Jump to content
BC Boards

Has Cesar turned over a new leaf?


Recommended Posts

I think it is generally misinterpreted and its connotation is just all wrong, because in common parlance "punishment" is seen as retributive justice -- you have done something wrong and therefore you must be made to suffer for it. That's totally different from what I and other sheepdog people mean by correction. Correction is communication -- communication that a behavior is wrong, which thus, yes, does reduce the behavior. As such, I just don't understand why it should be rejected as a matter of principle.

 

It makes you feel any better (though I can't imagine why it would), "correction" has just as much baggage in the sports world which is where I come from. I've seen "corrections" that were nothing but cruel and stupid training. Worse, I've seen dogs deliberated set up so the handler could "correct" the dog.

 

I like the sound of "correction" better than "punishment," but they're both forms of communication, both can be abusive and both can be so mild as to hardly be noticed. And I do see times where it is much simpler for me and my dogs to quickly give a verbal correction than work out a behavioral plan of reinforcement.... leading back to my comment that it depends on the dog and situation which approach I use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 179
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

It sounds like a common theme on stockdog training is letting the dog figure out the right thing, and only stepping in to let them know they're in error (as a TA, I try to run my discussions the same way :rolleyes: ). 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'd be interested in hearing clicker/shaping exercise users response to this as well). And for those with dogs of different breeds, do you find that this works equally well with all of them, or does it come more naturally to border collies?

 

I think this is an interesting question. I do think the "stockdog way" tends to encourage a dog to offer more behaviors and retain more initiative to offer novel behaviors than the style of training that asks for a replacement behavior, or only one way for the dog to actually be right. For example, i want to be able to walk around with my dog in the presense of sheep without the dog taking off and going to work unless i tell him to. What i want to train is "don't sneak off", and i can teach the dog to stop sneaking off by giving a voice correction when he tries it or i can teach a behavior incompatible to sneaking off, like heel. If i want my dog to stop biting sheep, i can give a voice correction and allow him to find another way to work, or i could just lie him down and never let him get within reach of sheep to grab one. I want my dog offering behaviors and looking for the ones that earn him reward - working sheep. There's an article on this very thing on my blog from last week --- http://shooflyfarm.blogspot.com/2008/03/ch...-free-dogs.html

 

As for the breed question, i don't really want to speak for other breeds, but i do believe border collies have a special gift for offering behaviors and a special passion for their reward - working sheep.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If i want my dog to stop biting sheep, i can give a voice correction and allow him to find another way to work, or i could just lie him down and never let him get within reach of sheep to grab one

 

And of course, just keeping the dog at a distance to not bite sheep merely avoids the issue, and sooner or later, the dog is bound to beat you at this game. OR it will get so used to lying down when it wants/needs to have a close encounter with the stock that it either begins to shut down, or it gets so far backed off its stock that the stock read it as weak and pretty soon you have a useless dog (I'm thinking any kind of challenging stock here--range ewes, mommas with lambs, cattle...). Easier to just let it understand that biting (gratuitously) is not an appropriate way to work, and let it find a better way to work,

 

A

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Liz,

I think the problem comes in when we have these sorts of discussions and folks like you take what folks like me (or Eileen or Robin) say regarding punishment/correction to mean punishment/correction as you describe it. That sort of splitting of hairs is irritating to no end. That's why I was very careful in my last post to point out that when I'm correcting my dog, I don't need to be anywhere near the dog. That would seem to preclude using any sort of punishment/correction (retributive as described by both Eileen and you) save my voice. How some folks can make the leap from a voice correction to other forms of correction/punishment is beyond me, and I think this is what hangs Eileen up as well, although I'm sure she'll speak for herself. To me, if I say "Hey!" to my dog who's 100 yards away and about to grip, that's entirely different than running him down and, say, beating him for having grabbed a sheep. The latter is what I consider punishment (and unfair at that). You can call it a correction if that's the terminology you prefer, but it still isn't the same thing as what most stockdog trainers mean when we say "give a correction." When we are explicit about what we mean by the term correction, it sure would be nice if others would then read/understand (and perhaps even discuss) the term in that context when we use it. (You know, kind of like the positive folks getting annoyed with us for assuming that because they're "purely positive" that it's "all treats all the time"....)

 

Robin,

I was thinking along the lines of your comments earlier today when I first read Sluj's question. I think folks like Kristine would say that they do the same sort of thing with a clicker--they give the dog a choice and reward it only when it offers the behavior the trainer desires. It's similar but different I think, in that for stockdogs the behavior is mostly hardwired--it just needs a bit of shaping, whereas with other types of training, the trainer may be seeking a behavior response that isn't "natural" (e.g., for the dog to touch a target with its nose). So for the dog who wants to slice in and grab, it will get a verbal correction, but work won't necessarily be stopped--the dog will be given a chance to come up with another method that works better. The reward is the continued work (i.e., not so specific as a click or a food treat) and not hearing "Hey!" a second or third time. It's a subtle difference, and I think it really boils down to working with behaviors that are inherent vs. training "new" behaviors that don't relate to the genetic heritage (for lack of a better term) of a dog.

 

I also think Robin makes a clearer distinction about "replacement" behaviors than some of us others might have earlier. The point being that in her example, the replacement behavior might be to go into an automatic heel around stock. Most stockdog trainers aren't after that kind of replacement behavior, or at least not something quite so specific. Like Robin, I don't want my dog to take off after the stock the instant we go through a gate, but it doesn't have to offer me a specific behavior in replacement of the desire to take off--it just has to not take off....

 

J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And of course, just keeping the dog at a distance to not bite sheep merely avoids the issue, and sooner or later, the dog is bound to beat you at this game. OR it will get so used to lying down when it wants/needs to have a close encounter with the stock that it either begins to shut down, or it gets so far backed off its stock that the stock read it as weak and pretty soon you have a useless dog (I'm thinking any kind of challenging stock here--range ewes, mommas with lambs, cattle...). Easier to just let it understand that biting (gratuitously) is not an appropriate way to work, and let it find a better way to work,

 

A

 

Exactly. Also, different dogs have different ways of doing things and you have to let the dog work out how it's going to accomplish his task within the boundaries you set (not biting, for example). If you insist on one particular way of doing what you want (say fetching sheep and you absolutely insist the dog walk a straight line) you may be taking away that particular dog's only tool for doing the job (say he's more of a weaving dog and walking perfectly straight at them puts so much pressure on him that he shuts down).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've worked with other dogs (my own and those here for training) than Border Collies. Although one has to make some allowance for motivation - Border Collies are highly internally motivated while most other breeds seek external motivations like treats - most dogs respond to fair corrections and freedom just as Border Collies do. It's sound behavioral theory.

 

In fact, we had a discussion once with a behavioral researcher who attends Jack Knox clinics regularly, and it suddenly struck her that his method and overall theory lined squarely with some new therapy currently being explored to help humans with post traumatic stress disorder. The theory is that allowing the patient to work out new ways of thinking on their own, simply offering feedback when "Danger pathways" are touched upon, yields a quicker and more long lasting recovery for the patient, than the current method of "replacement behavior". The theory behind it involves moving healthy habits of thought from short term storage areas, to the long term areas, where they can override the "fight or flight" impulse more easily (ie, in a more healthy manner).

 

It takes about three weeks of daily practice for the permanent change to occur - there's an exact number of reps that it takes but I've forgotten what that is. It was Duke that was doing this project so this information could probably be found pretty easily for those of you with access to research databases. Or I'd be happy to put you in touch with the lady who was pointing this out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly. Also, different dogs have different ways of doing things and you have to let the dog work out how it's going to accomplish his task within the boundaries you set (not biting, for example). If you insist on one particular way of doing what you want (say fetching sheep and you absolutely insist the dog walk a straight line) you may be taking away that particular dog's only tool for doing the job (say he's more of a weaving dog and walking perfectly straight at them puts so much pressure on him that he shuts down).

Yep, I vividly remember a discussion on another list about something similar, except in this case the discussion was about training the dog to stay directly behind the stock on the fetch or the drive. If you have a dog that prefers to work the lead animal, insisting that it stay behind (as opposed to the dog's preferred method of off to the side and in eye contact with the lead animal), you are forcing the dog not to use the best tool it has to control the livestock, creating stress, and likely causing training issues that never would have arisen if you had allowed to dog to use the best tools it had at hand.... If what you really want is calm, confident cotrol with the stock moving in a straight line, and the dog working off to the side is giving you that, why would you insist on something else?

 

J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think folks like Kristen would say that they do the same sort of thing with a clicker--they give the dog a choice and reward it only when it offers the behavior the trainer desires.

 

Hey Julie

Just to clairify, I think you mean Kristine and not me. I've never used a clicker and am much more in tune to your type of training. The dogs and I only work stock. Clickers would be of no help in our training there. :rolleyes:

 

Interesting thread though. I'm from the training school of making the wrong uncomfortable(pressure) and the right feel good(removing pressure). Via, Jack or Kathy Knox style.

 

Kristen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a lot of this discussion comes down to who is training what type of dog to perform (or not) which behavior. Frankly, most of the people I work with don't have the timing or sensitivity to "correct" in a meaningful or effective way. In fact, a lot of the behavioral problems I see stem from this. Dogs learn to ignore or evade their owners attempts at correction.

 

For the average dog owner (which most people on this board are, by default, not) with a companion animal, positive reinforcement and shaping leads to better results because it is harder for them to screw up and easier for them to be successful. I have seen plenty of dogs that responded quickly to my corrections (along the lines of "no not that, try again") but failed to respond to their people because their people did not read body language and apply (and release) corrective pressure at the appropriate level or timing.

 

There are always two animals in the training relationship - the handler and the dog. The biggest issue I have with Ceasar's show is that people see him employing a given technique and then believe that they can do the same thing with the same effects with their dog. That's kind of like saying I can drive a racecar and win a Nascar race because I say someone else do it on tv but people do think they can employ his techniques for similar results. It's also neatly edited down to 22 minutes so people often wonder why it may takes weeks or months to get the desired behaviors proofed for use in the real world.

 

There are also differences in breeds and their drive. It is understandable that someone working a BC on stock wouldn't want to train "look at me" and has that interaction with the sheep to keep the dog motivated in the learning process. However, for the hyperactive Lab puppy with the average pet owner, "look at me" can be an valuable skill that brings her back to focusing on her person and looking to that person for stimulus and reward rather than the entire rest of the world. Most border collies never have to be taught anything resembling "look at me" in a pet owner situation because they are, generally, highly motivated to interact with their person.

 

That said, I don't think anyone can argue with the fact that operant conditioning training leads to animals learning and thinking up new and novel behaviors. Just look at Karen Pryor's groundbreaking work studying animal behavior (remember the dolphin that only got rewarded for behaviors that the trainers hadn't seen before?). In fact, I think it leads to a lot more interesting thinking on the part of the dog than compulsion-based obedience training (which is obviously different than stockwork). In the end, success depends on how well a handler can employ the teaching techniques they use.

 

Lisa

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this is an interesting question. I do think the "stockdog way" tends to encourage a dog to offer more behaviors and retain more initiative to offer novel behaviors than the style of training that asks for a replacement behavior, or only one way for the dog to actually be right.

 

I think it's interesting, too, and I would like to take it a bit deeper, if you don't mind. :rolleyes:

 

Let's take a common example from the pet/sport dog world. Say my dog goes into a rip-roaring overly excited barking fit every time she sees a certain type of dog (say, a Lab) in a crate.

 

#1. What behaviors would you want your dog to offer in this situation?

 

I'm really only looking for one behavior in this instance. What I want is for my dog to look at the Lab calmly, notice him, and then either follow me in an other direction, or walk calmly past.

 

#2. How would using a specific "replacement behavior" - in this case I would choose a behavior chain of "look at the dog calmly, check in with me, now we move on with life" as the replacement for the barking - suppress my dog's initiative to offer novel behaviors?

 

 

For example, i want to be able to walk around with my dog in the presense of sheep without the dog taking off and going to work unless i tell him to. What i want to train is "don't sneak off", and i can teach the dog to stop sneaking off by giving a voice correction when he tries it or i can teach a behavior incompatible to sneaking off, like heel. If i want my dog to stop biting sheep, i can give a voice correction and allow him to find another way to work, or i could just lie him down and never let him get within reach of sheep to grab one. I want my dog offering behaviors and looking for the ones that earn him reward - working sheep.

 

#3. How do you see this principle translating into a situation where there is not an inherent motivator such as the sheep?

 

It seems to me that in this example, the fact that there are sheep to work, and that the dog wants to work them, is very significant. You are going to let your dog work the sheep, as long as the dog does what you want.

 

Say you want to teach your dog to do something that does not have a built in reward. Going back to the above example, I am never going to let my dog bark at the Lab. I am not looking for my dog to offer behaviors to earn the reward of barking at the Lab.

 

It seems to me that approaching this training challenge using a different training method, taking different factors into account, is very logical.

 

As for the breed question, i don't really want to speak for other breeds, but i do believe border collies have a special gift for offering behaviors and a special passion for their reward - working sheep.

 

In my own experience, I have found that reward based behavior modification for pet/sport dogs (those who are not doing stockwork) is actually much more effective with Border Collies than it is with some (not all, but some) other breeds.

 

I also don't want to speak for other breeds either, but I've seen first hand that Border Collies do have a special gift for offering behaviors and can do so very eagerly for motivators like food and play in training scenarios where sheep are not a factor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Liz,

I think the problem comes in when we have these sorts of discussions and folks like you take what folks like me (or Eileen or Robin) say regarding punishment/correction to mean punishment/correction as you describe it. That sort of splitting of hairs is irritating to no end.

 

I wasn't trying to be irritating. 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.

 

How some folks can make the leap from a voice correction to other forms of correction/punishment is beyond me, and I think this is what hangs Eileen up as well,

 

When we are explicit about what we mean by the term correction, it sure would be nice if others would then read/understand (and perhaps even discuss) the term in that context when we use it.

 

You know, I honestly feel I do understand what you mean but apparently I'm irritating you by calling at least some of it punishment based on a behavioral perspective. Of course, yelling "hey" is very different from beating a dog. I wasn't implying otherwise and I'd hope you wouldn't think I was beating my Sheltie when I talked about using punishment for her hard core barking.

 

I attempting -- obviously unsuccessfully -- to say that in behavioral terms punishment is something that makes a behavior less likely to occur. If Quinn starts to jump out of the car without permission and I say "hey," he will most likely stop his forward movement. If he does not, I'll make him get back in the car and he'll wait longer to be released than if he had simply waited the first time. That delay is aversive/punishing to Quinn. I never touched him, never raised my voice, never moved in a threatening manner. I offered him information in my "hey" which he may or may not find aversive but which I'm guessing makes him remember that the wrong choice will result in a punishment (waiting 8 seconds in stead of 1) he doesn't like.

 

Anyway, since my goal was not to irritate but to respectfully try to exchange information, I'll just cut my losses and stop trying now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also don't want to speak for other breeds either, but I've seen first hand that Border Collies do have a special gift for offering behaviors and can do so very eagerly for motivators like food and play in training scenarios where sheep are not a factor.

 

 

My Lhasa who has been largely clicker trained, especially as a puppy, is a behavior offering fiend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's interesting, too, and I would like to take it a bit deeper, if you don't mind. :rolleyes:

 

Let's take a common example from the pet/sport dog world. Say my dog goes into a rip-roaring overly excited barking fit every time she sees a certain type of dog (say, a Lab) in a crate.

 

#1. What behaviors would you want your dog to offer in this situation?

 

I'm really only looking for one behavior in this instance. What I want is for my dog to look at the Lab calmly, notice him, and then either follow me in an other direction, or walk calmly past.

 

I'm not really sure what you were asking in your post. I think though, that the above is pretty much just like trying to keep a dog from sneaking off to sheep. If the barking is inherently rewarding to the dog, don't you have to throw out some sort of "knock it off" or some such? You're not going to let your dog bark as a reward, and i'm not going to let my dog sneak off as a reward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not really sure what you were asking in your post. I think though, that the above is pretty much just like trying to keep a dog from sneaking off to sheep. If the barking is inherently rewarding to the dog, don't you have to throw out some sort of "knock it off" or some such? You're not going to let your dog bark as a reward, and i'm not going to let my dog sneak off as a reward.

 

You aren't going to let the dog sneak off as a reward, but you will allow the dog to work as the reward for being right. When the dog is working stock, the presence of the stock is always part of the picture, or so I understand.

 

Actually, what I am going to do in this situation is teach "look at the dog calmly, check in with me" as the "replacement behavior" for barking. That is what I will reward (using c/t in this instance) throughout the training process.

 

The replacement behavior won't be heeling or sitting or staring at me without looking at the other dog. Those things wouldn't make sense in this situation.

 

Once the dog knows that behavior solidly - the clicker and treats are no longer needed for the dog to offer the correct behavior on cue and we have raised the criteria to the point where the dog really knows the correct behavior - then and only then would I ever tell the dog to stop barking if she should start. If the behavior is trained properly, though, I shouldn't have to, or very rarely. Looking at the crated dog will be a cue to remain calm and move on with life.

 

It's a pretty cool technique, and with a dog of normal temperament who is just a bit over-exuberant, it's a not a long training process.

 

The heart of what I was asking really lies in my original question.

 

You said:

 

. . . the "stockdog way" tends to encourage a dog to offer more behaviors and retain more initiative to offer novel behaviors than the style of training that asks for a replacement behavior

 

I am really interested (not just being persnickety here!) in trying to understand what it is about training using appropriate replacement behaviors (like "look calmly", etc) would cause a dog to stop offering behaviors and lose initiative.

 

I've done a lot of clicker training and more behavior modification than I ever would have bargained for with my fearful temperament/easily overstimulated Border Collie - with success that has surprised the heck out of me at times. He offers behaviors eagerly and has a true passion for learning. He isn't a "lemon brain" just sitting around waiting for direction from me - he is a very active participant in his own learning processes. I've seen the exact same thing with every single Border Collie that I've seen trained in this fashion.

 

I honestly can't see how using positive reinforcement to teach appropriate behavior could cause a dog to lose initiative, and I'd really like to understand how you see this happening.

 

I am not asking this question with any other intention than to understand your point of view. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

#1. What behaviors would you want your dog to offer in this situation?

 

I'm really only looking for one behavior in this instance. What I want is for my dog to look at the Lab calmly, notice him, and then either follow me in an other direction, or walk calmly past.

 

I'm wondering whether this is where we are just not talking the same language here. Why is the #1 starting place what I want? To me, it's all about the dog. I want the dog to seek his own comfort zone, as long as it's something that is appropriate. There's as many ways to deal with hyperstimulation, aggression, or fear, as there are individual dogs. If I show the dog I trust him to find his own answer, that immediately establishes us as a team - trust fosters trust. If I impose my own view of what is appropriate for that dog, I've just added one more thing for that dog to deal with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You aren't going to let the dog sneak off as a reward, but you will allow the dog to work as the reward for being right. When the dog is working stock, the presence of the stock is always part of the picture, or so I understand.

 

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...

 

A

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm wondering whether this is where we are just not talking the same language here.

 

Very likely. :rolleyes:

 

Why is the #1 starting place what I want?

 

For me what I want actually is not the starting. For me the #1 starting place is the dog as an individual.

 

As the trainer, however, after considering the needs of the dog, I do need a plan of some sort - especially if I am working a dog through problematic behavior.

 

To me, it's all about the dog. I want the dog to seek his own comfort zone, as long as it's something that is appropriate. There's as many ways to deal with hyperstimulation, aggression, or fear, as there are individual dogs. If I show the dog I trust him to find his own answer, that immediately establishes us as a team - trust fosters trust. If I impose my own view of what is appropriate for that dog, I've just added one more thing for that dog to deal with.

 

I would probably repeat what you just said here word for word as a major part of the reason why I don't use corrections in behavior modification!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...

 

A

 

That's where we differ in vocabulary. I don't consider the "HEY! That'll do" a correction. It's a directive that the puppy understands.

 

I would do the same in this situation. This is a really good example of where a positive trainer would say "no", and use a serious tone of voice to communicate a serious directive.

 

The times when a replacement behavior is trained is in cases where there is a behavior problem. Just telling one's dog to change behaviors (in this case - stop sneaking off/return to the group) isn't a correction.

 

I'm thinking that if the puppy in this case wouldn't return with the "Hey. That'll do" - that's where I think our methods of rectifying the problem would likely differ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You aren't going to let the dog sneak off as a reward, but you will allow the dog to work as the reward for being right. When the dog is working stock, the presence of the stock is always part of the picture, or so I understand.

 

Nope, you've got it wrong. My dog might work stock 20 minutes after i've told him to stop trying to sneak off. Hardly a well timed "reward".

 

Actually, what I am going to do in this situation is teach "look at the dog calmly, check in with me" as the "replacement behavior" for barking. That is what I will reward (using c/t in this instance) throughout the training process.

 

The way you described it was basically "do something other than bark". I don't really see how that is different than "do something other than sneak off to work sheep without permission".

 

offers behaviors eagerly and has a true passion for learning. He isn't a "lemon brain" just sitting around waiting for direction from me - he is a very active participant in his own learning processes. I've seen the exact same thing with every single Border Collie that I've seen trained in this fashion.

 

Well yeah, you've trained him to offer novel behaviors if he wants treats, clicks, whatever. I've trained mine to offer novel behaviors if he wants me to quit putting voice pressure on him.

 

I honestly can't see how using positive reinforcement to teach appropriate behavior could cause a dog to lose initiative, and I'd really like to understand how you see this happening.

 

I am not asking this question with any other intention than to understand your point of view. :rolleyes:

 

I never said that. Maybe i'm being dense but i still don't see what you're asking. It seems to me in the 2 situations, we're both saying "don't do that, try something else'. In my case, when the dog offers a new behavior i prefer (coming back to me or just stopping the thought process that's about to send him off chasing sheep, etc) my voice changes from hard to soft. The reward is my pleasure in the dog. It sounds to me like you do the same thing when your dog doesn't bark (first with treats then with praise i guess)??

 

I think maybe you're stretching my comment about losing initiative too far. I use it in the context of stockwork. If i never allow my dog to have any initiative, obviously he loses it. I expect if you never let your dog have a cookie, he'd stop trying behaviors to earn them too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope, you've got it wrong. My dog might work stock 20 minutes after i've told him to stop trying to sneak off. Hardly a well timed "reward".

 

It strikes me that it's well timed enough for the dog to understand. These dogs are smart enough to know that the opportunity to try again will be coming - even if it's 20 minutes later.

 

The way you described it was basically "do something other than bark". I don't really see how that is different than "do something other than sneak off to work sheep without permission".

 

I think the difference isn't so much in what the end result looks like, but in how the trainer is going to approach the problem.

 

Yes, I want my dog to do something other than bark, but whatever it is, I want it to be a calm response. The dog can look across the room, look at the dog, look at the ceiling, lie down and take a nap, sniff, look at me - there is more than one "right" response, but I am looking for more than the absence of barking in this example. So, I set out to teach a dog like this what a calm response is and how to have one.

 

This is not something that is necessary with a dog of normal temperament who is just in a new situation and needs to be told to stop barking. This is something that I do for dogs with behavior problems and training issues - the kind of dogs that people bring to Cesar.

 

I've seen many reactive dogs, when left to their own devices after the handler has suppressed the original problematic behavior, channel that reactive response into equally inappropriate behaviors.

 

The role of the "replacement behavior" in such a behavior modification program is not to teach the dog to do one thing and one thing only (like "sit and look at me") - it is a step in the process which is used to teach the dog to offer appropriate responses.

 

I think maybe you're stretching my comment about losing initiative too far.

 

I must have misunderstood because it did seem as if you were saying that using a process that utilizes a replacement behavior to help a dog who is behavior inappropriately learn how to act appropriately would cause a dog to offer less behaviors and lose initiative.

 

Since that's not what you meant, my question was moot, and I beg pardon for the misunderstanding. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect it's one of those perspective things. While you have chosen your way and will not entertain the notion of using corrections to increase your dog's freedom, many of us have had the opportunity to see a "positive only" trained dog start working stock. I've seen many, many. They haven't had the opportunity to learn how to work through pressure, and have to learn that first before real training can start.

 

I'm not saying they have to learn how to take corrections from the trainer - that's not the important pressure your dog will face. Remember that it's the stock that exert the first pressure a dog will feel, while starting working. Faced with that pressure, in spite of the encouragement of the trainer, no matter how excited that dog may have been before going in or how well bred the dog is - it's almost a given that at some point dogs trained without corrections will turn tail and need a great deal of appeal to instinct, to approach the stock again.

 

It's not intuitive - you'd think a dog that's been raised knowing corrections, would "give in" first - but it's all about fear of the unknown. How does your dog deal with the unknown? The dog that trusts its handler to provide feedback if he's misstepped, will confidently offer answers.

 

You can speculate that your dog would be confident in a situation as extreme as stock work, but the bulk of my observations and experience tell me it would be highly unlikely. I've also had the opportunity to see dogs that have had what I call the "slow bandaid" applied for years and years (slow desensitization to stimluation), turned around in 30 seconds with adept use of corrections and being allowed to come up with an answer on their own. Some people point to the strength of that particular trainer's personality as the source of that kind of turnaround. Many years of observing this, with other trainers too, have led me to believe that it is in fact an attitude of trust - the fact that the dog comes up with his own answer, the one that suits him best. That's a really subtle difference but it's a difference that makes a huge difference to the dog, I feel.

 

For years I focused on the timing of the corrections, thinking that was where the secret lay in this method. It is not, I now believe - it is in how much freedom you are capable of giving the dog. Sometimes this involves somewhat managing the dog's choices (making what is right easy), but you can be way off in the timing of your correction, as long as you are leaving the answers wide open for the dog.

 

Can you tell I spent the weekend at a Jack Knox clinic? I did a lot of thinking on this topic, especially watching a particular dog who a year and a half ago, couldn't be anywhere near other dogs, and this weekend spent most of the time lying at his owner's feet, quietly watching the proceedings, mere feet away from hyperstimulated puppies and nosy bitches in heat. Yeah, there were a couple of blips but those could be termed "snarky" and wouldn't even have been noticed if it were any other dog. Snarkiness is part of some dog's comfort level (perfectly normal dogs) - but I doubt any positive trainer would have included that as an answer for this particular dog. His progress was evident on the sheep, too - he was more relaxed, not as tense, thinking and listening to his own instincts rather than his fears.

 

I kept meaning to compliment this handler's progress but kept forgetting, sadly - but I'll be sure to mention it next time (and she may be reading this). He's not normal by any means, but he's come leaps and bounds, and it wasn't through behaviors being forced on him, but by being allowed to seek his own comfort level and knowing he can continue to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kristine - have you ever tried working your dogs on sheep much? I suspect you'd really enjoy it since it's obvious you enjoy thinking and puzzling on the way dogs learn and the interactions between dogs and people. I think you'd be in 7th heaven if you got into stockwork and added in another species and the interactions going on there. One thing i find truly fascinating to watch is the dogs training the sheep to act certain ways, especially at trials where the sheep and dogs are strangers to each other. Some dogs are better sheep trainers than others, the same as some people are better dog trainers than others. It takes my breath away to watch a dog kindly training sheep with a cool power. You can almost hear the dog say "okay girls, move off nicely and behave yourselves, and i'll lean back and take some pressure off so you're more comfortable". And the sheep are almost saying "that dog says i have to do this so i better do it. Ahh that feels better, he's a nice dog and treats us nicely, so we can relax and amble along where he says to go, we can trust him".

 

Of course there are lots of dogs that aren't such good trainers and you'll hear the sheep almost saying "run for your lives girls!" or "i don't trust that dog one bit and darned if i'll turn my defenseless rump to HIM". :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect it's one of those perspective things. While you have chosen your way and will not entertain the notion of using corrections to increase your dog's freedom, many of us have had the opportunity to see a "positive only" trained dog start working stock. I've seen many, many. They haven't had the opportunity to learn how to work through pressure, and have to learn that first before real training can start.

 

Yes, it's definitely one of those perspective things.

 

I have never been in a situation where I've thought, "gee, my dog could have more freedom if I had trained with corrections".

 

And for a dog who is never going to work stock (most of the dogs that Cesar works with will not), what difference does it make if their training has not prepared them to do so?

 

My dogs are, or are in the process of becoming, suitably trained to do what I expect of them, and they lack no freedom. They will not be denied of anything in life because they are not prepared to do stock work.

 

Yeah, there were a couple of blips but those could be termed "snarky" and wouldn't even have been noticed if it were any other dog. Snarkiness is part of some dog's comfort level (perfectly normal dogs) - but I doubt any positive trainer would have included that as an answer for this particular dog.

 

That assumption is incorrect. I certainly consider snarkiness perfectly normal and part of a dog's comfort level, and so do other positive trainers that I know. Among the positive trainers that I know, snarkiness is considered a natural and healthy expression of discomfort on the part of the dog. We respect what the dog is expressing through that response. It subsides for some dogs as their comfort level increases - others will always need their own space and that's fine.

 

I find it's the dominance theory folks who take issue with snarkiness because they see it as their dog trying to "be Alpha" and so it must be suppressed or the dog will be "dominant". A positive trainer wouldn't see it that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...