Yes, but people that follow certain training methodologies like to think in these terms so it saves confusion if you use their terminology.

In this particular example (my dog pulling on the lead) I think it's EXACTLY like a child having a tantrum to get what he wants. Using the rewards only approach he certainly learned that it was worth his while to walk nicely. But it all fell apart if he suddenly decided that on this particular day he wants something in the envirnoment that I don't control. If I tried to stop him from helping himself (by not letting him drag me towards it) he essentially threw a tantrum. If he's allowed to succeed he learns that tantrums are rewarded. By standing firm and not letting him move forward until he was calm and well behaved he learned that life wasn't all about being given nice things. Sometimes you have to do without the nice things and just plain do as you're told! He learnt more than heelwork from that exercise.

wysiwyg - you're not really nitpicking because the whole point of using this terminology is that it's *supposed* to be unambiguous. But I personally think it's ill-advised as it's very much open to interpretation. Yes, you're right that you're removing a reward. But elsewhere others have argued that it's actually positive punishment because you're pulling on the dog's lead/collar. If he pulls and you do nothing then any pain or discomfort from the collar is entirely under his control. If you pull the opposite way then you're actively doing something that will cause discomfort. Think of the old debate about whether CM was stringing the dog up or whether he was just standing firm and letting the dog throw a tantrum as he tried to break free of the leash.

At the end of the day I tend to think that it's best to look at things from the dog's point of view - getting too hung up on training methodologies and sound bites can lead you astry. As with a child, any lesson that you teach them should be as pleasant as is possible. Mostly you want them to learn that nice things happen when you do the right thing. But sometimes they must also learn that sometimes you must do unpleasant things whether you like it or not. As a child, if I'd been playing in the park and I missbehaved I'd probably find it less distressing if my mum had grabbed my arm, shook it a little and said firmly "Don't you dare do that again!" than take me away from a game I was enjoying. If the lesser punishment (the shake and stern word) was enough to teach me the lesson then it would have been overkill (unnecessary suffering) for her to use the more severe punishment of taking me away from the game. And if I felt she was being unjust I might just choose to defy her. I think it's misguided to get caught up with the idea that if it's negative punishment it's OK but if it's positive punishment it's not. Always, always, always use the least distressing method of getting the desired result. If that's positive punishment then so be it.

As a more extreme example, the biggest problem with our dogs is controlling their inherrent urge to hunt. It's not so much chasing things or even sniffing. It's just they can't resist checking out the terrain. They could suddenly take the urge in our back garden, in a hall - or in wide open countryside. Outside they could run for miles. You can't avoid the trigger because there isn't really one. I have never known anyone to solve this problem in a Beagle through rewards based training. (Not saying no one ever has, but I've not managed to find anyone that has). Yes, you can do an awful lot with them and teach them to do all sorts. But off-lead they just can't be trusted to play safely. This restricts their lives. The beagle has been bred to run free and in a way it's unkind not to let it do the thing it most desires. I do know of several people who have succesfully solved the problem through the use of a shock collar (under the guidance of a skilled trainer). All claim that it was not painful - just startling to the dog, and that it only required one or two shocks to resovle the problem. Years later in many cases, the dogs are still completely trustworthy off-lead. Leading the kind of life that I only dream of for mine. Now of course you need to consider the risks if your dog reacts badly to the approach or if you use the wrong trainer. But still, if it's worked well for others and it's resulted in infinately better quality of life for their dogs then to my mind it's worthy of research. To disregard the approach out of hand without full posession of the facts is almost neglegent.

This is why I find it so sad that so many trainers are so 'religeous' and polarized about their pet methodologies. As Mysflynn pointed out earlier, too many people are quick to dismiss/blame a technique when they really don't have the knowledge and experience to use it properly. It would be so nice if there was more intelligent, open minded discussion between people with different types of experience. That way us poor dog owners might have half a chance of finding the right set of tools for helping our dogs to live full, happy lives!

I fond most trainers the EXACT oposite, Most do try to work with the dog & handler as a indivaul, Id not go to any trainer that was rigidly stuck,Everyone & everydog are different. However i do not believe a dog should be punished for doing something wrong that it dosent thoroughly undestand, Its lazy & nor fair. We are the humans we can reason, & we can adapt the situation to work for us.

Ie. your dog pulls you to the park. so you decide to work on your loose lead walking, now the worse thing you can do is start this off by walking to the park, Take the dogs for a run from the car, ie drive somewhere safe so they can run without needing to walk on lead. Work on the lloose lead walking on a calm road walk, & build up to going to the park then turning to go home. Dont set you & your dog up to fail, use your intelligence to manipulate the situation. Now if you do do something silly, or too soon, then dont blame the dog, write that mistake off & carry on your training. Its wrong to punish dogs for things that are our fault, you wont notice it to start with but 4 years down the line your dog will have lost all faith in you, as you seem to be irrational. Be consistent & be fair. You CAN ignore bad behaviour & work harder next time, you cant take back a mistimed correction, its too late, a mistimed sweetie, well lucky dog!

From MISHflynn

mish

The best teacher is your dog IMO. Dogs never `do wrong` - all they do is to be a dog. If we want them to do something for us we have to train them or manage them.
I sometimes wonder if people who advocate yanking (sorry - popping) their dog and using similar methods actually like dogs. Or have any empathy for them.
A good relationship with a dog is priceless. It isn`t about how long your down-stay is. It`s about learning to communicate with another species, understanding their ways and using this knowledge to forge a symbiotic relationship.
I don`t like gurus or chirpy books with `the answer` to all your dog training problems. Because 99.99% of the time the problem is on the other end of the lead.

It is mostly unambiguous, although there are still discussions about the very very very nitty picky bits - at the end of the day, OC is what it is because those who study it, say it is.

I don't know if you've heard of Bob Bailey, but I've had some discussion with him about this (he has been one of the scientists and animal trainers involved with OC and even Skinner via the Brelands). He told me this, which is a great way of looking at it:

"Behavior of animals, especially of the "higher" animals is complex and dynamic. The neurologic processes underlying behavior are complex and dynamic. Simplifying behavior by division into actions and consequences can be useful and can further communication between students, practitioners, and scientists. Failing to recognize that these divisions of actions and consequences are simplifications can lead to hindering of communication and even misunderstanding between students, practitioners, and scientists"

" According to OC what we know of what the animal knows we discover by measuring behavior. This is one of the (more or less legitimate) arguments some use that OC is limiting what we can know about animals, and humans. Before condemning OC too much, the cognitivists have their problems too, creating constructs and processes that really don't explain how and why behavior is the way it is. In addition, the closer the cognitivists get to really dealing in the changing of behavior, the more it looks like OC"

Brill way of explaining it. I like Bob Bailey

Yes, absolutely. It depends on the exact way of doing things IN CONTEXT Removing the reward is without a doubt, negative punishment. It cannot be argued with.

However! if you accomplished that by pulling the dog by actually yanking on the collar there may well be positive punishment there too. You have to kind of, follow the views of "is the behaviour increasing or diminishing" and "is something added, or is something taken away" and you won't go far wrong. In the particular context, a reward based trainer would not yank the lead, or would have the dog on a harness perhaps.

Of course, it's possible to get both in quick succession. For example, use of ecollar is both positive punishment and negative reinforcement.


Wys
x

Started a second post as that first one was tooo long ...

Scarter: I must say I believe the dog doesn't always understand how to stop it, so I believe the owner (or good old CM) needs to take more responsibility. Even if the dog did undersand how to stop it... set up better situations, for success not failure!

Yeah, I agree we need to always look at the dog's point of view whatever is done


Most trainers or people using negative punishment choose to use it because they can punish (and thus decrease an unwanted behaviour) without cowing or physically using something that can hurt.It's also instructive I feel. I could now no longer hit, smack, apply a choke chain to a dog than I could fly, and I used to use choke chains very strongly when I first trained dogs! I wish I could turn back the clock.

Occasionally negative punishment can be quite hard on the dog, but really this shouldn't be the case - only if someone is somehow overdoing it. You have to be careful with this as with any punishment and tailor it to the dog.

Of course some positive punishment is not physical and may just be, for example, a tone of voice. I may use that very occasionally (but maintain that if a dog is trained and we have done our jobs, it should be very rare and with some dogs, never used). Also, if it is used, in my book it is more for info and the dog is never cowed or made unsure or untrusting, so in a way it's not even positive punishment as I use redirection or extra training a lot to show what I do want.
Wys
x

... and another! I can't believe I've written so much.

And here is where we get into ethics!
Always a fun topic

Firstly, should beagle owners have such dogs anyway? if they cannot allow their dogs to run free as they would if in a pack? Same question of husky owners, greyhound owners, etc. I am not judging as I have no answers on this one, but the question is an interesting one!

Second, how did the Master or whatever he was called, control a beagle pack? was he able to stop them hunting and if so, how? I am pretty sure they did. Maybe they used the whip cracks or trained older beagles to which they coupled younger ones?

And so on....

I recall we've discussed this before, and I've said and others have said that it is quite impossible to achieve this in the way described. Who exactly is saying this?

The fact that it only took one or two denotes the shock was at a fairly high level.

Can you imagine a beagle in full flight after a hare actually being stopped by something that was not painful and only startled?

Really, it does not happen. If it does, I'd like to see it!
Ecollar supporters usually refer to "discomfort" (not pain ) and/or a "tap" or "tickle" or similar. The only way the ecollar would work in the situation you describe is if the dog was well aware that it could go from that minor feeling to a much worse one! and that might be enough to stop them. In other words, at some time the dog would have experienced more pain or extreme discomfort.I am sure I did give you some links but you are clearly not convinced as you are giving exactly the same info, not tempered by anything else you've read. Up to you, but ... if the only way you can let your beagles run free is to shock them, I'd personally prefer not to have such a dog. By "shock" I mean any level of estim that may cause mental or phyical pain.

I can understand your dreams but I do think these people whoever they are, are short changing you with lack of info.
Of course, they may not understand themselves. If a trainer used it on their dogs, they may have been told to try the shock on themselves and hinted that the dog feels the same. Usually you can see the trainer then turn up the dial (apart form the fact that dogs and humans are different as are individuals in the species).

Speaking personally, researching ecollars has been one of my "things" over the last few years. I've read many accoutnts , heard many people and read the science. I know where I stand and it's not on the side of ecollars. I appreciate everyone has to do their own research, but whatever you do don't allow yourself to be misled.

Most trainers or owners who use mostly positive have good reasons and, like me, may even have used much harsher methods in the past. In a way, we may know both sides having "done it" both ways .... or if we are trainers or behaviourists, because we have picked up the pieces due to bad advice and methods!

In spite of something you said a while ago now, about reward based trainers using other methods when it suits, (as told to you by a trainer/behaviourist) I personally walk my talk as do all the others I know (and I know plenty!) due to membership of various organisations.

Anyway, it explains why some of us may appear "polarized": because in a way we are - but for very very good reasons which have been based on experience, research, science, discussions, continued professional development and so on

I was brought up on Barb Woodhouse
Wys
x

I was anti ecollar anyway...and then we got Tango.
Tango was a 'working' dog in a previous life, when she came to us she was pretty shut down...and just wanted to lick and be close and lick...when out she didn't sniff or anything...just plodded.
The hair on her neck was different in 2 places, it was coarse and wiry as is the skin in those two places...the two places where the contacts of an ecollar would be.
Her behaviour is also consistent with a dog that has been punished for specific behaviours...like chasing other dogs or prey when she isn't supposed to...zap...now when she sees running dogs etc she gets stressed and NEEDS them to stop and will stop them herself if given a chance She LOVES other dogs...and wants to play, but cannot cope with them running around her. She was obviously shocked in the past for chasing them...and now just can't deal with it. She is slowly improving with love,patience and care. Bless her. I assume she was also shocked around sheep....long story.


Suffice to say I am even more anti ecollar now than I was before which is saying something. They do not work and they destroy dogs confidence. I am amazed and appalled that they are being raised on this thread. They are barbaric pieces of 'equipment' that damage dogs and the relationship they have with their handlers I imagine if I stuck one back on her she would stop the chasing...which is proof that the 'training' didn't work in the first place. I would never do it...she trusts me and has started to 'think' for herself and her confidence is growing everyday....so I could have a dog that can recall and not chase that doesn't trust me or have any confidence..OR I can have my Tango, a dog that can't go offlead, but that is confident, relaxed and happy and most importantly that trusts me not to ever, ever hurt her.

Honestly...because it is now personal the mention of them makes me so cross...

I have to say, I love the little row of dots in the quote from me, I did write a lot and you've left it all out except that one line
If she was gundog trained, they do tend to use them high and hard It was the US gundog fraternity that originally introduced ecollars to working dogs.
I've seen very sad videos of gundogs in the US who are ecollar trained - at first, their body language is cowed, but later they realise they can beat the stim - they seem to remain quiet but seem eager - except it's not eagerness, it's a response which is escape/avoidance really.
Oh poor sweetie. She's clearly associating running dogs with being zapped - classical conditioning has taken place. How very very sad - do give her a special stroke from me please!
She is with you now and has a much nicer life

Wys
x

Pack masters say most definately not. I love my Beagles and I am SOOOO glad I have them but it's a fair point that you make. I do however think you have an obligation to satisfy your hound's instincts whilst keeping it safe.

I've tried to find out but they aren't very forthcoming - the ones I've approached don't aprove of Beagles being kept as pets. I did once meet a trainer who'd observed a pack master with his pack and he said they had very good control. At feeding time they were able to call the fatter dogs off the food and send the thinner ones in for more. He said they'd crack the whip but never hit the dogs. The dogs didn't cower but who knows whether the dogs were ever hit.

Young dogs are coupled to older ones to learn what to do. That's a bit like using a training line really. Also you have pack dynamics working for you. Having two beagles made things more difficult for us, but if we'd waited until the first one was older, more stable and better trained it would have perhaps made things easier. But we wanted two similar in age so they could run and play together.

I can only tell you what other dog owners have told me. I haven't seen the training in action but in some cases I have observed their pets off-lead behaviour. The dogs lead a great life. The owners are people that don't strike me as liars.

The trouble is (From my point of view) is that those that speak out against it don't seem to know much about actually using it. They might have lots of knowledge of how they can be missused but few know much about how they are used succesfully. Like you they assume but they don't have any real knowledge of the subject. As myshflyn raised earlier in the thread, it's not good to critisise a method that you don't have the knowledge or experience to implement properly.

It seems almost impossible, yet my Beagles in full flight most definately CAN be stopped by something that's not painful - we have an emergency recall that will have them turn on a sixpence and come back to us. The trouble is, that breaks down when used on a regular basis as they quickly learn that nothing you can offer beats what they are already doing.

But if a simple call (trained the right way) can call them off a scent then why not a startling stimulation. I'm interested in finding out more. The theory behind our dog's emergency recall is that because of the way it's been trained the dog doesn't think - the response becomes hardwired and it will cut through anything. I haven't found out much about the training approach used with the e-collar but from what I have been told you're very wrong if you think it's just a matter of zapping the dog when it does wrong. Yes, there's just one or two mild shocks ever needed but there's a whole bunch of training taking place around it. But I don't yet know much about what is involved in the training.

I have felt this and I would describe it as more of a tickle. It makes you jump but doesn't hurt. The people I've spoken to aren't trainers. They're neither 'supporters' or 'antis'. They are just people that love their dogs and want what's best for them and they have found that the ecollar (used correctly and kindly) has made their dogs very much happier.

Maybe, maybe not. But I'd like to find out more rather than making assumptions based upon other peoples' assumptions. There's no harm in getting the full facts before making a decision. And if it can result in a vastly improved life for your dog then it has to be worth a bit of effort.



Don't worry - I'm not taken in by 'either side'. I research things properly before making a decision.

You have every right to your opinions and I wouldn't for one minute suggest that you aren't entitled to follow your concience and do whatever you believe is best. But let me just say this....

We consulted a behaviourist over an issue with our dog. This lady was highly qualified and highly regarded. She was also the most opinionated person I have ever met in my life!!! In our first telehpone conversation she slagged of a bunch of other trainers that I'd worked with and then told me in no uncertain terms that she had a first class honors degree in psychology, god knows what training in dog behaviour and donkeys years of experience. She also anounced that everything that she did was based on hard science and was absolutely, definately right - every time.

She worked a lot with agressive dogs - that was her speciality. She primarily used positive methods (only positive methods with 'normal' dogs) but was also harsh with dogs when she felt it necessary. I wouldn't work with her because I felt her too harsh with mine. I didn't think the little problem we had waranted it.

But anyway. My point is that claims like this are like water off a duck's back to me. Lots of people claim to have the greater experience, science on their side, you-name-it, yet they often make totally opposing claims.

I like to find out a LOT more from all sides.