• Hello!

    Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.

    Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....

    Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.

    Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.

Studies on dog behavior!

My dogs mean everything to me, and being I'm not strong enough to manage them physically, I have had to use much daintier approaches in their development.

A situation like yours would be a great situation in which to use an e-collar.
 
A situation like yours would be a great situation in which to use an e-collar.

*gasp* :eek:

Hey, Mike, do you like Dogtra? Because I'm thinking of investing in one... It's gotta be waterproof because my dog has GR in her and swims like a fish.
 
*gasp* :eek:

Hey, Mike, do you like Dogtra? Because I'm thinking of investing in one... It's gotta be waterproof because my dog has GR in her and swims like a fish.

The guy I work for running dogs had/has dogtras. He is using an older version of this model:
http://www.cabelas.com/cabelas/en/t...de=XK&rid=&parentType=index&indexId=cat601233

I really liked it, and especially liked the beeper on it, so when I decided to buy an e-collar I went with Dogtra, becuase I was already familiar with them. When I just had Cajun, I got this model:
http://www.cabelas.com/cabelas/en/t...parentType=index&indexId=cat601233&hasJS=true
No beeper, but it does have a vibrate mode, kinda like a pager or cell phone vibration. You can use it for different things, but I have basically taught Cajun that if his neck is vibrating he needs to get his butt to me and needs to be next to me 30 seconds ago.
Now that I have two dogs, I have upgraded to this set:
http://www.cabelas.com/cabelas/en/t...de=IK&rid=&parentType=index&indexId=cat601233

The two sets of collars that I own are considered low to medium stimulation, and I rarely have the stimulation set higher than half way up. These dogs are "soft" enough that that is plenty for them to get the idea. Oh yeah, you mentioned waterproof, I love that, I would not have got them if they were not waterproof. I did find out that the control for the 200 is only water resistant, not water proof (man that was a fun day).
 
:roflmao:

Thanks for the info, I am now pretty set on Dogtra. The model will just depend on my $$.

That's why I didn't get the model with the beeper, it was another $150 for the two dog set.

Yeah you see, when boats have weight limits, you should follow them, especially if there is a light chop on the bay, oh yeah, and always, always remember the GPS, do not try to "figure it out" in the dark.
 
"...from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."

~Charles Darwin



Hey, have you ever read On the Origin of Species? If not, you should. The data presented for his case for that time is an amazing read. It is rather boring due to language and writing style differences. Be prepared to take a while to get in the grove of it, but it is still worth the read in my eyes.

I haven't read de Lamark's contemporary work, but I do have it on my "must read" work if I can run down a copy of it.
 
Hey, have you ever read On the Origin of Species? If not, you should. The data presented for his case for that time is an amazing read. It is rather boring due to language and writing style differences. Be prepared to take a while to get in the grove of it, but it is still worth the read in my eyes.

I haven't read de Lamark's contemporary work, but I do have it on my "must read" work if I can run down a copy of it.

Only a bit of it, but I plan on checking it out from my college's library when I head back to school to in a week. I think it is amazing what he was able to deduce in that time period.

I'll let you know how I get on with it. The "endless forms most beautiful" has always stuck with me.
 
I must admit I didn't read this whole thread (yikes) But I whole heartedly do not believe in dominance theory...only learning theory ;)
I use alot of negative punishment and postive reinforcement to get the desired behaviors. I feel that corrections are over used by the average person who doesn't understand what they are doing.

I own a e collar and have only used it to create aversion (like they do in rattlesnake avoidance training)

I think that marker training, done absolutely correctly, and the premack principle can get most of the behaviors people are looking for.
 
I consider myself extremely well-versed in learning theory. That said, I also believe 100% that dogs need strong leadership and consistency. And I firmly believe that you can do all the conditioning in the world, but without a foundation of mutual trust and respect, in which the dog sees you as a leader (not a bully, not violent), you will find your conditioning fails when the dog is in a position to make choices.

Then again, I don't buy radical Skinnerian behaviorism; I believe in canine cognition and decision making.

When my conditioning fails, I punish myself. When my dog hears my command, looks back, and decides, "...Naaaah" even after consistent positive reinforcement based conditioning and consistently displaying a knowledge of commands, she gets punished.
 
I consider myself extremely well-versed in learning theory. That said, I also believe 100% that dogs need strong leadership and consistency. And I firmly believe that you can do all the conditioning in the world, but without a foundation of mutual trust and respect, in which the dog sees you as a leader (not a bully, not violent), you will find your conditioning fails when the dog is in a position to make choices.

Then again, I don't buy radical Skinnerian behaviorism; I believe in canine cognition and decision making.

When my conditioning fails, I punish myself. When my dog hears my command, looks back, and decides, "...Naaaah" even after consistent positive reinforcement based conditioning and consistently displaying a knowledge of commands, she gets punished.

I agree :) I find tho, however, that the people willing to put lots of time into PR training tend to have a good bond by the end of it as a byproduct ;)


have you tryed using premack to get the desired behavior when the dog chooses the enviroment over you.. so their will a reduced need for punishment? :)

Personally, I redirect a dog that is "ignoring" the command and then give them a chance to do it correctly. If they fail again, I know that I need to train more in that exact context, with those distractions. :)

I like this thread, you can't hardly have these on Dog forums they get very very ugly quickly.
 
I agree :) I find tho, however, that the people willing to put lots of time into PR training tend to have a good bond by the end of it as a byproduct ;)


have you tryed using premack to get the desired behavior when the dog chooses the enviroment over you.. so their will a reduced need for punishment? :)

Yes.

"Ok, go sniff!" and other premack principles have helped us greatly, but the dog still receives a correction for choosing not to obey. After she complies, she is rewarded with the behavior she was previously interested in.

Personally, I redirect a dog that is "ignoring" the command and then give them a chance to do it correctly. If they fail again, I know that I need to train more in that exact context, with those distractions. :)

I give an "Ah ah!" and a correction follows shortly. If more than one collar correction is needed, I know I'm going too fast, and the dog needs more time in that particular setting. However, what I don't buy, and what is floating around the web these days, "If dog does not obey, dog does not understand, conditioning is not strong enough." I give my dog more credit than that. She's a not a machine you punch conditioning instructions into, she's a creature that comprehends and chooses.

If I didn't believe that, I would never use positive punishment, because I'm quite confident I can condition a dog to do anything with +R and -P. It's the cognitive the mind, the active choice that gets +P - and I use it sparingly, because I think most of the time the dog will obey if you've done your teaching and proofing correctly.

But not all the time...
 
When my conditioning fails, I punish myself. When my dog hears my command, looks back, and decides, "...Naaaah" even after consistent positive reinforcement based conditioning and consistently displaying a knowledge of commands, she gets punished.
You can't follow up "consistent positive reinforcement based conditioning" with punishment, and still call it consistent or proper positive reinforcement conditioning. I think everyone can agree that consistency is required on both ends of the training spectrum, and to successfully train through positive reinforcement you can't punish when they don't obey, then there is no consistent conditioning to eliminate punishment, and offering only praise and reward. Positive reinforcement training would tell you to be consistent, just as the type of training Mike is talking about. You can't condition a dog for good behavior using positive reinforcement, and then follow it up with punishment. Then you're associating the command with punishment, which is not positive reinforcement at all.
If your dog says "...Naaah" it means you haven't set a clear enough expectation, so if you punish the dog when he comes back you are only reinforcing that he has every right to keep his distance.
If people have different approaches to train, and it works with success, than I guess I'll just have to learn to bite my tongue on whether I agree on the techniques. But it seems like some people are saying "well, I tried positive reinforcement, but it works better if I use punishment", and to me that is no way to judge whether it is a successful method or not. Either you follow positive reinforcement consistently, because you will have the same results that Mike has using his methods, or not. But you can't just jump off of the boat when the water gets a little rough, and say that it doesn't work.
 
You can't follow up "consistent positive reinforcement based conditioning" with punishment, and still call it consistent or proper positive reinforcement conditioning. I think everyone can agree that consistency is required on both ends of the training spectrum, and to successfully train through positive reinforcement you can't punish when they don't obey, then there is no consistent conditioning to eliminate punishment, and offering only praise and reward. Positive reinforcement training would tell you to be consistent, just as the type of training Mike is talking about. You can't condition a dog for good behavior using positive reinforcement, and then follow it up with punishment. Then you're associating the command with punishment, which is not positive reinforcement at all.
If your dog says "...Naaah" it means you haven't set a clear enough expectation, so if you punish the dog when he comes back you are only reinforcing that he has every right to keep his distance.
If people have different approaches to train, and it works with success, than I guess I'll just have to learn to bite my tongue on whether I agree on the techniques. But it seems like some people are saying "well, I tried positive reinforcement, but it works better if I use punishment", and to me that is no way to judge whether it is a successful method or not. Either you follow positive reinforcement consistently, because you will have the same results that Mike has using his methods, or not. But you can't just jump off of the boat when the water gets a little rough, and say that it doesn't work.

Good post. And I agree 100%

I stopped using corrections and no reward markers (uhuh's) almost two years ago and i have no issue with non compliance. :)

Iam raising a six month old pup on no corrections. He is extremely operant using a clicker. He knew 10 cued behaviors at 12 weeks old.

I rescue dogs, who often have soft temprament. Even a verbal correction can send them cowering to the floor when I first get them. Corrections are not an option if I want to maintain trust. :)
 
This should say, "a correction follows shortly if she does not comply". Usually, she does. I use the concept of a "secondary punisher" as outlined by Gary Wilkes, an excellent marker trainer.

http://www.clickandtreat.com/Clicker_Training/GG/GG001/GG002/GG003/ff011.htm

I also have a negative punishment marker, a very neutral "nope".



I also started this way. I found it very effective at the time. As a began to train more, and train more dogs. I found the need for it to almost disapear.

May I ask what is the breed in question and the behavior in question?
 
You can't follow up "consistent positive reinforcement based conditioning" with punishment, and still call it consistent or proper positive reinforcement conditioning. I think everyone can agree that consistency is required on both ends of the training spectrum, and to successfully train through positive reinforcement you can't punish when they don't obey, then there is no consistent conditioning to eliminate punishment, and offering only praise and reward. Positive reinforcement training would tell you to be consistent, just as the type of training Mike is talking about. You can't condition a dog for good behavior using positive reinforcement, and then follow it up with punishment. Then you're associating the command with punishment, which is not positive reinforcement at all. If your dog says "...Naaah" it means you haven't set a clear enough expectation, so if you punish the dog when he comes back you are only reinforcing that he has every right to keep his distance. If people have different approaches to train, and it works with success, than I guess I'll just have to learn to bite my tongue on whether I agree on the techniques. But it seems like some people are saying "well, I tried positive reinforcement, but it works better if I use punishment", and to me that is no way to judge whether it is a successful method or not. Either you follow positive reinforcement consistently, because you will have the same results that Mike has using his methods, or not. But you can't just jump off of the boat when the water gets a little rough, and say that it doesn't work.

Your narrow mindedness is tragic.

This is what happens. I get out my clicker. I condition a new behavior until it's satisfactory. I begin training under distraction. This goes on for quite a while. I fade out food to a low rate of variable reinforcement. Etc, etc. Now, let's say this happens. Dogs sits 99% of the time. Great. One day, I say "sit" while the dog is sniffing pee - and I've commanded the dog into a sit from sniffing pee before. The dog's ear twitches, she looks up, then goes back to the pee. Collar correction. Praise and reward upon compliance.

This creates a dog with a good work ethic and a positive attitude about its work, but with a healthy respect for the wishes of its handler. And quite to the contrary, the ability to move fluidly between styles without confusing the dog is the mark of great trainer. The fact that you believe you can’t combine styles and methods is just plain… scary. If you actually understand learning theory, you can combine anything because you know exactly what you’re doing. I run far and fast from trainers who think you have to stick with one training “recipe” – even when it’s not working! That tells me they don’t understand dogs; they’re just following a manual.

If you've read my posts, you'd know I don't buy it. I think it's outdated and ridiculous to state that any time a dog does not comply, it is because the dog does not understand my expectations. I think that's MOST of the time, but not all of time. When my dog does not understand, we go back a step. When she blows me off, she's in trouble. A little trouble, not a lot, but a little. I think it’s flat out derogatory to dogs to act as though they can make the decision that they don’t feel like complying. We are essentially using a psychological model that has been long thrown out as debunked in humans on our dogs. Why? There is increasing evidence of their cognitive abilities…

And please, I'm not dumb enough to call the dog to me and punish it. :rolleyes: Seriously. It's become quite clear you don't even understand how a balanced trainer uses a correction in a motivational-based training program. It's honestly humorous you're trying to tell me that how I train "doesn't work" and that I can't "eliminate punishment".

Number 1: Punishment is self-eliminating, that's the operant definition of
punishment. If it doesn't deter the behavior it's not punishment, it's just bad dog training.

Number 2: I've got off leash obedience with the dog sitting at about 95-97% reliability. Heel, sit, down, long stays, recall, down on recall, sit and down out of motion. So please, tell me training doesn't work. Please tell me again. ...Please? (And yes, I can get you a video of you want. Where? Neighborhood park? Pet store?) I want you to see how my dog works consistently and with a big wagging tail.

I'm gonna be real honest here, Michael, and say that this conversation does not particularly interest me. I have discussed with positive only crowd before, and there is nothing you can say that will be new to me or enlighten me. And you're exposing some glaring gaps in your knowledge, which is making this less than fun.
 
I rescue dogs, who often have soft temprament. Even a verbal correction can send them cowering to the floor when I first get them. Corrections are not an option if I want to maintain trust. :)

Now I have to ask... what does this have to do with the general dog population at large? Nothing. If I had dogs that soft, I wouldn't need or utilize any form of correction either.

Now, I'm going to say, "I work with man aggressive dogs, most of them are rejects from personal protection/police K9 programs because they display severe handler aggression. If you do not show these dogs you mean business from day one, and if you do not get after them physically, they will eat you and your babies. They have extremely hard and aggressive temperaments due to their breeding."

And then I extrapolate that to, "Therefore, the general dog population must need to use physical punishment to prevent aggression in dogs."

I have heard people tell me, time and time again, that corrections aren't needed because "I work with dogs soooooooooo soft that their heads explode when you look at them funny." The problem is, dealing with one extreme of canine temperaments does not apply to the general population, and certainly not for training average house pets.
 
Emily, a little word of advice... It's hard to listen to any point you are trying to make, especially a long one, when you start it off with "Your narrow mindedness is tragic.". Seriously, most of your post was filled with unnecessary sarcasm and ridicule, and it makes anything you are trying to say sound extreme, and unpleasant to read.
You can use as many four syllable words you want, and describe every ear twitch and drop of dew on the grass, and I still can't appreciate what you're saying because it's marred with your underlying arrogance and criticism.
 
Back
Top