register for free
View our sister sites
Our sister sites
Our sister sites
Our sister sites
Emma
Dogsey Veteran
Emma is offline  
Location: Australia
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,032
Female 
 
15-04-2010, 03:30 AM
Originally Posted by Adam Palmer View Post
Thank you mini.

1. Anytime you use an aversive you will use positive punishment (when you apply it) and negative reinforcment when you remove it. It's the timing of both that's important for sheep chasing.
Interestingly anytime you use pr you also ue negative punishment.

2, no punishment doesn't (and shouldn't) create a fear response. To do so would reduce the dogs capacity to learn. Punishment (or aversive) simply create avoidance behaviour.

To use the analogy of people. You don't fear bright sunlight you simply avoid it when it gets too hot.

Adam
Sorry Adam but the sun was not made to hurt people, I think the analogy should be,
People touch an electric fence, it hurts and they will be much more hesitant to touch it again. Avoiding it as much as possible. Even after the power is turned off, the person may still be hesitant due to the stimulation (or pain ) it gave them last time.
Reply With Quote
wilbar
Dogsey Veteran
wilbar is offline  
Location: West Sussex UK
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,044
Female 
 
15-04-2010, 07:16 AM
Originally Posted by Adam Palmer View Post
Thank you mini.

1. Anytime you use an aversive you will use positive punishment (when you apply it) and negative reinforcment when you remove it. It's the timing of both that's important for sheep chasing.
Interestingly anytime you use pr you also ue negative punishment.

2, no punishment doesn't (and shouldn't) create a fear response. To do so would reduce the dogs capacity to learn. Punishment (or aversive) simply create avoidance behaviour.

To use the analogy of people. You don't fear bright sunlight you simply avoid it when it gets too hot.

Adam
Hi Adam ~ on point 1 ~ I note that you now agree that using an electric shock collar is positive punishment. It is using an aversive to stop or reduce the occurrence of a behaviour. Whilst, technically I agree that stopping something aversive is negative reinforcement, and therefore will increase the likelihood of a behaviour occurring, I still don't agree that it is used effectively in the way you describe you it. I have said several times that the way you use ecollars (stopping the shock when the dog does the correct nehaviour, i.e. looks away from sheep) will not be effective. It is confusing for the dog, the dog could do several things at the same time & won't know which one stopped the shock. I don't think this is effective & easy way for anyone to learn correct behaviours because they are not being shown the correct behaviour. It is almost down to luck that the dog looks away from the sheep ~ it could look at the sky, or at you, or at its owner, or at its feet. And anyway, if the shock is being used effectively as a punishment, it is more likely that the dog is scared, confused, fearful etc ~ again, this is not a good state for a dog to be in when you are trying to teach it something.

On point 2, I really don't understand how you can say that punishment doesn't & shouldn't create a fear response. The quote from the AVSAB position statement that I gave in my previous post says "even when punishment seems mild, in order for it to be effective it must elicit a strong fear response". I didn't make this up ~ you're very welcome to look at the AVSAB site for yourself. I think that the wealth of knowledge & experience that these professional behaviourists have between them far outweighs anything that you or I have in the world of canine behaviour!

Just because punishment causes avoidance behaviour doesn't mean that there is no strong fear response. I'm petrified of large spiders so I avoid them ~ but I still experience a huge fear response when I see one! And of course experiencing strong fear reduces the capacity to learn ~ this is what I've been saying all along & is one of the main reasons I don't like the use of +ve punishment in dog training (apart from the fact that I think it's unethical & cruel to deliberately hurt another sentient being).

As far as your analogy of sunlight goes, this is completely different. Sunlight has many benefits too, helping the absorption of various necessary chemicals, providing warmth, helping crops grow etc etc. Yes people have learnt that staying too long in the sun can cause sunburn (or worse) so most people take precautions like using sunblock or not staying in the sun for too long. This obviously doesn't make us completely avoid the sun, just avoid staying out in it too long. In operant conditioning terms, it is not sunshine that is the punishment; it is the resulting pain from sunburn that is the punishment. The change in our behaviour is that we don't stay out in the sun for too long ~ not that we avoid going out in the sun completely, or that we fear the sun!
Reply With Quote
rune
Dogsey Veteran
rune is offline  
Location: cornwall uk
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,132
Female 
 
15-04-2010, 07:21 AM
Originally Posted by Adam Palmer View Post
Thank you mini.

1. Anytime you use an aversive you will use positive punishment (when you apply it) and negative reinforcment when you remove it. It's the timing of both that's important for sheep chasing.
Interestingly anytime you use pr you also ue negative punishment.

2, no punishment doesn't (and shouldn't) create a fear response. To do so would reduce the dogs capacity to learn. Punishment (or aversive) simply create avoidance behaviour.

To use the analogy of people. You don't fear bright sunlight you simply avoid it when it gets too hot.

Adam

Even assumming the electric shock was the same as sunlight---which it obviously isn't as it is heat over a period of time rather than a sudden blast of heat.

We are in no doubt of what causes the heat and how we avoid it. The dog OTOH has NO idea what it has done to cause the sudden sharp pain and therefore no idea of how to avoid it.

Which is bound to be stressfull.

If this is the rubbish you are telling your clients to make them feel OK about giving their dogs shocks then I think you need to rethink it!

rune
Reply With Quote
wilbar
Dogsey Veteran
wilbar is offline  
Location: West Sussex UK
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,044
Female 
 
15-04-2010, 07:41 AM
Originally Posted by rune View Post
Even assumming the electric shock was the same as sunlight---which it obviously isn't as it is heat over a period of time rather than a sudden blast of heat.

We are in no doubt of what causes the heat and how we avoid it. The dog OTOH has NO idea what it has done to cause the sudden sharp pain and therefore no idea of how to avoid it.

Which is bound to be stressfull.

If this is the rubbish you are telling your clients to make them feel OK about giving their dogs shocks then I think you need to rethink it!

rune
Good points rune. It is quite scary to think that things like ecollars can be dressed up as though they are "good things" so unsuspecting dog owners don't think they are being cruel ~ that is no better than the manufacturers' ingenuous blurb saying things like " causes a mild sensation" or "a quick & lasting way to train your dog" etc etc.
Reply With Quote
ClaireandDaisy
Dogsey Veteran
ClaireandDaisy is offline  
Location: Essex, UK
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 14,147
Female 
 
15-04-2010, 08:33 AM
An electric shock provokes the same response as hitting, punching, jabbing with a pointed stick or chucking a brick - it hurts and frightens.
I`m sorry you don`t like dogs enough not to hurt them Adam.
Reply With Quote
MichaelM
Dogsey Senior
MichaelM is offline  
Location: Tayside
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 680
Male 
 
15-04-2010, 10:16 AM
Originally Posted by wilbar View Post
On a slightly different topic, I didn't know that the use of ecollars in Wales had only been banned on dogs & cats ~ what about other animals, horses being a prime example? I was under the misguided impression that their use had been banned on all animals.
Presumptuous I know, but maybe I've contributed something positive to this thread.

Originally Posted by wilbar View Post
And I'm very worried about how effective the legislation is going to be, bearing in mind the probably insurmountable problems of policing it. I have a horrible feeling that whilst it may stop SOME so called professional dog trainers & behaviourists from using them, especially if this is their livelihood & the adverse publicity that they would attract if caught, but if ecollars are owned & used by members of the public, how on earth can they be stopped, other than someone reporting them?
Do you think that passing this legislation was in any way a historic day for animal welfare in Wales? (Kisco's words), or do you think that what is in place is an ineffective piece of legislation which doesn't apply as widely as you'd previously thought? (hoped?)
Reply With Quote
wilbar
Dogsey Veteran
wilbar is offline  
Location: West Sussex UK
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,044
Female 
 
15-04-2010, 11:27 AM
Originally Posted by MichaelM View Post
Presumptuous I know, but maybe I've contributed something positive to this thread.



Do you think that passing this legislation was in any way a historic day for animal welfare in Wales? (Kisco's words), or do you think that what is in place is an ineffective piece of legislation which doesn't apply as widely as you'd previously thought? (hoped?)
MichaelM ~ yes I've read your posts & if you were the one that pointed out that ecollars are only banned in Wales for use on cats & dogs, then yes, you've definitely contributed something positive from my point of view ~ perhaps because I haven't taken the time & trouble to read the legislation for myself!

With regard to your 2nd point ~ a bit of both really. It's "historic" in as much as Wales in the first country to even attempt to ban the use of ecollars, and the resultant publicity from this will, as we've all seen, have brought the use of ecollars to the forefront of the news for a day or two. It may well make the general dog owning public think twice before using ecollars which is obviously no bad thing. But on the downside, I suspect that the legislation will not be effective for those determined to use ecollars, as I don't see how the legislation can be policed. However this may be the case however the legislation is worded (unless perhaps capital punishment is brought back or ecollar users are forced to wear a collar themselves while we keep shocking them ) However unless we are prepared to chuck a lot of expensive resources into policing this legislation, then it can still be flouted. But this is the same with a lot of illegal activities ~ those determined to carry them out will still do so despite it being illegal.

I see from your other posts that you think there are a lot more important issues regarding animal cruelty that should be championed & that the RSPCA & KC may be improving their image by speaking out against ecollars whilst still not always acting in the best interest of animals themselves. I do see your point but I agree with others who have said that these are topics for other threads (& have probably been discussed before on this forum) so it's probably better to keep on topic here.
Reply With Quote
ClaireandDaisy
Dogsey Veteran
ClaireandDaisy is offline  
Location: Essex, UK
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 14,147
Female 
 
15-04-2010, 12:47 PM
Originally Posted by MichaelM View Post

Do you think that passing this legislation was in any way a historic day for animal welfare in Wales?
Yes. Oh, yes. Hopefully the start of a country-wide ban.
Reply With Quote
MichaelM
Dogsey Senior
MichaelM is offline  
Location: Tayside
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 680
Male 
 
15-04-2010, 02:37 PM
Originally Posted by wilbar View Post
With regard to your 2nd point ~ a bit of both really. It's "historic" in as much as Wales in the first country to even attempt to ban the use of ecollars, and the resultant publicity from this will, as we've all seen, have brought the use of ecollars to the forefront of the news for a day or two. It may well make the general dog owning public think twice before using ecollars which is obviously no bad thing.
Maybe you have a point there with regard to making people think before using e-collars, but I'm not so sure: It's not unusual to see an owner with an out of control dog who has absolutely no idea at all of how to train it. "I'll have to start training" is a comment I hear quite often, I doubt these people have given much thought to the matter of training at all or even know of the existence of the e-collars.

Based on this line of thought, I'm left to conclude (with absolutely no evidence at all to support this) that users of e-collars are those who have at least given some thought to training, and have come to the conclusion that e-collars are the solution for more difficult/time consuming commands. And so despite this act, they will continue to be of the opinion that e-collars work.



Originally Posted by wilbar View Post
But on the downside, I suspect that the legislation will not be effective for those determined to use ecollars, as I don't see how the legislation can be policed. However this may be the case however the legislation is worded (unless perhaps capital punishment is brought back or ecollar users are forced to wear a collar themselves while we keep shocking them ) However unless we are prepared to chuck a lot of expensive resources into policing this legislation, then it can still be flouted. But this is the same with a lot of illegal activities ~ those determined to carry them out will still do so despite it being illegal.
I suspect the effect of this ban will at best an end to their use by professional trainers.


Originally Posted by wilbar View Post
I see from your other posts that you think there are a lot more important issues regarding animal cruelty that should be championed & that the RSPCA & KC may be improving their image by speaking out against ecollars whilst still not always acting in the best interest of animals themselves. I do see your point but I agree with others who have said that these are topics for other threads (& have probably been discussed before on this forum) so it's probably better to keep on topic here.
I don't agree that the topics must necessarily be discussed in isolation as unfortunately there will always be some compromise with the such ideas.
Reply With Quote
MichaelM
Dogsey Senior
MichaelM is offline  
Location: Tayside
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 680
Male 
 
15-04-2010, 02:47 PM
Originally Posted by ClaireandDaisy View Post
Yes. Oh, yes. Hopefully the start of a country-wide ban.
Claire, I see it as a weak, ineffective and unenforceable piece of legislation that will have little real impact on the well being of dogs in Wales.

Can you convince me otherwise?

Michael
Reply With Quote
Reply
Page 26 of 77 « First < 16 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 36 76 > Last »


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 167 (0 members and 167 guests)
 
Thread Tools


© Copyright 2016, Dogsey   Contact Us - Dogsey - Top Contact us | Archive | Privacy | Terms of use | Top