If a dog doesn't receive any "negative" reaction... how does it know an action is wrong?
I believe they need both positive and negative in order to learn right and wrong. I'm not meaning bawling your head off or threatening/scaring the dog etc.. but even saying no is a negative action and if followed by positive when the dog responds the the "no" then you have taught right and wrong?

Hiya Patch - time we had a 'proper' chat again

[QUOTE=Patch;848706]Having deaf dogs for whom no amount of verbal` correction` or any other vocal or sound usage is applicable, and being one who wont hit, jerk, or use any negatively physical directions on them, [ ie nothing frightening / painful / mentally worrisome to my dogs ], I would say thats as positive as it gets personally speaking.

I can use expressions or signals indicating ` dont do that `, however to a deaf dog those things are simply signals no more and no less negative than any of their other cues because force or fear is not involved in their usage [ not by me anyway ].

the 'ah-ah' is simply that (or should be as far as I'm concerned), but nevertheless is a non-reward marker or a 'signal' to try an alternative behaviour that is more acceptable to gain a reward - which can of course be anything from simple praise, to food reward, to game, to tickle behind the ear. So, in effect, the 'ah-ah' or visual signal is used as part of negative punishment in that it is a non-reward marker and, of course, non-reward means that something is taken away so is negative punishment. Positive punishment is when something is added that the dog will actively work to avoid, ie a yank, jerk, zap with an e-collar etc. Any use of negative punishment means that the handler isn't a '100%, purely positive trainer.

All technical jargon of course

As for taking longer to train that way, no not at all in my experience, quite the opposite.


I've always found that dog's learn quicker without physical corrections and learn the lessons in a way that they need far less reinforcement. The dogs are happier, the people are happier so the results are far more satisfying

The use of a simple `aha`, while it certainly can be used in a harsh or even panicky way,

and there's no need whatsoever to use it in a harsh or panicky way for it to be effective

I know one lady who uses the word `wrong` in a perfectly happy tone and that is enough for her dogs to know she would rather they not do this or that, or to do something differently when teaching her dogs anything, and she always then guides them to a prefered behaviour or application.

Which is exactly how it should be used

In other words, I have personally found that dogs treated kindly during training respond far more easily and quickly with more concentration and absorbtion of what they are required to learn if not bullied, hurt, intimidated or frightened in to compliance

Ditto

Two, 2 year old Rhodesian Ridgebacks passed their gold Good Citizen awards last year. Neither have had any shouting or physical aversions applied.

Dobes and GSD's are common in class and perform equally well with the same techniques. Akita's, Huskys, Rotties - all do similarly well.

Provided a dog has good guidance and is 'taught' properly, there really isn't a need for any physical corrections to be applied or any sound aversion techniques

But were they trained that way from puppy-stage? In my case, I was talking about a 2 year old adult GSD, who's had little or no training for that entire period, and has in fact, really pretty much been left to her own devices, making her own decisions, with no socialisation.

If you can turn that dog around without so much as a hint of a negative, more power to you.

I`ll give you an example from something literally a moment ago.

Defa and Silk were in the garden and went to a bin bag which I thought was out of their reach. I turned on the outside light, [ which is actually a trained recall signal for them when its dark ], and they immediately came away from the bag and over to me.

Nothing negative there, the light simply interupted what they were going to do.

The light has no negative `tone` to it, its simply a cue to them which signals impending reward for coming straight to me instead of what they were going to do.


The voice or another pleasant sound could be used the same way as the distraction, ie using `aha` in a happy tone which signals that by stopping what a dog was doing [ or was going to do ], the thought processess are such that `if I dont go near that, my human is pleased with me `.

More generally, when walking up to, next to, or past something on the ground which we dont want our dogs to pick up, [ ie food on the ground outside a takeaway for instance ], by getting their attention, and rewarding them for watching the handler instead of the stuff on the pavement, to the dog there is more benefit in not going to it so the dog learns that the alternative [ of interacting with the handler and getting a cuddle or a treat or whatever ], is far more rewarding so they cut out the middleman [ ie the litter ] and it becomes a non-issue if you see what I mean.

Dogs dont do `wrong` in my book, they just do `dog`, and I find positively guiding them toward wanted behaviours rather than using punitive measures for unwanted ones brings greater understanding and compliance from a dog as to whats ok and what isn`t in our eyes.

Its the application of how we stop dogs from doing things which makes them negative or not in the dogs perception.
What I`m trying to say is that the handlers approach does not need to be in negative tone or manner to succesfully stop a dog from doing or developing an unwanted behaviour :smt001

Very clever, and interesting.
Another example. If say, the dog gets too close to the fire and burns his nose... thats a negative that will teach him to sit back from it in future... If however I see him getting too close and tell him "NO" then my negative lesson would have the same effect.. but without the physical pain of a burn.

Thats an excellent example !
Lets dissect it a bit :smt001

Dog goes to the fire, handler uses `no` with a `negative` [ or panicked ], tone.
Will the dog then avoid the fire because its fire, [ still not knowing that it would hurt ], or be more worried by the handler as thats where the actual negativity came from ?

Dog goes to the fire, handler uses a positive tone to get the dog away from it.
Will the dog the find the fire, [ still not knowing it would hurt ], or the handler the more rewarding `thing` to *want* to interact with ?

Which approach would most likely lead to the wanted behaviour of avoiding the fire in the dogs mind ?
a] The dog which finds the handler more interesting than the fire
b] The dog which `fears` the handler more than the fire ?

Food for thought

Do you think it is possible to train a working dog purely positively Patch or Brierley - ie police dogs, working sheepdogs, working gundogs etc?

Also how would you, for example, stop a sheep chaser without the use of aversions?

Yup I see what your saying. And just to clarify.. my "No" is not said in a panic tone or shouted.. it's just a firm "NO" infact it's prob mostly now said in a normal tone same as anything else because the dogs have come to know the sound as what it means... no = leave it. When I say "NO" they leave what they are being discouraged from and come over for a fuss. *Thats usually when I start yapping away to them telling them why they should leave it* (I know they don't understand a word I'm saying by the way but thats just a nutty thing I do lol)
As for fear... I think fear is an important thing that we all should have. In many cases it's fear that keeps us alive. I mean fear of situations not of people ofcourse. Think what I mean is that I would be happy for my dogs to "fear" something that could harm them ie Fire. But not to fear me.

Another example is say my dog is jumping up on me for a fuss. He is told no and asked to sit. He doesn't get his fuss until he sits. So denying him the fuss he craves.. is that not a "negative" whether or not he is told no?

May I throw in another example as it sprang to mind as I read through..

Dog and handler are at traffic lights. Dog is spotted by people who look and 'awww' and make eye contact and verbally excite the dog. Dog jumps up unexpectedly, in a confined, dangerous space. What should the handler do here???
1) Use treats and voice to encourage the dog away?(Risking the dog receiving reinforcement form the people whenthey touch it to push it off as it lands on them?)
2) Use the lead to guide the dog away.
3) Use 2) with a firm 'no' or other such command? Followed immediately by praise and encouragement vocally when the dog has 4 legs on the floor and attention back on the handler?
4) Other??????

I'm not sure you see, that there is always a time and place where you can always use positive...surely, for the good of the person the dog jumps at and for the dogs future training, the dog should be pulled with the lead to stop them landing on the person and thus receiving reinforcement through touch or sound for their negative behaviour???
I'd be really interested to hear how you'd do that one.