Voodoo

[geonni banner]

So how is "your" method being misrepresented?

 

RB

"Go back and read my posts in this discussion, and the posts that I am responding to when I made them, and you will find my answer to that. You're plenty good enough at sifting through what I've written to figure that out without me having to go back and repeat myself."

 

Well, actually, one of the reasons that I took so long about “stringing together your comments” is that I did read the posts you were responding to. And as I said earlier, I didn’t see the particular misrepresentation of your methods. I did see some skepticism about “generic” “purely positive training,” but as to your employment of it as a training technique – no, I didn’t see that. I remember one person questioning your taking a dog into a situation in which it was uncomfortable, but that is neither a condemnation or an endorsement of “purely positive” or reinforcement training. It is a questioning of your judgment in taking the dog into a situation that you yourself stated the dog was uncomfortable in.

 

(For the record, I agree that sometimes you have to take dogs into situations in which they would not place themselves in order to help them overcome their fears. And sometimes this has the - hopefully transitory - effect of making them uncomfortable.)

 

So I’d still like to know how your methods are being misrepresented.

 

 

QUOTE - GB

As I understand it, your method seeks to avoid using corrections - or aversives. You use rewards when the dog offers the "right" behavior. Yes? I think I understand the basic principle at work here. If not, I would welcome clarification.

 

RB

"No, the method that I use does not seek to "avoid using corrections - or aversives". It is an entire approach to training that you could study and use for years and still have a lot to learn about it! No, it does not include corrections, but that does not tell you what it is, only what it is not. And yes, rewarding offered behaviors is one piece of it, but certainly not all, nor even most of it.

 

If you really would like to learn more, I can PM you the list of references that I offered to kelpiegirl."

 

I would like that!

 

 

QUOTE - GB

In response to your point-by-point comments, I would remind you that the statement you objected to was " in your experience correction-based methods lead to unhappy dogs at best and are outright abusive at worst." In other words, that it (corrections) produced a range of unwanted effects starting with unhappy dogs, and possibly including abuse." So I don't think that it was necessary to defend each statement as suggesting abuse.

 

 

RB

"I believe that it was necessary. Abuse is a serious charge. The idea that the sum of what I actually said in the quotes that you listed includes abuse as equally as, say dogs that ignore the corrections, is not one that I am going to sit by and agree with."

 

I do not think that you see all corrections as being abusive. You have said as much several times. I do however think, based on your comments, that you believe correction-based training has the potential to be abusive. And that is certainly true! I think where we differ is in our estimation of the negative impact of correction-based training even when it is not out-and-out abusive.

 

 

RB

"You spent a good deal of time stringing together quotes of mine to show that:"

 

 

QUOTE - GB

I too have gotten the impression from reading many of your posts that you feel that correction-based training is not only wrong-headed, but frequently approaching outright abuse.

 

 

RB

"Now you say "possibly including abuse" where before you said "frequently approaching outright abuse".

 

It was definitely necessary that I make it clear that "frequent abuse" was not somehow implied in the quotes that you listed."

 

What I said was that I personally got the impression that you felt correction-based training frequently approached outright abuse. This impression was obtained by reading a lot of material – far too much to post in this thread – posts by you and those to which you were responding. I am willing to entertain the idea that my impression is mistaken, but it was not for lack of trying to get a sense of how you felt.

The quote that you objected to originally was by someone else, and to me, suggested a continuum that had “unhappy dogs” at one end, and “outright abuse at worst” at the other – hence “possibly including abuse,” when referring to that original statement.

[Donald McCaig]

Dear Doggers,

We have 107 nursery dogs entered and EIleen is correct.

Donald

 

The original plan was for the Nursery Finals to be the first Sat and Sun, with a day off on Mon. Because an unexpectedly large number of dogs have qualified for the Nursery Finals, Nursery will be run on all three days, with the first runs being on Sat and Sun, and the run back of the top scoring dogs being on Mon. Highest combined scores for the two runs is the champion.

 

At least, that's my understanding.

[Root Beer]

And as I said earlier, I didn’t see the particular misrepresentation of your methods. I did see some skepticism about “generic” “purely positive training,” but as to your employment of it as a training technique – no, I didn’t see that.

 

Interesting twist. Suppose one's employment of reinforcement based training (aka to you the misnomer "purely positive"), is exactly the thing that causes a person to see a misrepresentation? So, even if that person's employment of the technique is not what is being discussed at all a misrepresentation can be seen.

 

Using an example, suppose you used Synalia (something neither of us use). You have used Synalia for years with wonderful results. Now I come along and say the dogs I've seen trained by Synalia learned more slowly and were more confused and unhappy than those trained by shock collars. (For the record, I would not say that - it's just an example)

 

Might you not consider the direct statement that dogs trained using Synalia are learning slowly and are confused and unhappy as a misrepresentation if, in your observation, dogs trained using Synalia are clear on what is expected, happy, and learn at a good pace? This even though the statement is not directly about your personal use of Synalia.

 

If you really would like to learn more, I can PM you the list of references that I offered to kelpiegirl."

 

I would like that!

 

I will be happy to put that together for you and send it along.

 

I do not think that you see all corrections as being abusive. You have said as much several times. I do however think, based on your comments, that you believe correction-based training has the potential to be abusive. And that is certainly true! I think where we differ is in our estimation of the negative impact of correction-based training even when it is not out-and-out abusive.

 

Exactly! And that was very well said.

[Donald McCaig]

Dear Doggers,

 

Ms Rootbeer asks:

 

" You have used Synalia for years with wonderful results. Now I come along and say the dogs I've seen trained by Synalia learned more slowly and were more confused and unhappy than those trained by shock collars. . . .

 

Might you not consider the direct statement that dogs trained using Synalia are learning slowly and are confused and unhappy as a misrepresentation if, in your observation, dogs trained using Synalia are clear on what is expected, happy, and learn at a good pace?"

 

A disagreement, certainly. A misrepresentation? Phooey. A statement about one's experience is just that.

 

One can counter such statements in many ways, for instance: "In my 25 years of dog training, with over 30,000 dogs trained with Synalia, none were confused and unhappy." That'd be a pretty strong argument. Another might be "My Synalia trained dogs Spot and Sue have earned multiple OTCH's and acted in the TV drama, "Dogs of their Lives". One might argue the experiencer was hopelessly biased: "Your experience is dubious because you are a cardcarrying member of the "Ban Synalia League." or "You are a convicted perjurer" or "You make 10 k a month selling shock collars" One might impune the ability of an otherwise unbiased observer: "You've never owned a dog, what do you know?" or "You mean your macular degeneration has reversed?"

 

There are lots of ways one can discredit a statement about one's experience.

 

One might also say, "My experience of thus and so many years convinces me that Synalia trained dogs are pips".

 

But saying, as I did, "The pet dogs I have seen trained by purely positive methods learned more slowly and were more confused and unhappy than those trained by experts with the ecollar.

 

That said: these were experts."

 

was a cautious and extremely specific statement. A misrepresentation? Phooey.

 

Ms. Rootbeer isn't so very far from me and if she's willing to spend a couple hours at the Finals - or at my Labor Day Weekend Trial - I'd be willing to spend a couple hours with the dogs she so lovingly describes at the competition of her choice. I wouldn't of course ask her to visit an ecollar trainer, though I know some good ones relatively close to her.

 

I have no vested interest in unhappy, confused dogs. Quite the contrary.

 

Donald McCaig

[kelpiegirl]

Sometimes, the word insolence comes to mind, when these conversations go on and on and on......... I am a wet behind the ears newbie, and I *really* like to learn from folks who have lots of years of experience, and I mean LOTS of years of proven track record, just darn good. I listen to them. Sometimes I hear things I don't want to hear, but heck, they know what they are talking about. I have been "in" my profession now for over two decades, and will occasionally get someone who believes that they know how to do it better, and can't understand what I am talking about. Generally, I will entertain the idea with conversation and we may even try it. Then, we see that well, all those years of experience has made me, and others like me, pretty darn good at doing our job well, efficient, and will very good results. That is not to say sometimes an innovation can be made, so I keep my ears open. Discussing parallels between training sheep dogs and things like Rally O, or Dancing, is well, rather like nailing a boston cream pie to the wall.

[Eileen Stein]

reinforcement based training (aka to you the misnomer "purely positive")

 

YOU may not like the term "purely positive," but surely you would have to agree that scores if not hundreds of trainers you'd describe as using "reinforcement-based" methods actually describe themselves as using "purely positive" methods. It's not a disparaging term coined by opponents; it's a shorthand term originated by advocates that is widely understood. Neither "reinforcement based" nor "purely positive" are strictly accurate or comprehensive descriptions, but both will do as shorthand, and neither is a misnomer.

 

ETA: I find "purely positive" to be a better formulation to pinpoint the approach I question -- I consider myself someone who uses both reinforcement-based training and correction-based training, but different from someone who uses purely positive (i.e., no corrections) training.

[Root Beer]

A disagreement, certainly. A misrepresentation? Phooey. A statement about one's experience is just that.

 

And a statement about my own is just that, as well.

 

To be fair I want to clearly point out that you did not say, or imply, that it was. So, that comment is directed more at those are making the case that I'm implying abuse, etc. through statements that I have made about my own experience.

 

Ms. Rootbeer isn't so very far from me and if she's willing to spend a couple hours at the Finals - or at my Labor Day Weekend Trial - I'd be willing to spend a couple hours with the dogs she so lovingly describes at the competition of her choice. I wouldn't of course ask her to visit an ecollar trainer, though I know some good ones relatively close to her.

 

I would take you up on that, but as I said, I do have a Freestyle competition of my own on Finals weekend. And I have a Rally trial on Labor Day Weekend.

 

That is something we might be able to arrange for the spring or next year. Between competitions (I'm doing a bunch after taking most of the summer off of competing), work commitments, teaching, and family commitments, my fall is already jammed full.

 

And then, perhaps you could visit one of my classes at some point. Or, if a weekend day is best, I should be able to pull together a practice group.

 

I have no vested interest in unhappy, confused dogs. Quite the contrary.

 

And nor do I.

[Root Beer]

That is not to say sometimes an innovation can be made, so I keep my ears open. Discussing parallels between training sheep dogs and things like Rally O, or Dancing, is well, rather like nailing a boston cream pie to the wall.

 

I have not been discussing parallels between training sheep dogs and things like Rally O or Dancing.

 

I have been discussing whether or not one requires a designation such as an OTCH to be qualified to help people learn to help their pet dogs overcome behavior issues.

 

I understand that you're hearing "training sheepdogs" somewhere in there, but that's not coming from me. Call it insolent, if you will. I don't think anybody appreciates being constantly informed that he or she is saying things that are not actually being said. It is hardly insolent to attempt to clarify.

 

But I do understand - you hear "training sheepdogs" somewhere posts that I have made in the course of this discussion. Perhaps we could take further discussion of that to PM?

[juliepoudrier]

I have been discussing whether or not one requires a designation such as an OTCH to be qualified to help people learn to help their pet dogs overcome behavior issues.

My opinion on this has already been stated, but I'll state it again just for fun. I don't personally believe that one needs something like an OTCH designation in order to be able to help people help their dogs overcome behavior issues. BUT (and you knew that was coming), I think the whole gist of Donald's voodoo comments was that anyone, and I mean anyone can hang their shingle out as a trainer of any type, with little or no qualifications whatsoever. Even a shingle that says "I can help you train your pet dog with behavior problems." How is poor JQP supposed to find a suitable trainer, given our free market system that says, with some notable exceptions (doctors and lawyers come to mind, for example), anyone can set up a business selling a service that's legally allowed (vs. illegal stuff like selling drugs or prostitution)? I don't consider myself a behaviorist with a capital B, although I do understand dog behavior. But that wouldn't prevent me from calling myself that and parting people from their money.

 

For myself, I want to see what you (the generic you) can do before I'll fork over my money for training. So if any poor soul still reading this thread and wondering what the "take away" from the original discussion would be, it's this:

 

If you want help with a particular aspect of training (any sort of training), find someone who is knowledgeable in that training (or that venue, or those types of behavior issues) and get help from that person. The big, fat caveat: a person claiming to have such expertise must have some record of accomplishment that can be pointed to, even if it's just client testimonials. If I wanted to learn to be competitive in agility, I wouldn't choose someone who has never made it above the novice level in that sport. Likewise with freestyle, or stockdogs, or SAR. I'm sure there are some beginners out there who might be able to adequately help another beginner, but it seems to me that you'd be stacking the odds in your favor if you chose someone who had some proof/evidence of expertise in the area in which you are seeking training help.

 

So, if the objection that started this thread was that we tend to tell folks "see a behaviorist" then it's a valid objection unless we also tell the person to make sure the behaviorist also has some proof of expertise/ability. And the same could be said for any other method or venue.

 

There, I think we've come full circle, for probably the umpteenth time.

 

J.

[Donald McCaig]

Dear Doggers,

When I reinvited her to the National Finals, Ms. Root Beer wrote:

 

"I would take you up on that, but as I said, I do have a Freestyle competition of my own on Finals weekend."

 

To belabor the point, the Finals isn't a weekend: it's two weekends and mondaytuesdaywednesdaythursdayfriday in between. Google claims, Belle Grove is one hour and fortysix minutes from Carlisle.

 

The spring trials are farther from Carlisle and on weekends only. They will be listed at http://usbcha.com/upcomingtrials.htm.

If Ms Root Beer selects a trial she can attend ( well in advance, please) I will enter and be there.

 

Subsequently but ASAP, I will visit her beginning class, advanced class and any competition or test she thinks represents her chosen training method best.

 

Better if she can attend the Finals one weekday. I'll be happy to explain the goings on and we can arrange for me to see her preferred method later this fall.

 

Donald McCaig

[rushdoggie]

BUT (and you knew that was coming), I think the whole gist of Donald's voodoo comments was that anyone, and I mean anyone can hang their shingle out as a trainer of any type, with little or no qualifications whatsoever. Even a shingle that says "I can help you train your pet dog with behavior problems." How is poor JQP supposed to find a suitable trainer, given our free market system that says, with some notable exceptions (doctors and lawyers come to mind, for example), anyone can set up a business selling a service that's legally allowed (vs. illegal stuff like selling drugs or prostitution)?

 

FWIW, if this is what Donald meant, I wish he would be a little less poetic and a little bit clearer, because honestly this thread came off as an aggressive slam against behaviorists saying that what they did was voodoo.

[Liz P]

Maybe I am reading this wrong, but it seems that RB does a lot of work with fearful dogs. I've done a lot of work with fearful dogs as well. With some of these dogs any form of punishment, even a verbal "No!" can be so traumatic that they shut down or panic. They need a gentle hand and training that is focused on rewards. Generally once they are past their initial training they take corrections in some situations quite well. In other situations they still need to be treated with kid gloves.

 

The average dog can handle corrections (within reason) and not suffer from any adverse effects. In fact, it is my opinion that using a combination of rewards and corrections gets the fastest and longest lasting results. But, there will always be dogs out there that just can't handle corrections the way a normal dog can.

 

I still have one of Bobby Dalziel's canine students from the clinic this April etched into my mind. He was a hesitant dog with little self confidence. Bobby immediately adapted and toned down his training, using essentially no corrections but lots of guidance and encouragement. The dog did its best work ever. This is in contrast to one of my dogs who needed a firm hand to remind him of who is in charge. It is Bobby's ability to adapt his methods to the individual dog that make him such an amazing trainer.

[Root Beer]

To belabor the point, the Finals isn't a weekend: it's two weekends and mondaytuesdaywednesdaythursdayfriday in between. Google claims, Belle Grove is one hour and fortysix minutes from Carlisle.

 

You have belabored effectively.

 

I might be able to juggle my work schedule to be able to go on September 23 for a few hours. I'm going to have to make sure of that, but it might be possible.

 

If I am able to do this, do I need to purchase a ticket in advance? I remember having tickets last time.

 

Better if she can attend the Finals one weekday. I'll be happy to explain the goings on and we can arrange for me to see her preferred method later this fall.

 

Sounds extremely interesting.

 

We can arrange for a class visit once the fall session gets set up.

[geonni banner]

Using an example, suppose you used Synalia (something neither of us use). You have used Synalia for years with wonderful results. Now I come along and say the dogs I've seen trained by Synalia learned more slowly and were more confused and unhappy than those trained by shock collars. (For the record, I would not say that - it's just an example)

 

Might you not consider the direct statement that dogs trained using Synalia are learning slowly and are confused and unhappy as a misrepresentation if, in your observation, dogs trained using Synalia are clear on what is expected, happy, and learn at a good pace? This even though the statement is not directly about your personal use of Synalia.

 

No. Not misrepresentation, just a different point of view, based on that person's experience. Your experience is obviously different.

 

I have never seen a dog raised off the ground with a choke-chain and held in the air until it starts to pass out. But others have seen that, and if they are down on using choke-chains, I can see why. They are not misrepresenting the use of a choke-chain, based on their experience. My experience is different. I was taught to use a choke-chain by someone who would not even consider hanging a dog, and I have had 99% positive results using one. Am I misrepresenting head collars if I say that I have seen more dogs working happily with a choke than with a "gentle leader" /"Halti"? I don't think so. I've seen lots of dogs worked with a choke, by someone who knew what they were doing. I've mostly seen head collars used by people who heard they were good, bought one at PetSmart and got no instruction on how to use one effectively.

I would not characterize head collars as bad or useless because I know that people who know how to properly employ them can get good results. However, If I were simply reporting my own experience I would have to say that I've seen choke-chains employed more effectively than head collars. I don't believe this makes me guilty of misrepresenting head collars.

 

I have seen people - many people, training on their own - who used a lot of food reinforcers with poor results. The reason was nearly always timing. I knew this because I saw them attempting to train a behavior using food rewards unskillfully. Most of the time the people with poor timing and poor results were unaware that it was their inexperience that was at fault. Many of those people stopped training that way and went to a system of corrections. Alas! Their timing was no better. The dog continued to progress disappointingly slowly. At this point some of those people will come to the conclusion that,

 

1) The dog is stupid, stubborn or both.

2) Dog training is hooey. just beat 'em when they're bad.

3) I can't do this. it's too hard.

 

As people who have trained many dogs, we each understand that all three of these conclusions are incorrect. But these people are not misrepresenting dog training - at least not deliberately - they are simply reporting their experience. Which is quite a different thing. As a trainer, I cannot take umbrage at their statements. I can only share my experience to support my quite different point of view.

 

It looks like you will be attending a sheepdog trial with Mr. McCaig. It also looks like he will be attending an event/ training session with you. I think this is fabulous. I hope that clarification ensues.

[Root Beer]

. . . and any competition or test she thinks represents her chosen training method best.

 

This is a tough one. There is no particular sport or test that measures reinforcement based training per se.

 

In all of the sports in which I participate, there are handlers who train primarily through reinforcement, those who train with a mix of reinforcement and corrections (like many here), and even some who train primarily through corrections, although that is extremely rare.

 

So, if you see a team present and the dog appears to be unhappy or confused, there is really no way to know, unless one knows the team personally, what the dog's training background actually is.

 

The best representation of reinforcement based training that I can think of would be Clicker Expo, but that's not a viable option in this case. It is nowhere near local next year.

 

I'm going to have to think about this. In some ways, Freestyle would be the closest because most of what you actually see in the ring has been trained through reinforcement. But outside of the ring, the dog could be trained and handled any way under the sun.

 

Same with Agility. While actually Agility training is usually trained through reinforcement, some handlers do proof through correction. If the dog misses a contact and starts racing around the ring barking his fool head off, there is really no way to know what kind of training is being represented.

 

So, I'm thinking on this and how it can best be observed for what it is.

[Donald McCaig]

Dear Doggers,

Ms. Rushdoggie criticized my first post: "I wish he would be a little less poetic and a little bit clearer, because honestly this thread came off as an aggressive slam against behaviorists saying that what they did was voodoo."

 

 

Close, but not quite. Like Voodoo behaviorism sometimes works. Like voodoo behaviorism is more belief system than science. I had hoped someone might cite a public test where behaviorist beliefs are tested against other beliefs and suggested, since we are mostly talking about all breed pet dogs, that competitive obedience might be such a test. Several objected that test isn't appropriate but none have suggested a different test.

 

If the training theory is better than other training theories it should produce better results.

 

I know Border Collies can be more useful sheepdogs than AKC collies because AKC Collies can compete against Border Collies publicly in fairly objective tests. I know Border Collies ought not be ecollar trained for sheepwork because those so trained have done very poorly on the trial field. Whether Border Collies are or are not more affectionate than AKC Collies is, like voodoo beliefs, unprovable.

 

 

Donald McCaig.

[bcnewe2]

If the dog misses a contact and starts racing around the ring barking his fool head off, there is really no way to know what kind of training is being represented

 

Except one that utilizes both means would be at that moment STM giving a correction to the fool with no head!

[topnotchdog]

Like Voodoo behaviorism sometimes works.

 

Donald, would you mind elaborating a bit on the behaviorism part (I appreciate your earlier elaboration on the voodoo, as I had not known about the toenail clippings)? Do you mean sometimes works to train a dog to do things on cue? Or do you mean to train a sheepdog to partner with a person to work sheep? (Or something else?)

 

Like voodoo behaviorism is more belief system than science.

 

To clarify, are you referring to behaviorism of the B.F. Skinner variety, the sort people like Karen Proyor have popularized as a way to train dogs? If so, I am puzzled as to where you find the science lacking to show the efficacy, predictability of learning principles described by learning theory. (FWIW, I understand "learning theory" to be a phrase similar to "cell theory" or "the theory of gravity;" no longer hypotheses---perhaps overstated?-- but rather these are more like basic, accepted working laws in the scientific sense.) Perhaps you object to most of the research having been done on animals other than dogs, I am not sure. I know there have been a couple of studies assessing training of dogs using shock collars compared with other things (if memory serves), but the other studies are mostly on rodents.

 

I am asking not because I think it is the best way to train a dog. I find the principles helpful in many contexts (like much pet dog and agility training), but by no means do they explain the amazing things one can do with a dog, what dogs can figure out for themselves, nor do they by any stretch cover the ways to teach a dog something (for example, behaviorists are not at all interested in observational learning, model rival method, or often basic ethology for that matter). From the limited exposure I've had with working sheepdogs, I don't know that behaviorism can offer a whole lot to understand the magic of what transpires on the field (not to be confused with voodoo). But would you mind elaborating on your understanding of it as "more belief system than science."

 

I had hoped someone might cite a public test where behaviorist beliefs are tested against other beliefs and suggested, since we are mostly talking about all breed pet dogs, that competitive obedience might be such a test. Several objected that test isn't appropriate but none have suggested a different test.

 

I think that would be fascinating. Maybe side by side skills trials comparing different training approaches (perhaps a non AKC Rally-style obedience, which I have heard is more challenging)? Not sure what that would look like. Or maybe training a few different species to do some tasks using different methods. I suppose it would depend what one wanted to test for.

 

If the training theory is better than other training theories it should produce better results.

 

Understood, and agreed. Based on your previous paragraph it seems fair to say we've perhaps not yet found a test to compare them. There would also have to be agreement on what "better" would mean. It is with much trepidation that I typed that last sentence, for fear it will be interpreted as an invitation to discuss definitions of that word.

 

Thank you,

Barbara

[geonni banner]

These may be of interest...

 

An Evaluation of Dog Training Techniques: An Assessment of Efficacy and Welfare

 

http://vip.vetsci.usyd.edu.au/contentUploa...t_3081/curl.pdf

 

Dog Training Methods: Their Use, Effectiveness and Interaction with Behaviour and Welfare

 

http://www.azs.no/artikler/art_training_methods.pdf

[Blackdawgs]

These may be of interest...

 

An Evaluation of Dog Training Techniques: An Assessment of Efficacy and Welfare

 

http://vip.vetsci.usyd.edu.au/contentUploa...t_3081/curl.pdf

 

 

With these things, it's always best to read the actual references cited within rather than rely on someone's interpretation of the data. So, for giggles, I quickly located the Schilder reference which is widely cited as a reason for not using shock collars:

 

http://www.ust.is/media/ljosmyndir/dyralif...shockcollar.pdf

 

I didn't torture myself by reading the whole thing, but in addition to the training of all dogs (shocked and non shocked) being very aversive and the shocked dogs having the crap shocked out of them, the observers were NOT blinded as to which dogs were and were not shocked. This is really pretty bad science and this assertion is coming from someone, who has acted as a peer reviewer of scientific articles (albeit not in the behavorial realm) and someone who really wants to believe that shock collars are evil.

[topnotchdog]

With these things, it's always best to read the actual references cited within rather than rely on someone's interpretation of the data. So, for giggles, I quickly located the Schilder reference which is widely cited as a reason for not using shock collars:

 

http://www.ust.is/media/ljosmyndir/dyralif...shockcollar.pdf

 

I didn't torture myself by reading the whole thing, but in addition to the training of all dogs (shocked and non shocked) being very aversive and the shocked dogs having the crap shocked out of them, the observers were NOT blinded as to which dogs were and were not shocked. This is really pretty bad science and this assertion is coming from someone, who has acted as a peer reviewer of scientific articles (albeit not in the behavorial realm) and someone who really wants to believe that shock collars are evil.

 

Thank you, Blackdawgs. This may be better (I'm blanking out on whether they've done their follow-up study to compare with other methods).

 

Training dogs with help of the shock collar:

short and long term behavioural effects http://www.ust.is/media/ljosmyndir/dyralif...shockcollar.pdf

 

B.

[geonni banner]

With these things, it's always best to read the actual references cited within rather than rely on someone's interpretation of the data. So, for giggles, I quickly located the Schilder reference which is widely cited as a reason for not using shock collars:

 

http://www.ust.is/media/ljosmyndir/dyralif...shockcollar.pdf

 

I didn't torture myself by reading the whole thing, but in addition to the training of all dogs (shocked and non shocked) being very aversive and the shocked dogs having the crap shocked out of them, the observers were NOT blinded as to which dogs were and were not shocked. This is really pretty bad science and this assertion is coming from someone, who has acted as a peer reviewer of scientific articles (albeit not in the behavorial realm) and someone who really wants to believe that shock collars are evil.

 

Errr... I'm confused. Is this in response to my last post? If so, Neither of the articles to which I provided links were about using shock collars. They were the results of questionnaires (In Britain & Australia) which asked pet dog owners which kind of training they used. (Reward or Punishment or a combination of the two. It also queried how obedient the owners scored their dogs on a set of obedience commands and what problem behaviors their dogs had, etc.

 

If not, never mind!

[Blackdawgs]

Errr... I'm confused. Is this in response to my last post? If so, Neither of the articles to which I provided links were about using shock collars. They were the results of questionnaires (In Britain & Australia) which asked pet dog owners which kind of training they used. (Reward or Punishment or a combination of the two. It also queried how obedient the owners scored their dogs on a set of obedience commands and what problem behaviors their dogs had, etc.

 

If not, never mind!

 

The first link that you posted is a review article by Peter Curl, which discusses the Schilder reference and shock collars in the fourth paragraph under Discussion...

 

(And my comments about going to the source referred to Curl's article, not anything that you wrote)

[Ooky]

Errr... I'm confused. Is this in response to my last post? If so, Neither of the articles to which I provided links were about using shock collars. They were the results of questionnaires (In Britain & Australia) which asked pet dog owners which kind of training they used. (Reward or Punishment or a combination of the two. It also queried how obedient the owners scored their dogs on a set of obedience commands and what problem behaviors their dogs had, etc.

 

If not, never mind!

 

 

The first link you provided was a short review article of sorts compiling several studies that had either found negative consequences from punitive traing methods and/or better results from reward-based training methods. It was discussing the issue from the standpoint of the RSPCA and dog ownership IN Aus., but the questionnaire was actually the British study given asd primart lit in the 2nd link (Hiby et al 2004).

 

Blackdawgs is referring to the section in the Curl review (1st link) that described:

Schilder and van der Borg (2004) analysed both the long and short-term behavioural effects

associated with shock collar use during the training of German shepherd guard dogs. The study

serves as an interesting comparison to that of Hiby et al. (2004) as it evaluates punishment based

training as performed by specialist trainers. The study compared the conduct of sixteen

dogs trained with shock collars to that of fifteen dogs receiving analogous training that had never

been shocked. Behavioural reactions were monitored both on and off the training grounds, before and during training, as well as during free-park walks. Ear, tail, and body posture, in addition to

various behaviours, were used to evaluate stress, fear and trauma, as opposed to conventional

physiological measures, such as cortisol, as training generates high levels of excitement, which

alter the accuracy of such measures (Schilder and von der Borg, 2004)....

 

And so forth - it goes on for 2 paragraphs.

 

To be honest I wasn't super impressed with the Hiby study either, and certainly don't see it as a good answer to Mr. McCaig's challenge, but no time to explain why as currently being trained by a baby to get off the computer!! Def punishmnt based!

[geonni banner]

The first link that you posted is a review article by Peter Curl, which discusses the Schilder reference and shock collars in the fourth paragraph under Discussion...

 

(And my comments about going to the source referred to Curl's article, not anything that you wrote)

 

I must have read the other article twice... No wonder their results were so similar! Urk. How embarrassing!