I agree with that. The lure should only be used as a way to teach the behaviour until the 'label'/command has been learned, when the dog knows what this is you then reward the behaviour, you then phase out the reward only to be given sporadically if at all. (and 'off' 'bed' 'stay' are all there...then you dont have them doing the same...)

In my experience most owners who pitch up to class have the intention to do right by their dogs .. wether they have the capability, patience or time is another matter but their intentions are well meaning and we start from there ... obviously there are some owners who are resistant to everything you offer them but that's life, most do the best they can, some do well, others less so but my responsibility is to help them achieve a degree of competance that means their dogs are happy, under control and no danger to anyone or thing - tall order sometimes

Sadie and Benjie were taught with rewards. But if they did something wrong they had a voice raised to them.

Louie has been taught with a clicker and sometimes when I forget the clicker - he is taught like Sadie and Benjie without it but I mainly use the clicker now for Look commands so I get the timing perfect..everything else is pretty perfect.

I will however raise my voice to the dogs if I have to.

So I think my methods of training are 95% positive 5% aversive - but only cos I am firm with them.

Training is supposed to be fun for the dog and owner..if I get frustrated I stop the training, if the dog is getting confused - I stop the training and try again later.
For this same reason is the reason why I train the dogs and my OH doesn't - he finds it boring and the dogs wont listen to him as he doesn't make it fun for them to learn (also he doesnt know how to change the pitch in his voice)

While you certainly can and should have "mainly positive", or "ideally positive", you cannot have"purely positive" in effective training.

As soon as you withholding a reward, because the dog has not offered the required level of performance/compliance be it food,toy or attention etc, is not positive. Even having poor timing and being slow with the reward will involve a degree of potential frustration for the dog.

However rewarding everything indiscriminately, the only way to avoid this, will not train/teach anything.

Dogs who run through a gamit of behaviours, or gain speed and intensity (which may well be the intended training goal) until rewarded are acting through negative reinforcement. If the reward was never given again this would have been an extinction burst, however if it is given it then becomes a performance increasing intermittent reinforcement schedule.

Over time expectation can cause this to be eager anticipation but in the early stages the motivation is likely to be frustration.

For the same reasons, those less motivated individuals will consider the prize not worth the price and decrease their performance

If there is a behavioural problem with the dog lunging on it's lead towards something the dog is getting a negative lead check, irrespective of whether that is initiated by the dog itself, or deliberately by the handler.

Training is essentially about handler-generated and external (i.e the rest of the physical enviroment) motivators being balanced against the dog's self-generated and internal (biochemical/emotional/genetically predisposed) motivators.

When a self-reward factor for the dog outweighs the reward for alternative desirable behaviour offered by the handler, in situations where the environment cannot be totally controlled, some aversives/negative inputs are likely to result, if only e.g. the the dog's head being turned from the distraction via a head collar or pressure on the front strap of a harness, etc.

I would also agree with another poster that a few of the smarter dogs who are never corrected in any way, including an Ah ah etc, will learn to repeat the behaviour that was substitued as a two step procedure to get a reward. the removal from the sofa was a good example as it e.g sit when greeting, or 4 on the floor, to correct jump when some will jump again to repeat the sequence, to gain more treats, attention, petting etc.


Some "positive only" claims are because people don't always recognise or accept when something is not positive but others are about cynical marketing.

E.g. a "signal of non reward" is not neutral, as that would signal nothing, and it is not rewarding/positive but rather it is an aversive as it signals disappointment. In my book that is what I would term a correction, so imo not positive only, although the correction is described in words that suggest a more positive outlook.

As it is relevant here I would also repeat part of my post from another thread:


Professor Daniel Mills (Professor of Veterinary Behavioural Medicine at Lincoln university) gave a talk on Putting learning theory into practice, in which he stated that claiming not to use punishment in training reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the application of learning theory in practise and that, even without any physical punishment, the absence of an expected reward is a form of punishment, and to ignore that punishment is occurring under these circumstances is to ignore an important part of learning that is occurring during training.

He also said instinctive behaviour patterns may response more effectively to punishment that to positive reinforcement, but than this punishment should be used in skilled hands. He also said there can be problems arising from poor timing of rewards

So, according to Professor Mills, you cannot train by reward/positives alone, and even use of rewards/positives have to be carefully managed to avoid shaping the wrong behaviour or bringing about undesirable behavioural tendencies.

Well said. A discrepancy in attitude consistency of applied theory that I have often noticed myself!

While you certainly can and should have "mainly positive", or "ideally positive", you cannot have"purely positive" in effective training.

disagree, because we are probably looking at it from two differing perspectives.

As soon as you withholding a reward, because the dog has not offered the required level of performance/compliance be it food,toy or attention etc, is not positive. Even having poor timing and being slow with the reward will involve a degree of potential frustration for the dog.

Frustration is a part of life and also means we can develop a dogs self control.

However rewarding everything indiscriminately, the only way to avoid this, will not train/teach anything.

If you did this you would be a poor trainer, I agree.

Over time expectation can cause this to be eager anticipation but in the early stages the motivation is likely to be frustration.

Without frustration there is no learning.

For the same reasons, those less motivated individuals will consider the prize not worth the price and decrease their performance


The value of the prize is within the trainer's control, if the dog makes the decision that it is not worth the price that is the failure of the trainer, not the dog or the method.

If there is a behavioural problem with the dog lunging on it's lead towards something the dog is getting a negative lead check, irrespective of whether that is initiated by the dog itself, or deliberately by the handler.

Aversives are different from using positive punishment.

Training essentially about handler-generated and external (i.e the rest of the physical enviroment) motivators being balanced against internal and the dog's self-generated motivators.

Yep.

When a self-reward factor for the dog outweighs the reward for alternative desirable behaviour offered by the handler, in situations where the environment cannot be totally controlled, some aversives/negative inputs are likely to result, if only e.g. the the dog's head being turned from the distraction via a head collar or pressure on the front strap of a harness, etc.

Yep, as previously said, life is not without aversives. Does not mean that this means that you cannot be positive only trainer within the context.

I would also agree with another poster that a few of the smarter dogs who are never corrected in any way, including an Ah ah etc, will learn to repeat the behaviour that was substitued as a two step procedure to get a reward. the removal from the sofa was a good example as it e.g sit when greeting, or 4 on the floor, to correct jump when some will jump again to repeat the sequence, to gain more treats, attention, petting etc.

Again as I said before, that is down to poor training ie not the method but the delivery.


Some positive only claims are about marketing. A "signal of non reward" is not neutral as that would signal nothing, but rather it is an aversive as it signals disappointment. In my book that is what I would term a correction, so imo not positive only, although the correction is described in words that suggest a more positive outlook.

ROFLMAO as I said before NOTHING in life is without aversives, this is not the same as what you are suggesting.

If I miss the bus, that is disappointing, if the bus HITS me it is punishing!

To Smokybear (to avoid a long quote).

I don't disgree with your points, but that isn't "positive-only" which was my point.

Frustration and aversives are indeed necessary parts of life and learning, but they are not positive experiences per se, although in terms of life lessons they can have positive (and very necessary), overall outcomes

I agree with your point about the bus but you will not be happy to have missed the bus, so it was not neutral, it was not a rewarding experience, albeit you may have usefully learnt, from the negative disappointment, to get there earlier next time.

"No positive punishment" is a very different thing to "positive only", otherwise the meaning of English is being rewritten.

Hi Ben,

To clarify first of all, I use a mix of positive reinforcement, extinction and negative punishment (the latter carefully and not overdone at all, in fact I very rarely use it at all now).

I consider myself a "positive trainer" and really try to consider that the dog is an alien in a strange world and do everything possible to help them.

The relationship I have with my dog is paramount, and I will try not to jeopardise that. Trust is necesssary and the history of trust that is built up over time can stand in good stead for any problem -eg. the time I had to put eye drops in and my dog did have to be forcibly held, she however eventually coped better due to trust and signals she was used to.

For example, verbal communcation she understood and associated with being controlled but not hurt. Liberal use of the food pot, etc etc. (I use food often to classically condition, not necessarily for "reward").

I would be very saddened in your shoes, and I'd agree with the advcie to go look at at least one training session before joining.

Have you got any APDT people near to you? They should abide by certain guidelines, certainly no prong collars etc and if they do not, you can report them and their methods will get looked into

Wys
x

"No positive punishment" is a very different thing to "positive only", otherwise the meaning of English is being rewritten.

Semantically you are absolutely correct, however in the context we are in, I have applied artistic licence to the term to differentiate from poor trainers who use positive punishment as their main method............

Yeah there is too much of that, I agree.
But there are some good ones, such as Sarah Whitehead, Gwen Bailey, Paddy Driscoll, and more....

Wys
x