you do yours."

 

We aren't all going to see eye to eye. Even within the different "camps", there are heated disagreements. I would be willing to wager that within the stockdog training community, there are training methods that are debated. Within the positive training community, there are definitely debates. Even clicker trainers can't always agree on everything!

 

I think these debates help us to understand each other. I've gained much more of an understanding of - and respect for - the stockdog trainers on the board though these discussions. If one of them were going to be trialing their stockdogs near me I would go to see them trial just because of the respect I have gained for them through these very discussions.

 

The fact that I am set in my own methods doesn't mean that I don't value what I learn about why others choose to train differently. I may disagree vehemently, but it doesn't mean I didn't learn something.

[Eileen Stein]

Taking some stuff at random:

 

Do y'all think sheep work is therapeutic for dogs with, erm, psychological issues?

 

I don't think that's particularly so. I wouldn't rule it out -- it's possible -- but I don't see it. I tend to credit the calm, no-nonsense methods of the good trainers when this occurs. As someone said earlier, many a time I've heard a clinic newbie go into a long rigmarole about their dog's psyche, his problems, what type of personality he has, and the clinician just ignores it and says, "Let him go, let's see what he does, then." That's not because he thinks the work in itself will "cure" him; it's because he thinks none of that is important. The dog will do SOMETHING, and the trainer will respond with correction if appropriate or encouragement if appropriate and they'll proceed from there without a lot of theorizing.

 

But I could well be wrong -- it could be that training on sheep MAY be uniquely beneficial (maybe because the dog can so readily see the point of it?). What I really reject, though, is the way all-positive advocates insist on manhandling sheepdog training to fit preconceived theories that dogs learn best through positive reinforcement, by insisting that all training by sheepdoggers is achieved through the use of sheep as a reward, a treat. That is simply not so. Robin was dead right when she said that the reason her dog responded to her correction for sneaking off to work sheep was not because he saw it as the promise of a reward (working sheep) to come later in the day. That is simply not a valid interpretation of what's happening. All dogs know they will get fed come suppertime, but that doesn't mean the anticipation of supper plays any part in a dog's learning not to counter-surf by being corrected for counter-surfing.

 

I'm wondering now, if dogs that are not typically trained that way are able to process the 'correction-without-replacement-behavior' method as easily. Do you think that 'find another, more appropriate behavior' is learned?

 

I do think so. I think that's what we mean by "learning to take a correction" -- the dog learns that he can't do this, so he has to find another thing to do. The more practice he gets in doing that -- beginning with little puppy things when he's a little puppy -- the better he gets at it. That's true of anything. It's true of positive training, too -- the dog has to learn to be positively trained. I've told the story before of when I took my first border collie to an agility class just to see what it was all about. The trainers had me put down little handkerchief targets, use food treats, etc. My dog, who had never been trained with treats, was completely baffled. I easily got her to run through the tunnel, for example, just by saying "tunnel" in a command-type voice. She tried jumping over it and a couple of different things, to each of which I said "no," and then she ran through it, and I told her "good dog." She reliably repeated the behavior after that, but she totally ignored the little treat on the handkerchief when she came out of the tunnel, because she was into figuring out what I wanted her to do, and she couldn't see what the treat had to do with that. She had no training or experience in learning in that way, so she was no good at it. The trainers told me I must insist she eat the treat so we could get her head on straight.

 

I was trying to explain how things look for "folks like me" who don't do stock work. And also explain why I used the term punishment in an obviously more neutral way than you or Eileen. . . . I attempting -- obviously unsuccessfully -- to say that in behavioral terms punishment is something that makes a behavior less likely to occur.

 

I do understand that. I just don't like the usage, because I think it has a negative connotation for those not steeped in behavioral theory (i.e., the clueless dog-owners that all-positive folks worry are being led astray by CM). That negative connotation actually works well for those who maintain that positive reinforcement is the only correct way to train a dog -- people recoil from being punishers of their dogs, so they more readily buy into the "all-positive" ideal. It is problematic for somebody like me, who thinks that "positive punishment" can be a good and effective training method that should not be rejected out of hand.

 

For example, probably many of us have had the experience of introducing a new intact male dog into a group where there is an intact female, or vice versa. Typically, the male dog will show interest in sniffing, pestering, humping the female. This is "reactive" behavior dictated by his deepest instincts. The female will tell him that's not acceptable by a quick snarl and snap. If he persists, he'll get a little longer, harsher snarl and snap. After a few instances of this, he stops. Positive punishment, administered by her, has remedied this undesirable behavior, with no harm done, no shutting down, no learned helplessness. I could step in and administer the exact same type of positive punishment myself. I generally don't, because it's easier just to leave it to the bitch. But if I did, surely that would be a good, quick and efficient method of dealing with the problem, whereas training an alternate behavior through clicking and treating would be a slow and cumbersome one.

 

I don't understand myself why we can't simply enjoy the discussion and look into why each side is having success.

 

Well, it seems to me these discussions usually start with someone saying flatly that CM is bad because the right way to train a dog is by positive reinforcement and counter-conditioning by training an alternate behavior. They say that he is harming these dogs, that his training doesn't work, that the dogs shut down temporarily but go back to whatever the problem behavior was once the cameras are turned off, that lots of people imitate his methods and make their dogs worse, etc. All of these things, which are assumptions based on speculation based on behavioral theory, are stated as if they were known, observed facts. It's that, I think, which will sometimes evoke opposing posts. I really don't think the "other camp" is nearly so dogmatic. While there are a number of posters who say that positive punishment is bad, period, I don't think there's anyone who says that positive reinforcement is bad. We of the "balanced" camp just say that correction does work, and is often the best, quickest, most effective, least damaging way of dealing with a problem.

 

All that being said, I think most of us probably enjoy the discussion, at least to some extent, and it often produces quite interesting threads.

[Lenajo]

This question disturbs me a little because I envison people taking their "disturbed" dogs and turning them loose on sheep (I know this isn't what you meant, but it is one possible interpretation). It's not the sheep's responsibility to train the dog, it's the owner's. I think working with sheep (livestock) is an effective way to forge a working relationship (the basis for good behavior) because it "makes sense" to (decently bred) border collies. But, as a person who really likes sheep too, I don't think that it should be done lightly. Unless you're committed to training your dog, and your goal is a competent working dog, then I think you should consider some other method. A well-trained stockdog moves sheep with minimal stress. But getting to that point is not always easy on the sheep.

 

Kim

 

you can always imagine,and probably find, the worst case scenario if you try. This comes back to all the CM trained dogs being shut down and all the positive trained dogs being brats. It simple isn't the reality for most.

 

I train a lot of hobby herders and their dogs to work sheep. The dog can have only minimal ability by open trial standards and still get a productive and positive experience that improves it's manners, owner-relationship, and obedience, *without* harming the sheep.

 

I think yes, it's the genetic impact (summoning something these dogs understand at a very deep level) but I also think its that unlike in sports these owners come to me with no preconceived notion of how their dog is going to act. Blusters of various things the dogs are scared of, won't do, will do...well nothing is quite the same as sheepwork. When I take the lead away from them it all changes.

 

Later, when these same owners glow in amazement about what their previously <shy, wild, stubborn, reactive, dominent, insert the complaint here etc> dog changed after he started working sheep I wonder....did he change? or did you? Did you guys suddently find a "team" attitude with you as a leader? Did the owner too, suddenly feel the glow of the "boundaries of grace"?

 

Some people have also said "he's so much better behaved when he's at the herding clinics than anywhere else!"

 

Again, what changes about the owner in those circumstances?

 

I've gone as far now as to help my herding students with sport issues by having them address it as "work". Would you tolerate it around the sheep? What would you do? How would you act? The trainer I go to, and they share with me twice a year, furthers that. To him all of this we do with dogs is "work" and when we present it oddly (to the dog) then we get odd responses. Another Knox generation trainer with years of dog and sheep work behind him....

[kajarrel]

I'm probably obtuse, but I don't totally understand what you're saying. Maybe you can "straighten me out" based on my comments, below. Remember, I'm not a trainer (except of my own dogs)/ trailer, I'm just a lowly sheep owner who uses dogs to manage my sheep.

 

You wrote, "The dog can have only minimal ability by open trial standards and still get a productive and positive experience that improves it's manners, owner-relationship, and obedience, *without* harming the sheep. "

 

I didn't say that sheep are necessarily "harmed" in the process of training, however, you've got to admit that THIS DOES HAPPEN . . . I went to a an (admittedly small) number of clinics/trainers when I was starting out and saw it happen (not always, but enought to know it does). But more than "harm," there is stress on the sheep. That is more what I was referring to.

 

Further, you wrote "I train a lot of hobby herders and their dogs to work sheep."

I assume that these people are hoping to achieve some degree of competency with their dogs. These are not the people I'm referring to. If you read my message closely, I wrote people/student should be "committed to training your dog, and your goal is a competent working dog." But if people are looking only for a quick fix to a behavior problem, I think there are other ways to do this without stressing sheep. Case in point, I have 6 dogs right now. Only 4 work/have worked. The dogs that don't aren't "worse" than the ones that do. Obviously, something we're doing "off-sheep" is working too.

 

Finally, you wrote, "Again, what changes about the owner in those circumstances?"

I would argue that if the owner doesn't change, than the "good" behavior is unlikely to persist when they get home. This seems to be reinforced when you say that your students say, "he's so much better when he's around sheep (I'm paraphrasing because I'm getting tired of scrolling back and forth)" and that the dog's different when they work with you (or Jack Knox, or any other person who has "presence").

 

OK, tell me what I got wrong

 

Kim

[kate40541]

"and that the dog's different when they work with you (or Jack Knox, or any other person who has "presence")."

 

This, to me, is the equivalent of the vet or some other confident person - who is not the familiar owner - can more easily do something/perform a procedure with your dog that you have a more difficult time with because you are a known quantity to your dog. It isn't necessarily that the stranger is a better handler than you, it's that the dog doesn't know them and what the limits are with that person. That person has confidence from experience that you don't have and they're not nervous being in a new situation (that would be you).

 

I don't think the sheep herding in itself has any unusual power to transform a dog, I think it's the self-confidence the dog gains from learning a new skill. I haven't heard it in a long time but agility used to be thought to help a dog feel more confident and secure because they learn to do something that at first appears scary, manage to live through it, and realize "that wasn't so bad, maybe I can relax about something else that seemed scary."

[bc4pack]

'Shetlander' wrote:

"Victoria Stillwell on It's Me or the Dog has done that several times on her show, often with success. I don't recall her working with a dog as bad as that Mal. The drama in that show comes from the incredible cluelessness of the owners, the horrendous behaviors of their dogs and Victoria's outrage at the situations she sees. "

 

Actually there have been a couple BUT they aren't put so over threshold that they bite, you won't see redirected aggression simply because it never gets to that point, on the Milan shows you do, quite often. THE difference between Milan and Stillwell is tha t Stilwell uses

non -confrontational methods and Milan doesn't. Stillwell prefers to help owners change how a dog feels about their triggers, whereas Milan tends to march them right on by.

[Bo Peep]

QUOTE

Do y'all think sheep work is therapeutic for dogs with, erm, psychological issues?

 

I'm coming back into this late. As I've said before I've never seen an episode of CM. I DO think working with sheep is therapeutic for dogs with ANY type of issues. My old dogs NEVER had issues. I actually spent more quality time with them when I had 6 of them and was working and tending the farm than I do now with 2 and home all the time. PLUS, it rained all the time in Oregon. Oh, I did have one dog that hated loud noises- take that back.

I think when you are actually working your dogs every day that means you are TRAINING everyday. So yes- sheep work is therapeutic for dogs. Also for humans- I miss it very much.

[mosstheboss2000]

I think the biggest problem with people using corrective type training methods is that they fall into the trap of OVER correcting their dogs.

In the case of working dogs, a good working dog 'would' take the correction and we rely on that drive and natural reinforcement to again work their sheep. A dog that shut off might be a dog that would be considered to soft for some or with not enough 'instinct'.

Just like in the case of a dog that maybe turned and 'bit' if they were corrected this dog would be considered 'badly tempered' . I had a trainer tell me once they had a client euthanize a Border Collie because when it was corrected the dog would turn back and growl and nip the owner. They of course tried to fix this with correcting even MORE harshly... till the dog was out wardly biting the owners and didn't want anyone to handle it. The trainer then declared this dog not sound of temperament and it was euthanized. I just walked away.

I have had people come for behavioural work and tell me all the things their dogs do 'wrong' and what they constantly correct them for but if you ask them what their dogs do that is good they have trouble answering... the whole time the dogs just sitting by their side.

If I say well how about the dog sitting so calmly at your side and usually the response I get is well.... that is expected.

I always say if you are using correction and the dog keeps repeating the behavior and you keep increasing the correction and the behavior still continues you need to re evaluate what you are doing.

I do use positive reinforcement when training, I also do believe this does not mean being permissive. I do believe in deterring and inhibiting my dogs behavior using positive methods.

I do believe that behavior that is naturally offered not gotten through physical force or intimidation will be behavior that will be retained and better learned.

I do not believe you need conflict to build leadership.

I do not want to my dog to EVER question that I or what I may be trying to do is not positive. It may be stopping or inhibiting but it should not intimidate.

I think that shows like CM give any ramdom person the okay to do things like hang your dog into submission.

I do believe that most importantly if you correct for something it needs to be followed up immediately with a postitive when the behavior changes and this is something that is rarely done.

 

 

Enjoy this article...

 

Punishment DOES work to curb bad behaviour.

So why do modern dog trainers discourage it?

by Nathan J. Penny

"When I was a child, we never had problems with our dogs. If our dogs got out of line, my father just showed them who was boss!"

 

I frequently hear stories such as this in my pet behaviour practice. Most dog owners were raised in a very different canine climate, one that existed as little as 20 years ago, in which dogs obeyed or else! "My dogs respected my father; he never had to cater to them. If they did something wrong, they never did it again!" say some of my clients.

 

There is no doubt about it: the scientific literature clearly shows that punishment works. If a behaviour is immediately followed by an adverse consequence, it is less likely to occur in the future.

 

So why is punishment so rarely used by modern dog trainers? And why has punishment been deemed so politically incorrect? The question may be best addressed in several parts.

 

1. Dog owners have options

Traditionally, there was one training philosophy marketed to dog owners—make your dog do it! It’s not so much that scientists know more about learning or training than we did 20 years ago (although we do); rather, it has taken this much time for more humane options to be marketed to dog owners. Dog owners care about the emotional well-being of their pets and want to do right by them. As such, most owners find "positive" methods (such as positive reinforcement) more palatable than traditional methods.

 

2. Positive reinforcement works

There is no doubt about it: positive reinforcement also works. If a behaviour is immediately followed by a pleasant consequence, it is more likely to occur in the future.

 

3. Punishment is risky

Individual dogs respond differently to punishment. The vast majority of dogs will stop what they are doing and behave submissively following a punishment. Other dogs will appear not to be affected in any way following a punishment, and some dogs will become aggressive following a punishment.

 

Those dogs who respond to punishment with aggression usually do so in direct relation to the intensity of the punisher. This means that if a dog becomes aggressive when punished, the more intense the punisher the more intense the resulting aggression.

 

To make things somewhat more complex, the same dog can respond differently to an identical punisher at different times, locations or within different contexts. Many dog owners have been seriously injured while attempting to discipline their dogs in fear of "backing down." Entering into a serious conflict with a dog is not usually a good idea; rarely can any good come from it.

 

4. Punishment damages the human/animal bond

Punishment changes your dog’s behaviour by associating adverse consequences to specific behaviours. If these consequences are delivered directly from you, then you become associated with adverse events.

 

All dogs learn differently in this respect. Some dogs will always be deeply attached to their owners, regardless of what their owners do. Other dogs will become extremely fearful of their owner following one punishment, while other dogs may gradually learn to avoid their owners over a period of successive punishments.

 

5. Timing is everything

The scientific literature suggests that an owner has no more than two seconds in which to punish a dog for something they did wrong. Remarkably, if a punishment occurs after three seconds, a dog is not capable of associating the punishment with its behaviour. Two seconds is a very small window! Most owners attempt to use punishment well after the "two second mark" and, as such, are not effective, and may in fact teach their dogs to avoid them.

 

Punishment works if properly timed, but there are certainly more palatable options to accomplish training goals. Punishment can result in aggression and can damage the human / animal bond. Yes, there is a place for punishment when treating a specific behavioural problem if all other options have been exhausted. But the initial training approach of a responsible and loving dog owner should always be in a positive light.

 

Nathan J. Penny is an Applied Animal Behaviourist who runs Animal Behaviour Services Inc. For more information, visit www.animalbehaviour.ca

[mosstheboss2000]

OK, but say I am merely walking out in the pasture with several of my dogs. The youngest one might be anywhere from 7 weeks to 4 months. The sheep and cattle are out there, but I don't want the pup to go to them, as it's not time to work. So, if the pup starts to "sneak off," I will offer a verbal correction, "HEY! That'll do." So the pup then resumes hanging out with the other dogs, sniffing, chasing them, or whatever. I don't care what it does other than NOT go to the stock at that point. So, we're not working, and there is no stock reward there; I'm just asking it to not do a particular thing at that moment...

 

Your dog will listen with the knowledge and anticipation there 'could' be something positive in it for them, in this case working the sheep.

In this case working sheep is a priviledge and reinforcing, listen up and control your impulses and you may get this priviledge.

[mosstheboss2000]

The constant repetition of this dogmatic statement just sets my teeth on edge. Correction (punishment in conditioning terminology) absolutely changes behavior. I've seen it happen routinely, consistently, over and over again. I can't believe you haven't seen it too. So what's happening here? When the dog stops doing what you told it not to do, do you just define that as "suppressed behavior" rather than "changed behavior" because it wasn't accomplished through positive reinforcement? And because it's "suppressed behavior," it's bad, even though what you wanted all along was for the dog to stop doing it?

 

 

Lets put a shock collar on you, I will zap you everytime you move within a 10 foot radius... quickly you should learn NOT to move outside that radius. I will then decrease this distance down till I zap you everytime you move. I didn't 'change' your behavior I 'stopped it'. Everytime you get up to move now you will question it, I have successfully suppressed your desire to move.

[stockdogranch]

Your dog will listen with the knowledge and anticipation there 'could' be something positive in it for them, in this case working the sheep. In this case working sheep is a priviledge and reinforcing, listen up and control your impulses and you may get this priviledge.

 

While I DO consider my dogs to be absolute geniuses capable of abstract thought, I really don't give them that much credit to claim that they are thinking that far into the future. When we are out there to feed, fix fences, etc., we are not there to work stock, there is no stock work in the offing, we are just there to hang out and do odd non-stock chores, maybe for hours, and then we go back to the house. There is no "prize" being dangled in front of them that they are anticipating,

 

A

[Shetlander]

Lets put a shock collar on you, I will zap you everytime you move within a 10 foot radius... quickly you should learn NOT to move outside that radius. I will then decrease this distance down till I zap you everytime you move. I didn't 'change' your behavior I 'stopped it'. Everytime you get up to move now you will question it, I have successfully suppressed your desire to move.

 

Yes, but what would be the point of that bit of "training"? For a dog never to move? Is someone on these boards suggesting this would be a good thing to train and a good way to do it?