IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

4 Pages V « < 2 3 4  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Dogs Behaving Badly. Ch 4 Saturday
woofgang
post 20th Mar 2017, 9:57 am
Post #46


Member
Group Icon

Group: Sponsor Member
Posts: 9620
Joined: 31 Jan 11
Member No.: 51601



QUOTE(nikirushka @ 20th Mar 2017, 7:33 am) *

In that context, it's refinement of the behaviour - increasing the criteria. So if you're training a retrieve, you might initially reward all interactions with the object to be retrieved in order to build interest and get the dog going in the right direction, but then you would begin to refine your criteria (e.g. only rewarding touching the object with nose/mouth rather than feet as well). So some rewards would then be withheld to progress the current behaviour towards the target behaviour.

Personally I do a variation of that by praising for a low-value recall (e.g. short distance, no distractions, everyday 'let's move on' type recall) but I reward with great treats and excitement for a high-value recall (other dogs approaching, cat etc). I find that the delivery of the treats is often more effective for improving a recall than the treats themselves, though - a bit of both, sure, but I've had clients' dogs recalling to me for bits of frolic who wouldn't recall to them for a pot of sardines!


I get the song and dance from the owner smile.gif its a part of adding fun, and therefore value, for the dog to the recall.

I get shaping smile.gif Its another aspect of breaking down a complicated behaviour into smaller steps.

The bit I don’t get is the grades of the food reward. It assumes that the dog understands that a slow recall gets a less valuable reward..isn’t it more likely that, if the dog understands at all, giving a lower value reward for a slow recall is likely to make the dog less likely to recall with enthusiasm because whatever distracted it (made it “choose” to recall slowly) is of higher value to it than the reward offered by the owner?
User is online!Profile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Kanie
post 20th Mar 2017, 11:17 am
Post #47


Member
****

Group: Member
Posts: 1189
Joined: 12 Jul 05
Member No.: 15191



smile.gif Annieskel - I wish you'd been my riding instructor! I still get flashbacks to being bawled at..."Ride the horse into your hands!"

"I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you mean"

"Ride the horse...into your hands!"

"I'm sorry, I still don't really understand..."

Ride the horse into your hands!"

"No, I don't know what you mean by riding into my hands. Please will you explain?"

RIDE THE HORSE INTO YOUR HANDS! It's THAT simple!!!!

lol.gif lol.gif lol.gif After that lesson, I decided to 'keep the money in my bank account'


For me though, going back to Dogs Behaving Badly, the above is also an example of how many instructors (canine and equine) are so fluent in the jargon of their chosen method of training or handling and excellent at reading their animals and excelling at timing, use of body language and tone of voice (I see all these things as vital whatever method of training the employ, or how they describe themselves) but fundamentally rubbish at communicating with people, or understanding how some people can appear so blind to their dog's behaviour and responses.

Something VS pointed out in her article was that there's never been a time when there is such a high interest in animal behaviour and how to find more ways of communicating with dogs and seeking out ethical solutions to dealing with unwanted (by the human) behaviour. She's right, but she fails to address the fact that there's also never been a wider gulf between those with a real passion for dog behaviour and training and Mr. or Mrs. Average Dog Owner and their expectations.

Mrs. Average Dog Owner might well have bought her Cockapoo from an internet site, because it's convenient, quick and if you knew no better, very plausible. Let's say, the ad said, "Our super girl has had 7 amazing puppies, some rare colours, all have inherited their parents' lovely temperaments and will make wonderful family pets!" Many of us would think "too much hyperbole, not enough substance and probably a puppy farmer or opportunist pet owner out to cash in on a trend and make a quick buck". Clearly, the average person looking for pet doesn't think this - because they keep on buying dogs this way!

There are folk (many here, I'm sure) who wouldn't just give away their last Rolo for their dog's welfare, they would give everything! They explore every avenue, read everything they can and run their lives around their dogs. I'm not knocking this one bit - but it's poles apart from our Mrs. Average Dog Owner, who was sold her puppy without many questions and did her best to housetrain, soclialise, exercise and groom a puppy and then an adolescent while working full time, looking after the children and making ends meet ( smile.gif so it's Bakers Complete then!)

When problems arise, they aren't going to even get recognised at first, until they grow into really serious things and then, when she looks for help, will she be drawn to Mr. Quick Fix, with his friendly-yet-authoritative manner and plain English, or will she drive herself demented trying to decipher all the discussions about what 'positive' actually means and then commit to paying someone who offers a long-term solution involving 10 times as many appointments and the promise of only small steps? Oh and she'd also be asked to confront the fact she made an unwise choice of pet and has been feeding him substandard food too!

smile.gif I can see the appeal of Mr. Dogs Behaving Badly. I don't condone his training methods, but I can see why he's popular and a lot more palatable than taking an hollistic and long-term approach to the problem. The modern world of dog training has tied itself up in so many knots and seems to positively relish getting lost in moral maze after moral maze. It's also starting to strike me as very 'Liberal Elite' with the assumption that all dogs should be treated as emotionally fragile little frustrated geniuses, when if we're honest, there are thousands of dogs out there who fared perfectly well and remained happy and mentally robust using methods that we're supposed to wring our hands over and cry 'foul!' It's sad when people have to explain why they feel the need to apply some common sense or practicality to a situation and actually, physically, move a dog away from danger or temptation!

Surely, we don't need lengthy debates (to which I'm contributing lol.gif ) about what 'positive' means, wen what we should be doing is working out why this chap is perceived by researchers and programme-makers as being the go-to man and figure out how we can change................not change our methods - but they way we communicate them and how we can get the message over to people that choosing a dog as a pet isn't a 'right' it's a commitment and there are plenty of opportunities like volunteering with the Cinamon Trust of local RSPCA branch that are much better choices than buying a pet at the click of a mouse - just because you can!

This post has been edited by Kanie: 20th Mar 2017, 11:22 am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
woofgang
post 20th Mar 2017, 11:49 am
Post #48


Member
Group Icon

Group: Sponsor Member
Posts: 9620
Joined: 31 Jan 11
Member No.: 51601



The solutions that such people provide are popular IMO because of the way they are portrayed on TV....quick, easy, 100% successful and resulting in a happier dog. NONE of which is true.

and in your post, first you say “I can see why he’s popular” Then you say

"Surely, we don't need lengthy debates (to which I'm contributing lol.gif ) about what 'positive' means, wen what we should be doing is working out why this chap is perceived by researchers and programme-makers as being the go-to man”


which has certainly confused me err.gif lol.gif
User is online!Profile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dalsmum
post 20th Mar 2017, 12:32 pm
Post #49


Member
****

Group: Member
Posts: 12076
Joined: 17 Oct 04
From: far north of Scotland
Member No.: 10491



QUOTE(Annieskel @ 20th Mar 2017, 7:52 am) *



Yes, I agree but as dogs think for themselves what would you do if they didn't to what you told them to do?

Dogs don't know what to do at first, we have to teach them what the words mean and try to set them up to do what we want but even then it takes time and patience for them to work out what the word means.




You taught them what the word means by physically placing where you wanted them.

E.G for a sit you say sit, put the dog in a sit by pushing its bum down and then praising it.

Sam for down you would say down, put the dog in a down position and praise.

For a recall you would have the dog on a long line, say come, pull the dog to you and praise,

For retrieve you gave your command- it was a command rather than a cue- put the article in its mouth, held it there and praised the dog then took the article out again.

These would be repeated until the dog reacted to the cue of his own accord.

All very different from what we do today.







User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dalsmum
post 20th Mar 2017, 1:00 pm
Post #50


Member
****

Group: Member
Posts: 12076
Joined: 17 Oct 04
From: far north of Scotland
Member No.: 10491



QUOTE(woofgang @ 20th Mar 2017, 9:57 am) *


I get the song and dance from the owner smile.gif its a part of adding fun, and therefore value, for the dog to the recall.

I get shaping smile.gif Its another aspect of breaking down a complicated behaviour into smaller steps.

The bit I don't get is the grades of the food reward. It assumes that the dog understands that a slow recall gets a less valuable reward..isn't it more likely that, if the dog understands at all, giving a lower value reward for a slow recall is likely to make the dog less likely to recall with enthusiasm because whatever distracted it (made it "choose" to recall slowly) is of higher value to it than the reward offered by the owner?


When i trained clicker training with Kay Laurence- one of the best clicker trainers- she advocated giving a jackpot reward of several pieces fed separately rather in one go.was more effective than one higher value treat.

Then we did an experiment with two different articles e.g. a jar and and a tin or such, horizontally with a gap between them. We sat in a chair with two dishes with rewards in- one high value and one low value.

the dog was rewarded with a click and a high value treat for touching one particular article and rewarded with a click and a low value reward for touching the other one.. No cues were given.

We recorded how many times he touched each object and if he started touching the high value reward more often.

Then we switched the position of the articles to ensure the dog was recognising the article and not just the position of it to get the high value reward.

I did this with my dalmatian. After about 10 goes he was consistently touching a jar for the high value reward.

I switched the articles and to begin with he went to the first position and got the low value reward, After a few goes he went to the jar and got a high value reward.

But the interesting thing , which Kay did not expect, was that after a few times if he touched the tin , which was low value, and I clicked , as he turned to come for a reward he saw me reach to the box with the low value treats and he turned and went to the jar and touched it.

He was not interested in coming for the low reward.

He was the only dog in the group to do that.





User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
mokee
post 20th Mar 2017, 2:01 pm
Post #51


Member
Group Icon

Group: Sponsor Member
Posts: 3035
Joined: 24 Jan 08
From: The North East part of Lincolnshire
Member No.: 36406



Dalsmum, that's absolutely fascinating, I'm going to have to try that with my lot, really interested in seeing what they do.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
woofgang
post 20th Mar 2017, 2:31 pm
Post #52


Member
Group Icon

Group: Sponsor Member
Posts: 9620
Joined: 31 Jan 11
Member No.: 51601



clever dog! I wonder what would have happened if you had then only offered low valued treats? Would he have declined to play?
User is online!Profile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
nikirushka
post 20th Mar 2017, 5:09 pm
Post #53


Member
Group Icon

Group: Sponsor Member
Posts: 17588
Joined: 6 Dec 06
From: Scunthorpe, Lincs
Member No.: 25819



QUOTE(woofgang @ 20th Mar 2017, 10:57 am) *

The bit I don’t get is the grades of the food reward. It assumes that the dog understands that a slow recall gets a less valuable reward..isn’t it more likely that, if the dog understands at all, giving a lower value reward for a slow recall is likely to make the dog less likely to recall with enthusiasm because whatever distracted it (made it “choose” to recall slowly) is of higher value to it than the reward offered by the owner?


That' the assumption, yes - and some dogs certainly will work that out. But more I think would respond the way you describe, which is why I reward more/better for distraction level rather than speed smile.gif

I also do and recommend what Kay Laurence suggested, with jackpots of a number of smaller pieces, one after the other, for better recalls, rather than switching treats. I do vary my rewards but that is just over time rather than in response to any specific behaviour.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
woofgang
post 20th Mar 2017, 6:53 pm
Post #54


Member
Group Icon

Group: Sponsor Member
Posts: 9620
Joined: 31 Jan 11
Member No.: 51601



QUOTE(nikirushka @ 20th Mar 2017, 5:09 pm) *

That' the assumption, yes - and some dogs certainly will work that out. But more I think would respond the way you describe, which is why I reward more/better for distraction level rather than speed smile.gif

I also do and recommend what Kay Laurence suggested, with jackpots of a number of smaller pieces, one after the other, for better recalls, rather than switching treats. I do vary my rewards but that is just over time rather than in response to any specific behaviour.


yes I do this too....also I will give a treat and as they turn away I will go YAY!! there’s more!!!
User is online!Profile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Annieskel
post 20th Mar 2017, 9:12 pm
Post #55


Member
Group Icon

Group: Sponsor Member
Posts: 3595
Joined: 4 May 09
Member No.: 44743



QUOTE(Kanie @ 20th Mar 2017, 11:17 am) *


Annieskel - I wish you'd been my riding instructor! I still get flashbacks to being bawled at..."Ride the horse into your hands!"

"I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you mean"

"Ride the horse...into your hands!"

"I'm sorry, I still don't really understand..."

Ride the horse into your hands!"

"No, I don't know what you mean by riding into my hands. Please will you explain?"

RIDE THE HORSE INTO YOUR HANDS! It's THAT simple!!!!

After that lesson, I decided to 'keep the money in my bank account'


We had a new instructor who kept saying “inside leg to outside hand” we asked what she meant and told us that is what she was told and couldn’t explain it. We were riding on a circle at the time. We eventually worked it out that the inside leg was to keep the horse going forward and the outside hand was to control the speed the horse went.

It is similar to what you were being told, “ride the horse into your hands”. You use your legs and seat to keep the horse going forward and use your hands to control the speed, if you wanted to walk you walked, if you wanted to trot you trotted.

QUOTE
For me though, going back to Dogs Behaving Badly, the above is also an example of how many instructors (canine and equine) are so fluent in the jargon of their chosen method of training or handling and excellent at reading their animals and excelling at timing, use of body language and tone of voice (I see all these things as vital whatever method of training the employ, or how they describe themselves) but fundamentally rubbish at communicating with people, or understanding how some people can appear so blind to their dog's behaviour and responses.


I hate all the jargon, it is so easy for owners to misunderstand what the trainer is saying and it goes over most owner’s heads, they are then expected to come back the following week with a dog that is showing signs that his owner has been training him. As many owners get it wrong the trainer thinks they are not trying and give up on them. Yes I have seen this happen.

QUOTE
Something VS pointed out in her article was that there's never been a time when there is such a high interest in animal behaviour and how to find more ways of communicating with dogs and seeking out ethical solutions to dealing with unwanted (by the human) behaviour. She's right, but she fails to address the fact that there's also never been a wider gulf between those with a real passion for dog behaviour and training and Mr. or Mrs. Average Dog Owner and their expectations.


When talking to people with dogs I have found that when things are explained to them in a language they can understand they get more interested in dog training and behaviour and want to learn more. Many have gone to 1 training class and gave up because they didn’t understand what they were being told and the trainer didn’t explain or took their dog off them and demonstrated that there was nothing wrong with the dog, the owner couldn’t do it.

QUOTE
I can see the appeal of Mr. Dogs Behaving Badly. I don't condone his training methods, but I can see why he's popular and a lot more palatable than taking an hollistic and long-term approach to the problem.


I thought the programs that showed celebrities training dogs demonstrated what it takes to train a dog much better than shows like Dogs Behaving Badly.

QUOTE
Surely, we don't need lengthy debates (to which I'm contributing ) about what 'positive' means, wen what we should be doing is working out why this chap is perceived by researchers and programme-makers as being the go-to man and figure out how we can change................not change our methods - but they way we communicate them and how we can get the message over to people that choosing a dog as a pet isn't a 'right' it's a commitment and there are plenty of opportunities like volunteering with the Cinamon Trust of local RSPCA branch that are much better choices than buying a pet at the click of a mouse - just because you can!


Having lengthy debates about training no matter how small the subject seems to be is very informative for everyone, we all learn from how others do things and one day this may come back to us when we are puzzled by a dog and the way he is reacting. Debates are good as long as they don’t turn into arguments.

Television programs is all about how many people will watch the program and has nothing to do with good or bad training. Look how many followers CM has because he seems to have quick results. Most of the filming ends up on the cutting room floor and we don’t see a lot of what he does but we do see the dog’s reaction to him which isn’t good. He is still being shown on some TV companies.

Many people get a dog on a whim then get fed up with it, many people have children on a whim as well and get tired of them so what chance does a dog have? Many people on the ‘children at risk register’ are also on the ‘dog at risk register’ that says it all.


--------------------
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Annieskel
post 20th Mar 2017, 9:23 pm
Post #56


Member
Group Icon

Group: Sponsor Member
Posts: 3595
Joined: 4 May 09
Member No.: 44743



QUOTE(Dalsmum @ 20th Mar 2017, 12:32 pm) *

You taught them what the word means by physically placing where you wanted them.

E.G for a sit you say sit, put the dog in a sit by pushing its bum down and then praising it.

Sam for down you would say down, put the dog in a down position and praise.

For a recall you would have the dog on a long line, say come, pull the dog to you and praise,

For retrieve you gave your command- it was a command rather than a cue- put the article in its mouth, held it there and praised the dog then took the article out again.

These would be repeated until the dog reacted to the cue of his own accord.

All very different from what we do today.



I think I may have misunderstood, nothing unusual in that lol.gif

Jamie has long legs and sits in a strange way, his front legs stick out in front, I didn't attempt to teach him to sit but one day I told all my other dogs to sit, he looked at them and sat, he now sits on command. lol.gif

He can't lie down from a normal sit, don't ask how he gets down, it seems to be different every time so never taught him that. lol.gif

I do use a long line to teach recall but don't let my dog get to the end of the long line, I call them back before that. They don't get the full length at first and gradually as they keep coming back to me I gradually let more of the lead out and let them go further away. Once they are good enough I drop the end of the lead and let it drag. I them play lots of games with them especially hide and seek, they love trying to find me in the bushes.

Dogs teach us so much especially how to think outside the box. lol.gif


--------------------
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
woofgang
post 20th Mar 2017, 10:15 pm
Post #57


Member
Group Icon

Group: Sponsor Member
Posts: 9620
Joined: 31 Jan 11
Member No.: 51601



QUOTE(Annieskel @ 20th Mar 2017, 9:12 pm) *

We had a new instructor who kept saying “inside leg to outside hand” we asked what she meant and told us that is what she was told and couldn’t explain it. We were riding on a circle at the time. We eventually worked it out that the inside leg was to keep the horse going forward and the outside hand was to control the speed the horse went.

It is similar to what you were being told, “ride the horse into your hands”. You use your legs and seat to keep the horse going forward and use your hands to control the speed, if you wanted to walk you walked, if you wanted to trot you trotted.
I hate all the jargon, it is so easy for owners to misunderstand what the trainer is saying and it goes over most owner’s heads, they are then expected to come back the following week with a dog that is showing signs that his owner has been training him. As many owners get it wrong the trainer thinks they are not trying and give up on them. Yes I have seen this happen.
When talking to people with dogs I have found that when things are explained to them in a language they can understand they get more interested in dog training and behaviour and want to learn more. Many have gone to 1 training class and gave up because they didn’t understand what they were being told and the trainer didn’t explain or took their dog off them and demonstrated that there was nothing wrong with the dog, the owner couldn’t do it.



I thought the programs that showed celebrities training dogs demonstrated what it takes to train a dog much better than shows like Dogs Behaving Badly.
Having lengthy debates about training no matter how small the subject seems to be is very informative for everyone, we all learn from how others do things and one day this may come back to us when we are puzzled by a dog and the way he is reacting. Debates are good as long as they don’t turn into arguments.

Television programs is all about how many people will watch the program and has nothing to do with good or bad training. Look how many followers CM has because he seems to have quick results. Most of the filming ends up on the cutting room floor and we don’t see a lot of what he does but we do see the dog’s reaction to him which isn’t good. He is still being shown on some TV companies.

Many people get a dog on a whim then get fed up with it, many people have children on a whim as well and get tired of them so what chance does a dog have? Many people on the ‘children at risk register’ are also on the ‘dog at risk register’ that says it all.

There is also the point with CM that the programs are faked. Often the “before” footage was filmed after the dog had been “trained” by CM....I have just been and looked for the piece but i can’t find it, it was written by one of the show team.
User is online!Profile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dalsmum
post 21st Mar 2017, 9:37 am
Post #58


Member
****

Group: Member
Posts: 12076
Joined: 17 Oct 04
From: far north of Scotland
Member No.: 10491



QUOTE(woofgang @ 20th Mar 2017, 2:31 pm) *
clever dog! I wonder what would have happened if you had then only offered low valued treats? Would he have declined to play?


He was a clever dog, as all dalmatians are. They are just good at using their cleverness to their own advantage- act stupid and your owner will give up asking you to do it.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Kanie
post 21st Mar 2017, 3:41 pm
Post #59


Member
****

Group: Member
Posts: 1189
Joined: 12 Jul 05
Member No.: 15191



smile.gif Finally eked out some time to reply to Woofgang and Annieskell!


I totally agree with the reasons WG puts forward for the Dogs Behaving Badly approach being successful, but I think it's more than that, especially as it's quite easy for anyone doing even a modicum of research to find evidence that his methods are not considered ethical in many circles and do not guarantee success.

What I meant by saying we 'shouldn't' be debating the meaning of 'positive' isn't that we shouldn't have conversations about training methods and share experiences: I meant that if we're to figure out why Dogs Behaving Badly was the programme the TV company chose to make, we need to focus on just that - not go off on a tangent.

This is for 2 reasons. Firstly, we know the DP 'regulars' and we know that we're a pretty laid back bunch who are also advocates of training without compulsion and informed enough to wade through lengthy posts and interested enough to ask politely for clarification if we don't really get what someone else is saying. To someone just happening across this thread, it sort of gives the impression that we're so busy discussing semantics that we don't really give a hoot about the owners of dogs who are frazzled and desperate for a solution.

Secondly, we've established (it wasn't too tricky) that DBB, Cesar Milan etc., are seen as quick and effective solutions (even if we know they're not) but for me, it also makes me think about how compulsion-free training is presented in general. Looking at my experiences over the years with dog trainers, the ones who advocate reward-based and allowing the dog to choose a particular behaviour are not necessarily the ones whose classes I have enjoyed or learned from. There - I've said it lol.gif

I liked the theory behind the approach but many times, in practice, I've found the trainers can be rather 'preachy' and very defensive if their methods are questioned. I recall one very interesting evening when a Phd student was giving a talk on dog behaviour to a room of very experienced handlers and insisted us humans did an exercise with clickers. We had a nominated 'dog' who was given a task but not told what it was and he had to figure it out based on clicks. he then had another task and had to figure it out based on a firm 'No!' when was getting it wrong. He took a long time to get the task completed with the clicker and we all became very frustrated and bored. With the marker for the negative, he got it in about 1 minute and confirmed he felt much happier being just told when he was getting it wrong, because he still got the praise at the end and it was far less frustrating than stumbling about blindly for a clue.

smile.gif The lady giving the talk was mad and asked him why he found the 'no' mark easier. She actually tried to tell him he didn't feel that way at all!

smile.gif I'm not using that as an example to prove that clicker training is not as effective as marking unwanted behaviour, because I think 99% of the time with 99% of dogs it is - I'm using it to show how so many people who have embraced the 'positive' ethos are totally at a loss when it comes to either defending it against criticism or problem-solving when things are going wrong. The 'game' of using a human as s dog was sooo patronising and proved nothing, except that the 'dog' we'd nominated was a very confident and resilient person with enough confidence and trust in his 'handler' to know that taking heed of the 'no' markers would lead to a big, fat reward at the end.

There seems to be a culture now of encouraging the dog to think for himself, but not the handler and I've recently seen a lot of formerly confident and competent handler reluctant to do or say anything in case it is condemned as 'not correct'

smile.gif I absolutely believe that there are many ethical trainers who are warm, non-defensive about their methods and able to adapt their style of teaching to the handler and the dog, but that's seldom the face of ethical handling we see on the internet and it's a shame.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Annieskel
post 21st Mar 2017, 8:11 pm
Post #60


Member
Group Icon

Group: Sponsor Member
Posts: 3595
Joined: 4 May 09
Member No.: 44743



QUOTE(Kanie @ 21st Mar 2017, 3:41 pm)
smile.gif Finally eked out some time to reply to Woofgang and Annieskell!

I totally agree with the reasons WG puts forward for the Dogs Behaving Badly approach being successful, but I think it's more than that, especially as it's quite easy for anyone doing even a modicum of research to find evidence that his methods are not considered ethical in many circles and do not guarantee success.


That is fine if someone can get onto the internet, many still can’t so they can’t research, many don’t know how to do research, I keep coming up against this all the time and at one time I was the same. No matter what I tried to search very little if anything came up, it depends on how we ask.

QUOTE
What I meant by saying we 'shouldn't' be debating the meaning of 'positive' isn't that we shouldn't have conversations about training methods and share experiences: I meant that if we're to figure out why Dogs Behaving Badly was the programme the TV company chose to make, we need to focus on just that - not go off on a tangent.


Why shouldn’t we give examples of what worked for us? I have been trying to find where it says we should only talk about why Dogs Behaving Badly and focus only on that.

QUOTE
This is for 2 reasons. Firstly, we know the DP 'regulars' and we know that we're a pretty laid back bunch who are also advocates of training without compulsion and informed e, nough to wade through lengthy posts and interested enough to ask politely for clarification if we don't really get what someone else is saying. To someone just happening across this thread, it sort of gives the impression that we're so busy discussing semantics that we don't really give a hoot about the owners of dogs who are frazzled and desperate for a solution.


Just checked back, the first 1.5 pages were very short posts which only talked about the program, I am confused but that is not difficult to do. biggrin.gif

QUOTE
Secondly, we've established (it wasn't too tricky) that DBB, Cesar Milan etc., are seen as quick and effective solutions (even if we know they're not) but for me, it also makes me think about how compulsion-free training is presented in general. Looking at my experiences over the years with dog trainers, the ones who advocate reward-based and allowing the dog to choose a particular behaviour are not necessarily the ones whose classes I have enjoyed or learned from. There - I've said it lol.gif

I liked the theory behind the approach but many times, in practice, I've found the trainers can be rather 'preachy' and very defensive if their methods are questioned. I recall one very interesting evening when a Phd student was giving a talk on dog behaviour to a room of very experienced handlers and insisted us humans did an exercise with clickers. We had a nominated 'dog' who was given a task but not told what it was and he had to figure it out based on clicks. he then had another task and had to figure it out based on a firm 'No!' when was getting it wrong. He took a long time to get the task completed with the clicker and we all became very frustrated and bored. With the marker for the negative, he got it in about 1 minute and confirmed he felt much happier being just told when he was getting it wrong, because he still got the praise at the end and it was far less frustrating than stumbling about blindly for a clue.

smile.gif The lady giving the talk was mad and asked him why he found the 'no' mark easier. She actually tried to tell him he didn't feel that way at all!

smile.gif I'm not using that as an example to prove that clicker training is not as effective as marking unwanted behaviour, because I think 99% of the time with 99% of dogs it is - I'm using it to show how so many people who have embraced the 'positive' ethos are totally at a loss when it comes to either defending it against criticism or problem-solving when things are going wrong. The 'game' of using a human as s dog was sooo patronising and proved nothing, except that the 'dog' we'd nominated was a very confident and resilient person with enough confidence and trust in his 'handler' to know that taking heed of the 'no' markers would lead to a big, fat reward at the end.


We need to teach a dog to live in our society, you can’t do that by letting a dog chose what they learn, yes in some things you may be able to let them do what they want on command, one of my dogs loves to jump, by putting it on a cue, he is happy to please me which strengthened our bond but he also had to learn to sit and down, command and recall, this is a safety issue when we are out exercising. He doesn’t offer to learn that so had to be taught it.

QUOTE
There seems to be a culture now of encouraging the dog to think for himself, but not the handler and I've recently seen a lot of formerly confident and competent handler reluctant to do or say anything in case it is condemned as 'not correct'


Like everything else there are fashions in dog training, I have seen many come and go over the years, every one of them had people who had to do everything by the book, they never thought that dogs don’t read the books then wondered why the method didn’t work. It wasn’t the method that was at fault but how people interpretated it. Yes there are some things that we need to teach our dogs for various reasons but training should also be fun for both the owner and the dog, it leads to much greater understanding of each other and strengthens the bond.

QUOTE
smile.gif I absolutely believe that there are many ethical trainers who are warm, non-defensive about their methods and able to adapt their style of teaching to the handler and the dog, but that's seldom the face of ethical handling we see on the internet and it's a shame.


The problem with giving advice on training on the internet means that we have to be very clear what we write, it is very easy for someone to misunderstand what is being said. With TV programs there is no indication how long it takes to teach a dog something, all we see is the start and the end, we see nothing about how the dog was trained. This leads to owners thinking that it is quick and easy to teach a dog and when the dog doesn’t learn it quickly the owner gets frustrated.


--------------------
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

4 Pages V « < 2 3 4
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 23rd March 2017 - 10:17 pm