Jump to content
BC Boards
Donald McCaig

Life is full of corrections

Recommended Posts

I don't know nothin' 'bout trainin' puppies!

 

(maybe it's better sometimes to start there)

 

Tea: You are a kind-hearted gem (and a wonderful writer/blogger).

 

The V8 thing was just my customary cryptic rambling, but FWIW, I was poking a little fun at the psychologist B.F. Skinner's intuitive lab rat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Understanding dogs, how they see the world, what they value, what they want, hope for and fear is the key to all dog training.

 

I absolutely agree 100%.

 

I hold the position very strongly that making a study of the dog and what the dog is in and of himself is an essential element of becoming a skilled trainer. Few things make me cringe more than watching people try to train a dog with no regard for who the dog is.

 

If anything that I said indicated that coming to know and understand those things are not of primary importance, then I have not expressed my point of view on the matter very well.

 

The fact that I do not limit the means of communication that I use with dogs in training to those that dogs would use with one another (and that "dogs do it this way" is not, in my view, a reason that compels me personally to incorporate correction into training) does not mean that I don't take the nature of the dog into account. In fact, the nature of the dog is a primary consideration.

 

I'm glad to have been able to clarify that.

 

Reinforcement based training is far more than a theory. It is an approach that real people use with real dogs to train to real goals. Learning to read the dog is absolutely a key part of that approach. It is as much an art as a science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The fact that I do not limit the means of communication that I use with dogs in training to those that dogs would use with one another (and that "dogs do it this way" is not, in my view, a reason that compels me personally to incorporate correction into training) does not mean that I don't take the nature of the dog into account. In fact, the nature of the dog is a primary consideration.

 

I'm glad to have been able to clarify that.

 

I think this response does skirt around what I feel was a very good point of Mr. McCaig's. And is full of strawmen.

 

First of all, having read this long thread I don't think any non-reinforcement-only trainer here "limits the means of communication that [they] use with dogs in training to those that dogs would use with one another". All have spoken at length about a range of variable methods, many entirely reinforcement-based, that they use in training. So I don't think that point was EVER at debate.

 

Second, taking the nature and personality of the dog into acocunt is something quite different from attempting to speak their native language. Not saying you need to do anything with corrections, but I am not sure why it should be so hard of an argument for you to swallow that many of the rest of us DO feel that our training ease, efficacy, and outcomes are bettered by incorporating some of the dog's language into our interactions with them. I think there are good logical arguments for why this might help many of us. Not Kristine of course. :)

 

ETA, also, since a verbal correction has been described by many here who use them as basically telling the dog no, try again, I would further argue that the use of "no" is NOT only used in dog language. It is one of the most basic and primary components of human to human language. Think if you are trying to communicate to someone you do not share language with at all - no words at all in common. One of the most basic pantomimes and likely the first you would understand from one another would be the pantomimes for both "yes" AND "no" (or hot and cold of your prefer). So I also think it is strange to eschew saying "no" or "cold" to your dog (because I do know your dogs have limits, that's not what I mean by saying "no") under the premise it is dog-dog only communication and present it in the same light as humans stooping to the level of "sniffing butts".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the OP, Thunderhill (I think, so many pages!) was SPOT ON with the questioning of this argument's basic premise, namely that teaching a dog through behavioral modification having anything to do with a child developing normally within their own brains and through interacting with their environment on their own accord. She said it better, but YES, this.

 

Because he posted it with so little additional comment, and because I also feel this is a very good critique of that article's central premise for its argument, I think it would be interesting to see what Mr. McCaig would have to say about this counter-argument.

 

....

 

As an aside, a few years ago I remmeber during one of these threads Eileen questioning Kristine on whether she would ever use something so contrived as clickers with a human baby - I don't think she used the word contrived but I am trying to sum up the basic argument. At the time, I think I was pregnant and thought, like Eileen, wow yes, that idea does just seem weird and like it lacks some respect for the child. Now that I have a pack of drunken unhousetrained tribbles, I mean a toddler, I have thought of this often. :lol: Nothing about the clicker sounds that bad to me to use on a human child anymore, IF it would work, because at this stage not much does beyond distraction and management, which are a lot of work for ME ;) But I have come to realize an essential distinction between kids and dogs, especially border collies: kids are not really very biddable. And some kids are just naturally way less compliant than others. It has made me really appreciate my dog, but as my daughter's verbal skills develop at an astonishing rate, it's also made me appreciate how easy language makes basic communication of even simple but COMPOUND ideas (such as not just: come front, but instead: come front and sit straight the very first time). And want to be better myself at communicating with my dog.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just something as a quick side note:

 

There are ways +R trainers use a dog's natural communication method. Let's get away from correcting a dog as another dog might and look at calming signals: not making direct eye contact, blinking, turning your body sideways, not leaning over the dog, yawning, letting the dog approach you, etc. All of these are ways to help defuse situations and prevent a bite, especially when you're working with a fear aggressor. Knowing these signals, reading the dog, and even implementing them has saved my bacon more than once. These are methods +R trainers use regularly.

 

Now, with a dog that knows how to speak canine, and there are some socially inept ones that don't know, I can apply a very effective correction for over-excitement by stiffening my body, widening my eyes, and tightly pursing my lips. That basically means: back off! and if that doesn't get through, a quick turn in dog's direction and a shout usually does. That is using the dog's natural communication to work for me (I should add, only use with some dogs that know you and aren't "hard" and accept you as the leader, otherwise you're asking for it because there is a strong possibility of the dog reacting back). That's at the other end of the spectrum.

 

Generally, trainers, whether they are conscious of the fact or not, will incorporate some canine body language mimicry into their training. This includes body blocking, turning from the dog, squaring shoulders and stepping in (a form of body blocking, usually seen when teaching stay or wait, sometimes with jumping up), and leaning in among others. There is also body language we use unconsciously that can hinder our training, such as leaning forward on a recall, turning our shoulders toward the dog when in heel (this will cause the dog to lag in most cases) and staring at a dog during a long duration and distance stay (always a fun one to watch at dog shows BTW). Any one of these, especially in the ring, can cause a poor performance.

 

So, whether we want to admit it or not, our body language is pretty paramount in training. Our dogs read off us, and if we know how to use those subtle cues, then we can speak dog in a way they will understand, even if we speak it with an accent.

 

Just because you're a human doesn't mean that your dog isn't interpreting your movements as if you were a handicapped dog. They speak their language first, much the same way we would have to translate a foreign language into our native one (luckily, we have Rosetta Stone to help us with one). To think otherwise, if you'll pardon me, is just arrogant and akin to looking down on another language just because it's different than the one you speak (ie sign language vs spoken).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

As an aside, a few years ago I remmeber during one of these threads Eileen questioning Kristine on whether she would ever use something so contrived as clickers with a human baby - I don't think she used the word contrived but I am trying to sum up the basic argument. At the time, I think I was pregnant and thought, like Eileen, wow yes, that idea does just seem weird and like it lacks some respect for the child. Now that I have a pack of drunken unhousetrained tribbles, I mean a toddler, I have thought of this often. :lol: Nothing about the clicker sounds that bad to me to use on a human child anymore, IF it would work, because at this stage not much does beyond distraction and management, which are a lot of work for ME ;) But I have come to realize an essential distinction between kids and dogs, especially border collies: kids are not really very biddable. And some kids are just naturally way less compliant than others. It has made me really appreciate my dog, but as my daughter's verbal skills develop at an astonishing rate, it's also made me appreciate how easy language makes basic communication of even simple but COMPOUND ideas (such as not just: come front, but instead: come front and sit straight the very first time). And want to be better myself at communicating with my dog.

 

I have to laugh at this because it's so true!

 

Funny enough, I do use the clicker on my nieces and nephews when helping them with their homework. You have to understand that they are ADHD and their minds flight from one fancy to the next, especially late in the evening, so we use the clicker to help keep them on track. What we found was an increase in the amount of homework they were able to complete and subsequently higher grades. I would love to be able to take one of the classes that use this regularly. Biggest difference I noticed is that I could just tell them what I was going to do, I didn't have to load the clicker like I would an animal. I might also add that they are now far more capable of concentrating on a given task because they have trained themselves how to focus their minds.

 

And then they became teenagers. Sigh, back to the drawing board.

 

(BTW, I still get the label of favorite Aunt :D My mom keeps telling me I'm going to be a great mother someday, and I keep telling her I already am, my kids just have four legs and fur)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Second, taking the nature and personality of the dog into acocunt is something quite different from attempting to speak their native language. Not saying you need to do anything with corrections, but I am not sure why it should be so hard of an argument for you to swallow that many of the rest of us DO feel that our training ease, efficacy, and outcomes are bettered by incorporating some of the dog's language into our interactions with them.

 

OK, you misunderstood. I completely understand that some of you consider that a reason to incorporate them. The fact that I do not consider that a compelling reason to incorporate them does not mean that I somehow cannot comprehend that others do.

 

The question at hand, I believe, is: "does the fact that dogs correct one another make correction between dog and human necessary for the dog to learn?" (Meaning learning in general, as a broad term) IOW, is it the case that a dog cannot actually learn something without incorporation of correction (because dogs correct one another)? I would say "no". I wasn't really commenting on "are there people who choose to do so because dogs do?" Obviously, there are.

 

So I also think it is strange to eschew saying "no" or "cold" to your dog (because I do know your dogs have limits, that's not what I mean by saying "no") under the premise it is dog-dog only communication and present it in the same light as humans stooping to the level of "sniffing butts".

 

OK, I'm seeing where some of the confusion is.

 

Of course, "no" is not only dog-dog communication. I did not mean to imply that it is.

 

I do not choose to train with methods and approaches that do not incorporate correction because I see correction as "dog-dog only" communication (I've never even thought such a thing, actually). I use approaches that are made up of elements other than correction (sometimes people - not you - get stuck on "no correction" and forget that there is much, much more that is actually in play) because they make sense to me, they work, I like the results, I like the relationship that they foster between myself and my dog, etc. etc. etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because you're a human doesn't mean that your dog isn't interpreting your movements as if you were a handicapped dog. They speak their language first, much the same way we would have to translate a foreign language into our native one (luckily, we have Rosetta Stone to help us with one). To think otherwise, if you'll pardon me, is just arrogant and akin to looking down on another language just because it's different than the one you speak (ie sign language vs spoken).

 

Of course, they are always watching and interpreting our body language. They probably know more about it than we do! I am astonished over and over by the things that my dogs pick up that I'm only thinking about through body language. As you pointed out, most +R trainers are well aware of that and appreciate it.

 

If you thought I meant to imply otherwise, you are mistaken.

 

As you say, dogs are not interpreting us as handicapped dogs. As dogs, they do read us in the ways that dogs read us. However, they also know full well that we are not dogs, handicapped or otherwise. I would say that one of the most incredible things about dogs is their ability to interface with us, a completely different species, so effortlessly!

 

Where I disagree is in the idea that because of that, we as humans have to try to act like dogs in order to communicate back to them. We do remain two distinct species. Two species bridged by a very unique connection, but still two species. Therefore, I consider it more than appropriate to relate to my dog as a human relating to a dog just as much as my dog is a dog relating to a human.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For grins I have used it on students. Gummi bears are a high value treat! It just got a big tricky when the horses caught on. Then I had to make sure I kept my treats sorted....;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where I disagree is in the idea that because of that, we as humans have to try to act like dogs in order to communicate back to them.

I don't think anyone has advocated literally acting like dogs (well except when you mentioned not wanting to sniff a dog's butt). I think the actual argument has been that we can communicate with dogs in terms that they understand easily because we use the *human version* of a dog's normal communication tools. I certainly wouldn't correct one of my dogs by clamping my teeth over its muzzle, though my own dogs will do that to the pup when she annoys them, but I might say "No!" The same message is being sent, but I am using the human version of that message and not the dog version. Likewise, if I am happy with something my dog is doing, I don't wag my (non)tail in happiness, but instead communicate that happiness in some human way that the dog will understand (maybe just a happy voice).

 

The people who are talking about dog communication are using that as an example of why corrections needn't be anathema in training. In a dog's world, a fair correction is not something that is going to cause permanent emotional damage--if it were then no pup would grow up normal, since part of growing up and interacting with other dogs is being corrected by those other dogs. That's the actual argument that's being made.

 

Many people could actually learn from dogs when it comes to corrections (for those who would choose to use corrections). Aside from dogs that don't know how to interact with other dogs properly, dogs understand that corrections occur at the instant of infraction (usually after fair warning), contain no emotion (or emotional baggage), and are then over with and forgotten. Unfortunately humans often fail at one or more of those things, and that's where I think an argument for not using corrections gains validity.

 

J.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As you say, dogs are not interpreting us as handicapped dogs. As dogs, they do read us in the ways that dogs read us. However, they also know full well that we are not dogs, handicapped or otherwise. I would say that one of the most incredible things about dogs is their ability to interface with us, a completely different species, so effortlessly!

 

Where I disagree is in the idea that because of that, we as humans have to try to act like dogs in order to communicate back to them. We do remain two distinct species. Two species bridged by a very unique connection, but still two species. Therefore, I consider it more than appropriate to relate to my dog as a human relating to a dog just as much as my dog is a dog relating to a human.

 

You truly believe this? I would have to respectfully disagree with your conclusion that dogs are not interpreting our movements as handicapped dogs. For argument's sake, let's take it out of the "human-canine" relationship/communication realm and use another species: cats.

 

What would you say is the biggest reason dogs and cats do not get along unless they have been raised together? Answer: their communication. As two distinctly separate species, their natural language differs dramatically. Certain feline body language and vocalizations (ie purring, direct eye contact/stare when frightened, tail wag when agitated, using their paws to swat, etc.) flies directly in the face of signals that dogs understand. A cat's paw swat to say "go away!" is easily interpreted by a dog to mean "let's play!" and then is made worse when the cat runs because all dogs know that means "chase me!"

 

Fact is that dogs, and cats, filter our body language through the language they know, and, because of that filter, they are essentially seeing us as a handicapped version of their species for the sake of communication. It also creates the need to socialize dogs with other dogs so that they learn canine appropriate manners because we cannot teach them that with us being so handicapped. It is very much like going to another country, or planet, where you don't know the local customs, language and idiosyncrasies and trying to blend in. You can learn some of it, but there will always a barrier in complete understanding.

 

Our domestication of the dog has helped. The dog has developed a remarkable ability to learn and interpret many primate non-verbal communication strategies, but there will always be that barrier in complete communication. Especially if said dog (ie a puppy or a street dog) has had limited experience with human body movements. A dog will correct us as it would another dog (snapping at a child for hugging for example when every dog knows it's rude to put their paws on your back); however, as the higher evolved species (and I question this sometimes), we can recognize that and shift our own body language to somewhat mimic that of the dog to better express our intentions.

 

Of course, there are problems when we make the wrong interpretation re a certain behavior, like the misguided use of the alpha roll, or Cesar's imitation of a bite for everything. There is a real danger there in using the wrong "word" to get your point across.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think anyone has advocated literally acting like dogs (well except when you mentioned not wanting to sniff a dog's butt). I think the actual argument has been that we can communicate with dogs in terms that they understand easily because we use the *human version* of a dog's normal communication tools. I certainly wouldn't correct one of my dogs by clamping my teeth over its muzzle, though my own dogs will do that to the pup when she annoys them, but I might say "No!" The same message is being sent, but I am using the human version of that message and not the dog version. Likewise, if I am happy with something my dog is doing, I don't wag my (non)tail in happiness, but instead communicate that happiness in some human way that the dog will understand (maybe just a happy voice).

 

The people who are talking about dog communication are using that as an example of why corrections needn't be anathema in training. In a dog's world, a fair correction is not something that is going to cause permanent emotional damage--if it were then no pup would grow up normal, since part of growing up and interacting with other dogs is being corrected by those other dogs. That's the actual argument that's being made.

 

Many people could actually learn from dogs when it comes to corrections (for those who would choose to use corrections). Aside from dogs that don't know how to interact with other dogs properly, dogs understand that corrections occur at the instant of infraction (usually after fair warning), contain no emotion (or emotional baggage), and are then over with and forgotten. Unfortunately humans often fail at one or more of those things, and that's where I think an argument for not using corrections gains validity.

 

J.

 

^^ Well said! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think anyone has advocated literally acting like dogs (well except when you mentioned not wanting to sniff a dog's butt). I think the actual argument has been that we can communicate with dogs in terms that they understand easily because we use the *human version* of a dog's normal communication tools. I certainly wouldn't correct one of my dogs by clamping my teeth over its muzzle, though my own dogs will do that to the pup when she annoys them, but I might say "No!" The same message is being sent, but I am using the human version of that message and not the dog version. Likewise, if I am happy with something my dog is doing, I don't wag my (non)tail in happiness, but instead communicate that happiness in some human way that the dog will understand (maybe just a happy voice).

 

The people who are talking about dog communication are using that as an example of why corrections needn't be anathema in training. In a dog's world, a fair correction is not something that is going to cause permanent emotional damage--if it were then no pup would grow up normal, since part of growing up and interacting with other dogs is being corrected by those other dogs. That's the actual argument that's being made.

 

Many people could actually learn from dogs when it comes to corrections (for those who would choose to use corrections). Aside from dogs that don't know how to interact with other dogs properly, dogs understand that corrections occur at the instant of infraction (usually after fair warning), contain no emotion (or emotional baggage), and are then over with and forgotten. Unfortunately humans often fail at one or more of those things, and that's where I think an argument for not using corrections gains validity.

 

J.

 

+1,000,000!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the actual argument has been that we can communicate with dogs in terms that they understand easily because we use the *human version* of a dog's normal communication tools.

 

And my response is that while that is an option, we are not limited to that option. We have other options. Options that go beyond what dogs do between themselves.

 

And it is my preference to use those options for reasons that I've stated elsewhere.

 

That does not meant that I feel there is nothing to be learned from dog-dog communication. Indeed there is. The lessons that I take away from it may well be different from the lessons that you take away from it.

 

There is actually a good deal to be learned from dog-dog communication about reinforcement. That is the information that I personally choose to take away and use. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You truly believe this? I would have to respectfully disagree with your conclusion that dogs are not interpreting our movements as handicapped dogs.

 

Yes, I truly do. I believe that dogs have the intelligence to know the difference between a handicapped dog and a human and that they relate accordingly.

 

We aren't dogs, and our dogs know it.

 

Our domestication of the dog has helped. The dog has developed a remarkable ability to learn and interpret many primate non-verbal communication strategies, but there will always be that barrier in complete communication.

 

Yes, there will always be a barrier. Because we are humans and they are dogs. We aren't exactly the same.

 

And dogs know that as well as we do.

 

They are remarkable in the degree to which they do learn to read us and communicate with us. But there will never be 100% understanding. There is not even 100% understanding between humans, much less between one species and another.

 

At the same time, it is truly amazing how much they come to know of our ways of communication. As a trainer, I tap into that, in addition to studying the dog his or herself. Reinforcement based training is two way communication. If the human is doing all the "talking", it will break down. Often it requires just as much, if not more "listening".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kristine, have you ever tried learning a second language? What I'm talking about is the filtration process. It's a whole different ball game if you're trying to learn a new language versus having been taught it at a young age.

 

It's that cultural filtration process that makes us, humans and dogs alike, attach meaning to signals, signs, and words. It can be overcome, but it exists and is the basis for my handicapped dog analogy.

 

I think Julie said it best with the "human version." Whether you want to admit it or not, Kristine, you do give signals, perhaps even unconsciously, that your dogs are interpreting through their own culture. If you can manage to bring those to the surface and do them consciously so often that they become natural, you just might discover an even deeper relationship with your dogs. It's kinda the basis of Owen's Dog Whispering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And my response is that while that is an option, we are not limited to that option. We have other options. Options that go beyond what dogs do between themselves.

And no one has argued that we are *limited* to communicating only as dog do, but rather that communicating in terms dogs most readily understand isn't necessarily a bad thing. :blink:

 

J.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kristine, have you ever tried learning a second language? What I'm talking about is the filtration process. It's a whole different ball game if you're trying to learn a new language versus having been taught it at a young age.

Ok, this is my "Aha!" moment. In a past thread, Kristine mentioned she preferred puppies that had as little to do with other dogs/puppies as possible, I apologize, a clean slate. Now I know why. I would be willing to bet she does know the difference in learning a new language when you're older and growing up with it and that's why she prefers training puppies. Kristine, if I'm wrong, I'm sure you will correct me. :)

 

Kristine, if you don't mind me asking, how many older dogs have you trained? And/or do your training methods work on older dogs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think anyone has advocated literally acting like dogs (well except when you mentioned not wanting to sniff a dog's butt). I think the actual argument has been that we can communicate with dogs in terms that they understand easily because we use the *human version* of a dog's normal communication tools. I certainly wouldn't correct one of my dogs by clamping my teeth over its muzzle, though my own dogs will do that to the pup when she annoys them, but I might say "No!" The same message is being sent, but I am using the human version of that message and not the dog version. Likewise, if I am happy with something my dog is doing, I don't wag my (non)tail in happiness, but instead communicate that happiness in some human way that the dog will understand (maybe just a happy voice).

 

The people who are talking about dog communication are using that as an example of why corrections needn't be anathema in training. In a dog's world, a fair correction is not something that is going to cause permanent emotional damage--if it were then no pup would grow up normal, since part of growing up and interacting with other dogs is being corrected by those other dogs. That's the actual argument that's being made.

 

Many people could actually learn from dogs when it comes to corrections (for those who would choose to use corrections). Aside from dogs that don't know how to interact with other dogs properly, dogs understand that corrections occur at the instant of infraction (usually after fair warning), contain no emotion (or emotional baggage), and are then over with and forgotten. Unfortunately humans often fail at one or more of those things, and that's where I think an argument for not using corrections gains validity.

 

J.

 

Absolutely, bang on. The only alteration I would make is that not only will a correction not produce permanent emotional damage, but that only a really draconian correction would even produce temporary emotional damage.

 

(And actually, I do sometimes wag my "tail" when delighted with my dog. And this seems to launch her into transports of glee.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know. There are times I am convinced that my dogs think I am stupid. :rolleyes: They try to ask me something (eg: throw the ball) in one way (place ball at my feet), and if I don't get the message they ask it a different way (hold ball in mouth and growl, place ball on lap, shove ball in hand, shove ball into my mouth) until I comply or tell them to do a time out ("go to bed").

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Julie said it best with the "human version." Whether you want to admit it or not, Kristine, you do give signals, perhaps even unconsciously, that your dogs are interpreting through their own culture.

 

Hi KelliePup,

 

When did I say that this does not happen?

 

Of course it does. They are dogs interpreting me - a human - from the perspective of a dog. That does not mean that they are incapable of recognizing that we are not dogs.

 

If you can manage to bring those to the surface and do them consciously so often that they become natural, you just might discover an even deeper relationship with your dogs.

 

I agree. In this there is so much more than correction. The fact that one does not incorporate correction into training is no more a limit to one's ability to deepen one's relationship with his or her dog through discovery of how dogs communicate than it is a limit to one's ability to train. :)

 

I have not found that to be a limitation at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And no one has argued that we are *limited* to communicating only as dog do, but rather that communicating in terms dogs most readily understand isn't necessarily a bad thing. :blink:

 

I would disagree that the mode of communication that dogs most readily understand is, in fact, correction, whether that communication be between dog and dog or dog and human.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would disagree that the mode of communication that dogs most readily understand is, in fact, correction, whether that communication be between dog and dog or dog and human.

WHO said that the mode of communication that dogs most readily understand is a correction???? As much as you like to complain about other people putting words in your mouth, how about doing me the favor of NOT putting any in mine?

 

Since you apparently misunderstood, what I said was that communicating with dogs in a language they understand does not PRECLUDE corrections. How you turned that into "the mode of communication that dogs most readily understand is, in fact, correction" is entirely beyond me. Clearly we like to talk about how well we can communicate with dogs when we can't even manage to communicate with other humans. :rolleyes:

 

J.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kristine, if you don't mind me asking, how many older dogs have you trained? And/or do your training methods work on older dogs?

 

First, they are not "my" methods. I didn't develop them, create them, or perfect them, and I can take no credit for them. They are the methods that I use, they are not "mine". I know that might seem nitpicky, but due credit should be given to those who actually did develop them.

 

Yes, it works with older dogs. Maddie was about 4 when I started training her. Tessa was over 2. Dean was 10 months old, so definitely younger, and Speedy was 7 months old, so younger.

 

As with the language analogy, younger dogs do tend to internalize the meaning of reinforcers and the idea of working in an operant mode much faster, but I haven't had any issue with older dogs learning. Sometimes I need to spend more time on foundation concepts with older dogs, but not to a significant degree. Many of my clients dogs are crossover dogs, to some degree, and they are plenty capable of getting the idea. Remember, within reinforcement based training, there is a myriad of approaches. There are always options to help the dog along if he or she is not getting something.

 

There really isn't anything about it that is a "foreign" concept to the dog. It isn't "unnatural" in the sense of being against their nature. It comes down to the dog learning what is desired and how to be right. Any dog can learn to do that.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...