Jump to content
BC Boards

Training treats considered as detrimental


Recommended Posts

Alligande, I'm reading the book as well, and I think his training was a bit sloppy. I suspect he wouldn't have gone as far in training with many other dogs. Kathy Sdao's DVD "Improve Your I-Cue- Learn the Science of Signals" gives very precise instructions on how to teach dogs to identify items by name. Ken Ramirez (Sheds Aquarium, Chicago), has done something similar with his little terrier mix. He didn't use treats for training this, but only because this little dog was very motivated by retrieving the objects. I haven't been able to find this video online. Kathy Sdao showed the video clip at her "I-Cue" seminar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 359
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Ah. I love this response by Ken Ramirez on clickertraining.com

someone asks: "Is any dog capable of learning different concepts? What needs to be in place before a dog is ready to learn?"

 

Ken responds:

 

"In my opinion, yes, every dog is capable of learning concepts! However, you do have to wait for the right time in a dog's learning. Just as you would not ask a 3-year-old child to learn algebra (a child that age does not have the foundational math skills to learn something so complex), you would not teach young dogs concepts until they have the foundational skills to understand them. If I had to the basic or necessary foundational skills, they would be:

Well-versed at clicker training (understand a marker signal)

 

If you keep training fun, and make each step easy to achieve, then you can build your dog up to concept training.

Possess a solid behavioral repertoire that mixes basic obedience with exercise behaviors

Understand the idea of free shaping

Introduced to creative games that teach thinking and problem-solving

Understand and appreciate non-food reinforcers

Introduced to and able to perform behavior chains

 

Even then, the secrets to the success of any training plan are appropriate approximations and responding to your animal's needs. If you keep training fun, and make each step easy to achieve, then you can build your dog up to concept training"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Doggers,

 

I thank Ms. D'elle for helping me make my point about "religious" dog talk when she writes:

 

"Do you honestly think that jerking a puppy around on a metal choke collar is as kind as training with positive reinforcement and no physical corrections?

I think the puppy would disagree with you."

 

Let me reply from the other synod, "Do you honestly think that chaining a pup on a small cable while badgering it with ill-timed noises, irrelevant commands and too much food so that the dog spends its life frightened and confused until one day its flexilead snaps, it runs into traffic and is killed is as kind as tested, effective methods employing some corrections?

 

Both arguements establish ones membership in a particular church. Dogs are, alas, agnostics.

 

Donald McCaig

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Let me reply from the other synod, "Do you honestly think that chaining a pup on a small cable while badgering it with ill-timed noises, irrelevant commands and too much food so that the dog spends its life frightened and confused until one day its flexilead snaps, it runs into traffic and is killed is as kind as tested, effective methods employing some corrections?

 

 

I'll be blunt.

 

If you really think that is good +R based training, you have absolutely no idea what good +R based training really is.

 

I have never in my entire life done what you describe, and I have never seen it done in the name of +R training. Ever.

 

I know - an objective, results based discussion of the +R vs. corrections is taboo, so I will go no further.

 

But seriously . . . what you describe is such a ridiculous characterization of good +R based training that I had to speak up and say something.

 

Nobody, religious or not, should be expected tolerate absolute misrepresentation. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well said Kristine. It's about as accurate a representation of positive training methods as the You Tube video in another post is of the methods used to teach a dog to work stock.

 

Idiots exist in every field of human activity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well said Kristine. It's about as accurate a representation of positive training methods as the You Tube video in another post is of the methods used to teach a dog to work stock.

 

That is an excellent comparison!!

 

Imagine if someone based his or her understanding of stock work on that representation! That is exactly what happens when the excellent +R trainers are characterized by the inevitable hacks that are out there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Doggers,

Kristine (whose training I've seen) is quite right. This is religious speech and no more connected to reality than "Function follows form" , "Cruel Bill Koehler" or "virgin birth". It is very easy to spot when directed at oneself or one's own training methods but comes easily to the tongue "jerking around on a choke collar" when criticizing others.

 

In think it's worth noting that those who dedicate their lives to dogs really, really care for them and there are idiot/cruel behaviorists, Koehler trainers, clicker trainers and even (sigh) sheepdoggers.

 

Donald

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Food or not in training is a complete red herring of course.

 

There are people who abuse their dogs in the name of training but do use food and there are those who don't use food and are kindness itself, and every shade in between.

 

The real distinction is between methods that are or are not designed to be unpleasant for the dog. It seems simple to grasp to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Doggers,

Kristine (whose training I've seen) is quite right. This is religious speech and no more connected to reality than "Function follows form" , "Cruel Bill Koehler" or "virgin birth". It is very easy to spot when directed at oneself or one's own training methods but comes easily to the tongue "jerking around on a choke collar" when criticizing others.

In think it's worth noting that those who dedicate their lives to dogs really, really care for them and there are idiot/cruel behaviorists, Koehler trainers, clicker trainers and even (sigh) sheepdoggers.

Donald

 

You underestimate the experience the experience of some of us who don't use terms like "jerking around on a choke chain" without being sure of the fact that it is unfortunately still too common. We may even have grown up in that world and have used those methods ourselves. We understand them and how they work.

 

Personal experience is more valid than hearsay and it's a pity more people don't base their opinions on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One could argue that unclear communication is incredibly unpleasent for a dog - especially one that is as sensitive and intuitive as a Border Collie. And I would tend to agree with that. Anyways, I'll go back to clicker training my dog now. We've worked our way from addition through basic algebra since this thread began ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Doggers,

 

I thank Ms. D'elle for helping me make my point about "religious" dog talk when she writes:

 

"Do you honestly think that jerking a puppy around on a metal choke collar is as kind as training with positive reinforcement and no physical corrections?

I think the puppy would disagree with you."

 

Let me reply from the other synod, "Do you honestly think that chaining a pup on a small cable while badgering it with ill-timed noises, irrelevant commands and too much food so that the dog spends its life frightened and confused until one day its flexilead snaps, it runs into traffic and is killed is as kind as tested, effective methods employing some corrections?

 

Both arguements establish ones membership in a particular church. Dogs are, alas, agnostics.

 

Donald McCaig

 

Mr. McCaig, with all due respect......I am not a member of any church, doggish or otherwise.

 

Are you saying that no one ever jerks a puppy on a choke collar?

They do. I have seen it. More often in the past, but there are many still training this way. I could go to a training center right in town and take video of it for you today.

 

I am not a proponent or practitioner of "pure" clicker training.....that is, no aversives whatever in training, not even the word "no". But neither do I believe that causing pain, fear, or discomfort is necessary to train a dog. And since we hold all the power over the animals we are training, I find the use of force, fear, and discomfort or pain to be indefensible as training methods when methods that are kinder exist, are widely available and just as effective. There are probably some dogs, and some situations, which require the use of force to correct a dangerous behavior. But that is not what I am talking about. I am talking about the initial training of a young dog.

 

For you essentially to call me an extremist or religious zealot simply because I favor a less harsh method of training dogs and am not adverse to saying so, indicates to me a regrettable degree of rigid black-and-white thinking on your part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Mr. McCaig, with all due respect......I am not a member of any church, doggish or otherwise.

 

Are you saying that no one ever jerks a puppy on a choke collar?

They do. I have seen it. More often in the past, but there are many still training this way. I could go to a training center right in town and take video of it for you today.

 

I am not a proponent or practitioner of "pure" clicker training.....that is, no aversives whatever in training, not even the word "no". But neither do I believe that causing pain, fear, or discomfort is necessary to train a dog. And since we hold all the power over the animals we are training, I find the use of force, fear, and discomfort or pain to be indefensible as training methods when methods that are kinder exist, are widely available and just as effective. There are probably some dogs, and some situations, which require the use of force to correct a dangerous behavior. But that is not what I am talking about. I am talking about the initial training of a young dog.

 

For you essentially to call me an extremist or religious zealot simply because I favor a less harsh method of training dogs and am not adverse to saying so, indicates to me a regrettable degree of rigid black-and-white thinking on your part.

Religious or not, the principle of

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is a pretty good one to follow to my mind and should apply to animals just as to our fellow human beings.

 

Religion involves a belief in the unproved and unmeasurable which clearly does not apply to dog training which is neither and reference to it is disrespectful to those with a religious belief system. Mr McCaig should not have drawn such a false analogy IMO.

 

It's worth noting that we have no idea of how he actually treats his own dogs. He says he follows Koehler but does that mean he does so to the letter, including the sort of brutal excesses mentioned earlier? I'm not going to be drawn into making that accusation without evidence and I doubt that we will be afforded any.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Religious or not, the principle of

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is a pretty good one to follow to my mind and should apply to animals just as to our fellow human beings.

 

Religion involves a belief in the unproved and unmeasurable which clearly does not apply to dog training which is neither and reference to it is disrespectful to those with a religious belief system. Mr McCaig should not have drawn such a false analogy IMO.

 

It's worth noting that we have no idea of how he actually treats his own dogs. He says he follows Koehler but does that mean he does so to the letter, including the sort of brutal excesses mentioned earlier? I'm not going to be drawn into making that accusation without evidence and I doubt that we will be afforded any.

 

The idea that you should do unto others as you would have them do to you is problematical. It sounds great at first, but what if I like for people to be brutally honest and you like people to pussyfoot around and drop hints instead? It would be pretty stupid for me to be brutally honest with you. It might really hurt your feelings. Not a good way to advance communication with you.

 

What a dog thinks or feels is largely unproved and unmeasurable - except for the most obvious things. A dog winces when it steps on a sticker. You may assume that the dog is feeling pain - I probably would - but it is essentially unproved and unmeasurable. You may also imagine that your dog likes to be constantly petted, rubbed, and nattered too. He wags his tail and licks your hand, so you might think so. But what if he's thinking, "You're an awful sap, and I wish you'd just chill once in a while. But I love you anyway."?

 

I don't recall Mr. Mc Caig saying he was a Koehler trainer. My thought was that he said that most effective dog trainers have been responsible for inclusions in his training tool-box. I would, if I were he, be at least moderately offended by the suggestion that he hangs his dog up with choke-chains or tape their mouths shut with gnawed slippers inside them. But then again, I suppose that falls in the realm of unproved and unmeasurable - at least by me. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've lost the quote facility now like Julie.

 

To geonni banner post 293 -

 

When dealing with people I don't know very well, if at all, I would go for a "safety first" approach and not assume that straight talking is required. Whatever some people may say, very few really appreciate being told like it is. Same as my approach to dog training - if in doubt choose the option that is least likely to have a negative effect.

 

Can you tell what a dog is thinking? Well, yes in general terms. Emotions produce physiological responses and changes can be measured and have been in many studies. For example, raised cortisol levels indicate increased anxiety.

 

To Donald McCaig post 262 -

 

Re topics of conversation amongst dog people. I can assure you that in my dog related world we're more likely to discuss practical topics that you would be familiar with than the nitty gritty of dog training methods and which guru is our current object of worship. We don't need to talk about it as there is tacit agreement between the vast majority that you treat your dogs empathetically and how you go about it is up to you. Anyone known to use a shock or prong collar would be treated like a pariah and even choke chains are rarely seen. We really don't do labels such as this or that method and if anyone were to mention the name Koehler here (very unlikely) the response would likely be "Who?" Mind you, you'd get the same response from many people if you mentioned the names of many influential people on the positive side too.

 

BTW How about deferring to those who have trained for great success in obedience without following Koehler, or retrieving without a shock collar (Ie everybody I know), or even if it comes to it, agility without ever picking up a clicker? Your use of the description "best" is subjective to say the least.

 

It's a wonder that our armed services, police forces, service dog trainers, SAR trainers etc ever manage to train dogs to do anything without a shock collar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a dog thinks or feels is largely unproved and unmeasurable - except for the most obvious things. A dog winces when it steps on a sticker. You may assume that the dog is feeling pain - I probably would - but it is essentially unproved and unmeasurable. You may also imagine that your dog likes to be constantly petted, rubbed, and nattered too. He wags his tail and licks your hand, so you might think so. But what if he's thinking, "You're an awful sap, and I wish you'd just chill once in a while. But I love you anyway."?

 

You know, that is something that I hear quite a lot. The notion that you can't really tell how a dog is responding to anything. That it can't be "proven", so you can't know it.

 

I find this odd. I find it extremely easy to tell when a dog is clearly frightened, uncomfortable, or in pain and when a dog is relaxed, happy, and enjoying the heck out of something. Yes, there are times when it is hard to get a read on a dog. It is not uncommon for people to mistake stress signals that look "happy" on the surface for enjoyment, but with just a little bit of training on stress signals in dogs, that is very easily rectified.

 

No, we can't tell what our dogs are thinking all the time, but I will tell you this - I can tell the difference between a dog who is heartily enjoying a free shaping session and a dog who is frustrated by one. I can tell when a dog who has just gotten a physical or verbal correction is confused (although I do not administer them, I see others doing so on a regular basis) or bothered by it and I can tell when the dog couldn't care less and ignores it completely. I can tell when a dog couldn't care less about the food that the handler is convinced the dog "loves" and when a dog is eager to work for something.

 

Some of this comes from years of careful observation, but a lot of it is just common sense.

 

I am not saying that you are doing this, but I almost always hear the "you can't know what the dog is thinking" argument used to justify the use of compulsion in training (typically of the more extreme kind). Examples: "You can't really know that the dog doesn't like (insert physical mechanism of any corrective device), so it's wonderful to use it" or "you can't really know that the dog likes the food he is practically taking your hand off to get, so there really is no good reason to make use of it". Really? It makes me wonder - how can anyone who lives with dogs day in and day out not know?

 

I'm not the most intelligent person on this planet, but a dog's emotional response to something is usually pretty plain to me. Speedy has a 10 inch incision on his belly right now. When he lays down on top of it, he physically jerks himself back up a bit and resettles on his side. His eyes express clear concern, his whole demeanor is somewhat subdued. He is the most stoic dog I know, but it is pretty darn obvious that when his belly hits the floor it hurts . . . badly!! On the flip side, when Tessa plays her new game where I toss a treat across the floor and then call her and she runs to me and jumps up to grab another treat out of my hand, and then I send another one flying, her eyes are bright, her body language is relaxed, her tail is swishing away, and she radiates joy.

 

Do I know what each one is thinking? Pretty much!

 

I take that knowledge with me when I consider the whole picture as I choose training methods to employ with my dogs. For me the whole picture is not limited to, but most certainly includes, results alone.

 

They are complex creatures and I don't claim to know every detail of the workings of their brains. On the other hand, it's pretty easy to know when they enjoy something, when they are neutral about something, and when something is unpleasant. I don't need it "proven" or "measured" in some way to know it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can tell the difference between a dog who is heartily enjoying a free shaping session and a dog who is frustrated by one.

 

I am not the best free shaper, but this brought back the memory of trying to free shape my cross-over to clicker Sheltie and how painful the session was. I stood there waiting and waiting, thinking “Do something, you little twit!” And she sat there, staring and staring at me, no doubt thinking “Tell me what you want, you big freak!” :lol: We moved on to less free shaping and my sunny little girl was back & eager to play with me. This was very early in my clicker training days. My Lhasa and Border Collie, trained from the beginning with clicker, have always been very free at offering behaviors.

 

If I get another Sheltie puppy, it will be interesting to see how it does with clicker training right from the start. Mine were trained traditionally and I’ve been told that is why they were so glacially slow to offer new behaviors. I think being trained with corrections, no matter how gentle, played into their reservations but I also think their temperaments were of the “Just tell me what to do and I’ll do it” nature. So maybe someday I will have a fuzzy little Sheltie experiment to carry out. :)

 

I totally agree with you about reading dogs. I believe I can usually figure out how much they are enjoying something or whether they find something aversive/painful etc. Of course, we can’t know for sure what they think or feel, but that was the reasoning that caused scientists until recently to state that animals did not think, much less have feelings.

 

I hope Speedy feels better soon! Poor guy. Give him a sympathetic pat from me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Root Beer says,

"I find it extremely easy to tell when a dog is clearly frightened, uncomfortable, or in pain and when a dog is relaxed, happy, and enjoying the heck out of something. Yes, there are times when it is hard to get a read on a dog. It is not uncommon for people to mistake stress signals that look "happy" on the surface for enjoyment, but with just a little bit of training on stress signals in dogs, that is very easily rectified."

 

All true and I agree. But misreading of dogs takes place all the time. For instance, people commonly say, "Look at the guilty expression - he knows he did wrong."

 

Usually the "guilty" look means something else. But then again, there are times when a dog does something it "knows is wrong." Actually, it will sometimes do something it knows you won't like. When caught in the act, it may or may not put on a "guilty" look. But does the dog feel guilty? Probably not, but how would you know for sure?

 

It is often assumed that a dog that acts fearful or flinches away has been beaten. Often the person adds to the assumption that the person holding the dog's leash was the one who did the beating. But this is often wrong on one or both counts. Certainly the fearful dog is feeling something, probably fear or anxiety. But the source of that fear is very likely to be something else entirely. Poor socialization is often at fault, or in a puppy, a fear period.

 

My current dog was such a dog for the first few years of her life. Coming out of a very bad situation, which I do not believe included beatings, she was very suspicious of new people and would often shrink away from them and hide behind me. For the first three years I had her I never took her out without a choke-chain. (Except for safe off-leash areas.) Why? Because she was prone to panic and try to run if she was startled. The dog has a rather narrow head, and to put a flat collar on tight enough to preclude the possibility of her slipping it, it would have to have been very snug. I clipped the leash into the working ring of the choke and the D-ring on her flat collar. With that set-up, she would have to actually slip the flat collar for the choke chain to tighten. However, many people who saw the dog's fearful episodes and the choke chain, leaped to the conclusion that I was an abusive owner. They assumed that I was employing cruel training methods and probably beat her as well. When in fact, I did not even begin to train the dog until she was two years old. (Thank heaven she house-trained herself in a day or two, with regular walks and lots of praise for "performing.") Before that, all I ever did was to try to let the dog learn that she could trust me, and that the world could be a much less scary place than she imagined.

 

Sure, if I were the kind of person that hung a dog with a choke chain for aggressive behavior it would be fairly obvious the the dog didn't like it. It would struggle, look around in terror and maybe even give strangled screams. But I am not that kind of person, and neither are many other people who use a choke-chain properly. It is neither necessary or, I would image, particularly effective. The dog would certainly learn something from the experience. It would learn that you could not be trusted. But an animal in such a clear state of mindless terror would not be thinking about why such a thing was happening, it would almost certainly be thinking of how to escape and breathe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Y'know, there are other types of collars -- martingales -- that, properly adjusted for size, keep a dog from slipping out of them but without going so far as to tighten to the point to cause pain.

 

Just sayin' . . . .

I reiterate...

"I clipped the leash into the working ring of the choke and the D-ring on her flat collar. With that set-up, she would have to actually slip the flat collar for the choke chain to tighten."

 

Fortunately, it never came to that. I was always able to calm her sufficiently to prevent it.

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...