what does the B stand for?

Bachelor.

I've got a B.A. in Geography but please don't ask me any geography questions!!! It was years since I left uni!

It's all well & good to have qualifications but they can soon go out of date unless you keep up with Continual Professional Development, especially in areas such as animal behaviour where new research is coming to light all the time. A degree in animal behaviour from some 20 years ago would be well out of date now. You've only got to look at the swing away from punitive training methods & the old Barbara Woodhouse ways to see how far we've come.

I think with any dog training classes word of mouth can be very enlightening ~ & you need to find a trainer & classes that you feel comfortable with. If you feel that harsh & punitive methods are wrong, then go with your instinct & find other classes. It's a competitive world with many dog trainers & behaviourists competing for clients, so if you don't like one, look for another. Be prepared to do a bit of research, talk to other owners that have attended classes, talk to the trainer & have a list of prepared questions ready. By all means ask about qualifications, but they are not the be all & end all with dog TRAINERS ~ there are some fantastic trainers out there without any qualifications. But they are usually not canine behaviourists ~ that is another ball game. Training classes are for dogs without behavioural problems & are there to teach owners how to train basic behaviours for safety & so that the dog can learn to fit into human society. If a dog has behavioural problems, then a properly & relevantly qualified behaviourist is the best bet.

The rescue kennels I worked with homed two very difficult dogs at different times. Both dogs had begun work with positive methods and both had been out and returned ---one of them twice.

Both eventual owners went to a class I would not recommend to a hamster----but both stayed in those homes, were walked regularly and seemed to have a decent life. Both owners got support and a social life from the club.

That club might well be not doing anything I like or 'approve' of ----but it did help those two.

rune

There will always be examples of this ~ but without more info, do you know if the owners actually carried out the training methods advocated by these classes? Did they also use reward-based training as well? Were the behavioural problems severe enough so that any change was considered a success? Are the dogs really happy, well-adjusted dogs now, or are they just too frightened to behave "badly"? Do the dogs show the full range & repertoire of behaviours that normal dogs do, or have the dogs effectively compromised by suppressing normal urges & behaviours through fear of punishment?

There may be lots of other reasons for the behaviour changes that are totally unrelated to the training classes such as the dogs couldn't cope with the stress of kennel life so being in a quiet & calm home environment has had a huge effect on behaviour. Perhaps any other homes they had were just too noisy & stressful but the current homes are much more suited to the dogs' needs? Sometimes just being able to relax , feel safe & secure & get proper sleep can be all that is needed to bring about huge behavioural changes.

And whilst the dogs you mention haven't been returned to kennels, do you know if the dogs are truly happy ~ just because they haven't been returned & are walked regularly doesn't necessarily mean they are now happy & normal dogs. Perhaps the current owners are able to make more compromises & put up with behaviours that other owners wouldn't? Perhaps these owners have been able to put in the time & effort to bond with these dogs that other people haven't been able to?

There is a world of difference between being assertive and being harsh - and I think this is what confuses people about reward-based training. GSDs and GSPS are both strong-willed but sensitive. Harsh methods would be hopeless, but you do need to be consistent and firm.
I have been to many trainers over the years, The methods that worked long term are the ones where the dogs` behaviour was altered through a mix of reward and negative reinforcement.
In simpler terms - dog jumps at scary thing - scary thing runs away. Dog is happy.
To change this the dog has to learn that this strategy doesn`t work any more.
So - scary thing doesn`t go away. (negative reinforcement) Dog tries every other approach and finally looks at owner for a lead. Dog is rewarded. Scary thing leaves. Owner is now in charge of protection from scary thing.
Dogs really aren`t that complicated. They do what works.
Which is why all these `methods` involving theories from human psychology are not working.

well said,

Some trainers/ owners over complicate dog training, when its often not complex at all,

You are preaching to the converted (G)!

I am aware that there are many reasons and who knows if ANY dog is truly happy?

I like to think mine are but you never know.

I wasn't defending the club----just pointing out that sometimes it can work----after all before the 80's it worked for a lot of dogs. The world doesn't fall in if someone chooses to train differently. It might if they use an e collar though!

rune

I appreciate what you are saying & with the best will in the world, even the most dedicated followers of the positive reinforcement only training, will find it hard to never, ever use negative reinforcement or punishment. I try very hard to to use positive reinforcement as much as possible, and particularly when training a new behaviour, but we all have off days, we are only human & can all be guilty of shouting at our dogs or dragging them away from something. And sometimes, shouting or screaming or physical intervention is the only thing you can do if a dog's safety is compromised such as when it's about to run across a road.

But I am also very much aware that the use of punishment or negative reinforcement by their very definition, involves the use of aversives & unpleasant stimuli. Any learning that occurs as a result of aversives involves escape or avoidance behaviours and these are not something that I would want my dogs to experience too often, & certainly not in a context that involves any association with me or any other person.

The use of aversives & unpleasant stimuli can have undesirable consequences. You used an example where a dog jumps at something it finds scary, then it tries various other behaviours to make the scary thing go away & when it finds these don't work, it turns to the owner for a lead. I think this is far too idealistic & unrealistic. Firstly, what are all the other behaviours that it may try first to get the scary thing go away? Most dogs that are acting aggressively because they are frightened of the scary thing, would increase the level of aggression ~ so you go from jumping up at scary thing, to barking, growling, lunging &, if the dog can, & depending how scared it is, the next stage may be attacking the scary thing. There's nothing in the dog's normal behavioural repertoire that would firstly make it look to the owner for "a lead". Any dog that is so highly emotionally aroused that it feels necessary to lunge & bark, is hardly in a state to think rationally & look to it's owner for advice on what to do next.

Secondly, the use of aversives & unpleasant stimuli in training sessions can very easily lead to inconvenient associations between the owner + aversive, or another person + aversive, or the location + aversive (e.g. training hall), or the presence of other dogs + aversive.

Thirdly, and particularly if you have a rescue dog or a dog whose history you don't know, the dog could well have developed very ingrained learning about aversives, having experienced punishment & unpleasant consequences in the past. Just a mere hint of any aversives could trigger very ingrained & perhaps over the top responses in these dogs, e.g. extreme fear behaviours, anxiety & perhaps aggression. I learned very early on that my rescue dog is extremely sensitive to even mildly raised voices, even when they are not directed at her. So if I argue with my OH, Wilma shows very pronounced appeasing behaviours, or avoidance behaviours by running off to another room & curling up in a corner. It's sad to see & I hate the thought that she's feeling so worried. Mind you, it's done wonders for our relationship as we have to now think twice before raising our voices at each other ~ we're very good at arguing in whispers or "happy" voices.

Fourthly, there are many examples of negative reinforcement that are just not acceptable in the dog training world, e.g. choke chains ~ dog stops pulling on the lead, chain goes slack, dog can breathe again. There are far better ways to stop a dog pulling on a lead that don't involve putting undue pressure on the windpipe. And anyway, how many dogs learn to stop pulling if a choke chain is used? Many dogs will just pull harder to try to get away from the pressure, or the huge drive to get to the park, or get to another dog, far outweigh the dog's cognitive process in thinking if it stops pulling, the pressure on the windpipe will lessen.

I think if an owner is consciously trying to modify unacceptable behaviours, or to train new & wanted behaviours, they have the time to plan to do it using positive reinforcement & to think about the contingencies that may occur & plan what they will do in those circumstances as well. In my view, the use of punishment or negative reinforcement should be used in emergency situations only ~ and then it will have a far better chance of working as the dog is likely to be so surprised at your reaction, that it may well stop in its tracks & prevent it getting run over!

As for theories using human psychology that you say aren't working, I'm not sure what theories you mean, but there are some very useful ones that have been scientifically proven to be very relevant to canine behaviour, e.g. Bowlby's Attachment Theory & Mary Ainsworth's Strange Situation experiments.

Associative learning (operant & classical conditioning) is just one of the ways that dogs learn ~ there are other types of learning, so I don't think it is really as simple as you say. And when modifying canine behaviour or training new behaviours, there are many other things that must be taken into account as well if an owner really wants to understand what's going inside the dog, why it behaves the way it does & how to change behaviours. I would say that ethology & the physiology of behaviour are just as important as associative learning theory.

Yes agreed ~ I take your point. I just worry that although aversives can work in training or modifying behavioiur, there are usually unwelcome side effects. Unfortunately because punishment & negative reinforcement do appear to work, dog owners continue to use these methods.

Negative reinforcement isn`t punishment. It is the absence of reward / response. If a dog does A and gets no reward (negative reinforcement) , then does B and gets a treat (positive reinforcement) , the dog learns that B is more rewarding than A.