This is a placeholder text
Group text
by Prager on 06 April 2013 - 11:04
If you want to get personal Abby Normal then let me say this. As far as finding flaws in my training? ...For last 40 years + I am continuously learning and I am sure that there are still many flaws in my training,... But you sure as hell did not find them:) You only think you did.
Reality and truth and some ones perceptions of it depends on the "glasses" they wear.
Quote by :
Prager Hans :)
Reality and truth and some ones perceptions of it depends on the "glasses" they wear.
Quote by :
Prager Hans :)
by bubbabooboo on 06 April 2013 - 15:04
I believe that prior to pressure from animal rights groups and before new ways of training by teachers such as Gottfried Dildei most dogs for Scutzhund were trained using more force and pain than was either necessary or useful. The trainers of that time needed to tie strings on dogs toes and yank on them or beat them down or do other cruel things to get results. They were convinced that they couldn't get necessary results any other way. Trainers like Dildei, Balabanov, and now Michael Ellis are producing great results and are not using the painful methods once used by trainers who HAD to use force to get results. Those trainers using tremendous force to train had to have a super strong, super hard, and super confident dog that could withstand the stupid training methods they used because they killed confidence, drive, and the trust in the dog and without the one in one thousand dog they could potentially train they ran out of dog before they got through their "water boarding" training methods. If the prong collar and the e-collar are banished some will still use them anyway as some now continue in the "old school" training methods now no longer used by most modern trainers. Trainers like Ivan Balabanov and Michael Ellis as well as legions of great trainers in Europe and the USA who gave up on force first training methods long ago will find new ways to train if the e-collar and prong collar are banished. It's a poor workman who blames his tools (or his dog).
by Hundmutter on 06 April 2013 - 15:04
Hans - you asked about recognising the 'teaching' and 'training / conditioning' phases ?
For a lifetime, I have always acknowledged two stages of training too; but they are
defined a bit differently from yours:
1 is TRAINING (Teaching);
2 is TESTING.
So: you train / teach the exercise you want to do; then when you think the dog has
'got it', YOU TEACH IT SOME MORE (until you can get a consistent obedience to
that command, whatever the circumstances/place/distractions). Along with this phase
goes almost all the toy or food & /or praise rewards.
Then you TEST the response to the command, by PRACTISING IT - could eventually be
in a Competition, might not be. Again you are looking for a consistent obedient response
If you need to, each command is broken down into steps, and each 'step' trained thoroughly
and separately until the dog does it right. There is not an awful lot of 'correction' involved.
Any exercise, including bitework and Outs, can be trained in this manner; I do not/have not
train/ed bitework myself, but have watched other people doing it, this way.
Now I realise that this is often quite a long process, depending on the training skill of the
handler and the intelligence / adaptibility of the dog; so clearly it would not suit everyone.
Some people genuinely need faster results, e.g for LE K9s (although some of those I have
seen train dogs this way have been Police Handlers, here in the UK; and it is interesting
that even some American LEOs have contributed to these threds with similar stories to tell ...)
but for quicker results in sporting competition, a hobby with podium glory ? Pinch collars and
E collars may give faster results but are they justified ?
And No I do not think the likes of PETA should be calling the shots with legislators about
these matters, but neither do I think dog folk should be so set in their ways about their
methods that they refuse to even look at other possibilities & more modern approaches.
For a lifetime, I have always acknowledged two stages of training too; but they are
defined a bit differently from yours:
1 is TRAINING (Teaching);
2 is TESTING.
So: you train / teach the exercise you want to do; then when you think the dog has
'got it', YOU TEACH IT SOME MORE (until you can get a consistent obedience to
that command, whatever the circumstances/place/distractions). Along with this phase
goes almost all the toy or food & /or praise rewards.
Then you TEST the response to the command, by PRACTISING IT - could eventually be
in a Competition, might not be. Again you are looking for a consistent obedient response
If you need to, each command is broken down into steps, and each 'step' trained thoroughly
and separately until the dog does it right. There is not an awful lot of 'correction' involved.
Any exercise, including bitework and Outs, can be trained in this manner; I do not/have not
train/ed bitework myself, but have watched other people doing it, this way.
Now I realise that this is often quite a long process, depending on the training skill of the
handler and the intelligence / adaptibility of the dog; so clearly it would not suit everyone.
Some people genuinely need faster results, e.g for LE K9s (although some of those I have
seen train dogs this way have been Police Handlers, here in the UK; and it is interesting
that even some American LEOs have contributed to these threds with similar stories to tell ...)
but for quicker results in sporting competition, a hobby with podium glory ? Pinch collars and
E collars may give faster results but are they justified ?
And No I do not think the likes of PETA should be calling the shots with legislators about
these matters, but neither do I think dog folk should be so set in their ways about their
methods that they refuse to even look at other possibilities & more modern approaches.
by Abby Normal on 06 April 2013 - 16:04
Hans, I did not intend my comment to be personal, nor to offend. I should perhaps rephrase that I disagreed with some particular aspects of your basic training methodologies, as did others far more qualified than I. I certainly do not say that I 'discovered' them LOL.. I was trying to illustrate differing opinions. We all have flaws, and are all still learning. Hundmutter makes a valid point though regarding people being too set in their ways, as does Bubbabooboo.
In answer to your questions
1. I genuinely don't know.
2. To the second question I do not accept that there can be only a yes and no answer. I also believe that the premise of your question may be incorrect in that you appear to believe that some organisation like PETA are behind this move. In the UK, and much of Europe as I said, have had these devices banned for a long time, due to animal welfare issues, but not as a result of animal rights 'activists,' I guess it depends whether you consider anyone concerned with animal welfare 'fanatics' and animal rights activists.
Liberty to me does not give one freedom to inflict pain or suffering on any creature. If this has arisen because of misuse within dog sports then everyone in those circles should have got their house in order and sorted out the problem. The reasons these situations arise is largely because the majority do not use these things responsibly, so your question is invalid. Very often the few that do use them properly end up paying the price as well, but in my opinion that is just a price that has to be paid. Liberty above ethics does not win out for me. If the majority do not use this equipment responsibly then often the only solution left is to remove it.
I thought Bubbabooboo summed things up well.
In answer to your questions
1. I genuinely don't know.
2. To the second question I do not accept that there can be only a yes and no answer. I also believe that the premise of your question may be incorrect in that you appear to believe that some organisation like PETA are behind this move. In the UK, and much of Europe as I said, have had these devices banned for a long time, due to animal welfare issues, but not as a result of animal rights 'activists,' I guess it depends whether you consider anyone concerned with animal welfare 'fanatics' and animal rights activists.
Liberty to me does not give one freedom to inflict pain or suffering on any creature. If this has arisen because of misuse within dog sports then everyone in those circles should have got their house in order and sorted out the problem. The reasons these situations arise is largely because the majority do not use these things responsibly, so your question is invalid. Very often the few that do use them properly end up paying the price as well, but in my opinion that is just a price that has to be paid. Liberty above ethics does not win out for me. If the majority do not use this equipment responsibly then often the only solution left is to remove it.
I thought Bubbabooboo summed things up well.
by Prager on 06 April 2013 - 23:04
Hundmutter
Topic
I am talking about learning process during training for every day life with the dog.
I am not talking about unexpected distraction sterile environment of sport training here, where we mostly teach patterns, and where we can get away with avoiding applications of negative consequences in such training. I am talking about training for every day life of a companion dog, or LE dog or in all the scenarios of every day life where dogs perform their working tasks. Scenarios where we will encounter with our dogs situations and distraction stimuli which are far more intense then anything which we will see in sport scenarios. These distractions will make dog see the trainers positive motivation with treat or prey tug toy and conditioning with them like an uninteresting, boring and unimportant to a dog who, for example, just seen a deer, cat, bicyclist, to him suspicious person and on and on and on to infinity. ∞. Such stimulus will override any previously trained "positive" ( pleasant /fun) motivation which will be ignored by any self respected dog.
Thus there must be negative consequence to undesirable behavior - misbehavior i f the dog intentionally chooses not responds to our commanded. This has noting to do with time needed to train for LE or what ever you Hundmutter eluded to. In dog's head it will go: deer - cookie, deer - cookie for 0.03 second and then decision will be done and "deer" ( or what ever) will win every time with dog with strong prey drive , that is unless there is a serious negative consequence. This consequence must be fair, clear and strong.
Training terminology and principles.
First I would like to emphasize that people make big mistake when they equate positive with good and negative with bad. Nothing is farther from the truth. Positive could be good or bad and so can negative be good or bad it depends how we apply it. If you reward bad behavior with positive then positive is bad. And vice versa.
However it is a fact that in psychology " positive" and "negative" refers to whether a stimulus is added or removed. Thus saying you can or should not use negative reinforcement and actually meaning using punishment is used by people who have no idea what they are taking about as far as scientific terminology goes. Again positive and negative refers to whether a stimulus is added or removed. And not to if the dog feels unpleasant or pleasant stimulus.
We have:
Positive reinforcement = adding reward- is positive =feels good
negative reinforcement = withdrawing aversive stimulus- is positive =feels good
negative punishment = withdrawing reward - is neutral but by dog undesirable
positive punishment.= adding negative consequence - not pleasant physically or mentally or both.
These are scientific facts and to deny them by saying in touchy - feely way 'I am using only positive methods" is just testifying of lack of knowledge of the scientific facts. And no are not obsolete. Same as 1+1=2 is not obsolete.
Training fazes.
1. Learning faze : Faze where we are explaining to a dog what command, sit, down stay and so on means. That method is usually fun, based on positive motivation, and pleasant approach and may employ some positive and negative reinforcement and negative punishment but does not and should not include Positive punishment ( = Correction) .
2. Training / conditioning faze : Faze where dog understands what the command means. eg-> Sit means to the dog - I need to put my butt on the ground, During this faze we go through repetitive training of the specific command . and we use all 4 reinforcements and punishments as described above. In another words now when the dog understand the command we also are permitted to use positive punishment. If we do not use all 4 (and others too) of them then we are not using all psychological resources available to us and are in fact training the dog with one arm tied behind our back. Which is possible but ignorant to say the least and very dangerous to say the most.
This faze has mainly three purposes:
a/ conditioning
b/ establishing of leadership position.
c/ dog learns negative consequances of improper behavior.
If during the 2nd faze you chose not to use all 4 reinforcements and punishments and some other techniques - including positive punishment ( correction) then the dog will not respect the handler as a leader and in scenarios where the distraction stimulus override positive motivational conditioning from 1. learning faze the dog will not respond.
Example there is no positive motivation which would override dog chasing deer. For that we need correction.
Thus if laws forbids us to use such training approach, then we will have more problems with dogs during unpredictable distractions in every day life with our dogs or we will need to breed dog which are useless for many tasks like LE and S&R, PP, herding,.... and so on. .
We can live in denial while singing kumbaya but if we motivate the dog with a treat or a tug toy and he sees a deer or similarly intense distraction, I assure you that such dog will not come when called, that is until the deer takes your dog for a great run through the woods and fields. Where such dog may get shot or hit by car. And then where did your touchy feely positivity took you and your dog? Under the ground or injured.
Prager Hans
Topic
I am talking about learning process during training for every day life with the dog.
I am not talking about unexpected distraction sterile environment of sport training here, where we mostly teach patterns, and where we can get away with avoiding applications of negative consequences in such training. I am talking about training for every day life of a companion dog, or LE dog or in all the scenarios of every day life where dogs perform their working tasks. Scenarios where we will encounter with our dogs situations and distraction stimuli which are far more intense then anything which we will see in sport scenarios. These distractions will make dog see the trainers positive motivation with treat or prey tug toy and conditioning with them like an uninteresting, boring and unimportant to a dog who, for example, just seen a deer, cat, bicyclist, to him suspicious person and on and on and on to infinity. ∞. Such stimulus will override any previously trained "positive" ( pleasant /fun) motivation which will be ignored by any self respected dog.
Thus there must be negative consequence to undesirable behavior - misbehavior i f the dog intentionally chooses not responds to our commanded. This has noting to do with time needed to train for LE or what ever you Hundmutter eluded to. In dog's head it will go: deer - cookie, deer - cookie for 0.03 second and then decision will be done and "deer" ( or what ever) will win every time with dog with strong prey drive , that is unless there is a serious negative consequence. This consequence must be fair, clear and strong.
Training terminology and principles.
First I would like to emphasize that people make big mistake when they equate positive with good and negative with bad. Nothing is farther from the truth. Positive could be good or bad and so can negative be good or bad it depends how we apply it. If you reward bad behavior with positive then positive is bad. And vice versa.
However it is a fact that in psychology " positive" and "negative" refers to whether a stimulus is added or removed. Thus saying you can or should not use negative reinforcement and actually meaning using punishment is used by people who have no idea what they are taking about as far as scientific terminology goes. Again positive and negative refers to whether a stimulus is added or removed. And not to if the dog feels unpleasant or pleasant stimulus.
We have:
Positive reinforcement = adding reward- is positive =feels good
negative reinforcement = withdrawing aversive stimulus- is positive =feels good
negative punishment = withdrawing reward - is neutral but by dog undesirable
positive punishment.= adding negative consequence - not pleasant physically or mentally or both.
These are scientific facts and to deny them by saying in touchy - feely way 'I am using only positive methods" is just testifying of lack of knowledge of the scientific facts. And no are not obsolete. Same as 1+1=2 is not obsolete.
Training fazes.
1. Learning faze : Faze where we are explaining to a dog what command, sit, down stay and so on means. That method is usually fun, based on positive motivation, and pleasant approach and may employ some positive and negative reinforcement and negative punishment but does not and should not include Positive punishment ( = Correction) .
2. Training / conditioning faze : Faze where dog understands what the command means. eg-> Sit means to the dog - I need to put my butt on the ground, During this faze we go through repetitive training of the specific command . and we use all 4 reinforcements and punishments as described above. In another words now when the dog understand the command we also are permitted to use positive punishment. If we do not use all 4 (and others too) of them then we are not using all psychological resources available to us and are in fact training the dog with one arm tied behind our back. Which is possible but ignorant to say the least and very dangerous to say the most.
This faze has mainly three purposes:
a/ conditioning
b/ establishing of leadership position.
c/ dog learns negative consequances of improper behavior.
If during the 2nd faze you chose not to use all 4 reinforcements and punishments and some other techniques - including positive punishment ( correction) then the dog will not respect the handler as a leader and in scenarios where the distraction stimulus override positive motivational conditioning from 1. learning faze the dog will not respond.
Example there is no positive motivation which would override dog chasing deer. For that we need correction.
Thus if laws forbids us to use such training approach, then we will have more problems with dogs during unpredictable distractions in every day life with our dogs or we will need to breed dog which are useless for many tasks like LE and S&R, PP, herding,.... and so on. .
We can live in denial while singing kumbaya but if we motivate the dog with a treat or a tug toy and he sees a deer or similarly intense distraction, I assure you that such dog will not come when called, that is until the deer takes your dog for a great run through the woods and fields. Where such dog may get shot or hit by car. And then where did your touchy feely positivity took you and your dog? Under the ground or injured.
Prager Hans
by Prager on 06 April 2013 - 23:04
Abby Normal I respect you much more now since you said that you do not know to one of the questions. That takes courage and means that you are sincere.
Thus please listen to me carefully I mean this from bottom of my heart.
As far as question about Liberty goes I am talking about principle,...and . not about specific issue.
If you are clear about principle the specific issues come to the surface of the truth like oil on the water.
Morally it is wrong to destroy even one person's Liberty in name of majority. Practically it is not so, but when we are making our decisions about anything we always must keep in mind that by doing so we must not harm anyone's liberty and we must be just to everyone. No sacrificial lambs. There are situations where this is not always possible. Like in a war where innocent die. But when we are talking about political and legal and personal decisions, than we must always put other people's Liberty on the radar of our decision and they must be on the pedestal This is a very ancient principle. Rewspect other people's liberty and be justto them. Next time it may be you who will expect such treatment.
Prager Hans
Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.
Mahatma Gandhi
Thus please listen to me carefully I mean this from bottom of my heart.
As far as question about Liberty goes I am talking about principle,...and . not about specific issue.
If you are clear about principle the specific issues come to the surface of the truth like oil on the water.
Morally it is wrong to destroy even one person's Liberty in name of majority. Practically it is not so, but when we are making our decisions about anything we always must keep in mind that by doing so we must not harm anyone's liberty and we must be just to everyone. No sacrificial lambs. There are situations where this is not always possible. Like in a war where innocent die. But when we are talking about political and legal and personal decisions, than we must always put other people's Liberty on the radar of our decision and they must be on the pedestal This is a very ancient principle. Rewspect other people's liberty and be justto them. Next time it may be you who will expect such treatment.
Prager Hans
Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.
Mahatma Gandhi
by SitasMom on 07 April 2013 - 02:04
bubbabooboo
You might want to check this Michael Ellis DVD out http://leerburg.com/ecollardvd.htm
and
http://www.vangoghkennels.com/pb-htdocs/Adobe%20Files/proof%20ARTICLE%20-%20Michael%20Ellis_collar_Claudia%20JF2010_Layout%201.pdf
You might want to check this Michael Ellis DVD out http://leerburg.com/ecollardvd.htm
and
http://www.vangoghkennels.com/pb-htdocs/Adobe%20Files/proof%20ARTICLE%20-%20Michael%20Ellis_collar_Claudia%20JF2010_Layout%201.pdf
by Hundmutter on 07 April 2013 - 05:04
If dog sees deer, and thinks " Cookie ? / Deer ?" "Nah, deer is more fun",
just what good does a negative correction, or punishment, do to alter that ?
Dogs live in the moment; if dog sees deer and thinks chasing deer = more
fun than owner with cookies, the owner then zapping the dog with an e collar
as it takes off does not change the dogs 'opinion' about the relative worth of
deer versus cookie. It may however stop the dog in its tracks, because the
dog has been conditioned by the e collar that if it keeps on doing what its
doing, it will get more zapped, and that is unpleasant. It does not really
understand why the human wants it to stop chasing the deer. Okay with
inveterate deer & livestock chasers or snake botherers, the e collar is probably
your only resource; but surely better to improve your (cookies, whatever)
attractiveness and interest for the dog in the first place, if you possibly can ?
Deer bound across the path 10 feet from my current dog, but he is much more
interested in chasing his ball, than chasing them. Not saying I 've never used a
negative consequence for anything with the dog - by EITHER withdrawal of something
unpleasant OR pleasant, OR by physical punishment/correction - but since we 'came to
an under-standing' about our relative status, and his ball drive was identified/released, I
don't need to do that anymore (and haven't for some seven+ years). [Ppl may know from
other posts that this is a dog with an Alpha / dominant type temperament, who burns
a great deal of energy and testosterone, and who was a 'teenager from hell' when he
came to me at 18 months old. He is now 10 and still far from an 'easy' dog].
I fail to see really why anybody needs to use an e collar in a sports location,
any more than Hans does.
just what good does a negative correction, or punishment, do to alter that ?
Dogs live in the moment; if dog sees deer and thinks chasing deer = more
fun than owner with cookies, the owner then zapping the dog with an e collar
as it takes off does not change the dogs 'opinion' about the relative worth of
deer versus cookie. It may however stop the dog in its tracks, because the
dog has been conditioned by the e collar that if it keeps on doing what its
doing, it will get more zapped, and that is unpleasant. It does not really
understand why the human wants it to stop chasing the deer. Okay with
inveterate deer & livestock chasers or snake botherers, the e collar is probably
your only resource; but surely better to improve your (cookies, whatever)
attractiveness and interest for the dog in the first place, if you possibly can ?
Deer bound across the path 10 feet from my current dog, but he is much more
interested in chasing his ball, than chasing them. Not saying I 've never used a
negative consequence for anything with the dog - by EITHER withdrawal of something
unpleasant OR pleasant, OR by physical punishment/correction - but since we 'came to
an under-standing' about our relative status, and his ball drive was identified/released, I
don't need to do that anymore (and haven't for some seven+ years). [Ppl may know from
other posts that this is a dog with an Alpha / dominant type temperament, who burns
a great deal of energy and testosterone, and who was a 'teenager from hell' when he
came to me at 18 months old. He is now 10 and still far from an 'easy' dog].
I fail to see really why anybody needs to use an e collar in a sports location,
any more than Hans does.
by Abby Normal on 07 April 2013 - 06:04
Hans liberty in itself is a huge debate. But let me say this, what is morally desirable is as you say often practically unworkable. If one uses the gun laws in the USA as an example, as UK citizens we have always been denied the liberty to 'bear arms'. If you were to ask most people in the UK if they felt that was morally unethical and an infringement of their liberty I doubt that any would have even thought of it that way. If you asked them whether they thought it was a GOOD thing that they were denied this right, I believe you would discover that the answer would be a resounding YES. It is not always a bad thing. The good of the many outweighs the needs of the few is a strategy that sometimes simply has to be employed, because there are so many ******s in this world to whom liberty means walking over others, ignoring laws and shooting up the neighborhood at will! Where does liberty end and law begin? As I say, it's a big debate.
by Hundmutter on 07 April 2013 - 06:04
Abby
To confirm your opinion, a recent survey again asked British
people whether they thought it was now time to arm our Police.
The answer was still heavily against Police having guns as a
regular thing; indeed many people asked did not seem to
realise just how many of our Police are issued with, or regularly
carry, guns as part of their jobs (Airports, diplomatic security,
etc).
Can I just clarify the point about the use of e collars in the UK ?
The long-standing ban is on their use in competitions.
Only in Wales is it actually illegal to sell or use the things, and that
has only been for the past couple of years. You can buy and use
e collars and e fences in England and Scotland [& Ulster too, I
believe, tho' not 100% sure.]
The Welsh Assembly has apparently argued that the reasons they
banned it had nothing to do with the Animal Rights movement. ???
To confirm your opinion, a recent survey again asked British
people whether they thought it was now time to arm our Police.
The answer was still heavily against Police having guns as a
regular thing; indeed many people asked did not seem to
realise just how many of our Police are issued with, or regularly
carry, guns as part of their jobs (Airports, diplomatic security,
etc).
Can I just clarify the point about the use of e collars in the UK ?
The long-standing ban is on their use in competitions.
Only in Wales is it actually illegal to sell or use the things, and that
has only been for the past couple of years. You can buy and use
e collars and e fences in England and Scotland [& Ulster too, I
believe, tho' not 100% sure.]
The Welsh Assembly has apparently argued that the reasons they
banned it had nothing to do with the Animal Rights movement. ???
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top