# mmmmmmmmmmmmmm??



## grandad (Apr 14, 2011)

Ideal K9 | Method of Dog Training | Compulsion & Motivational | Operant Conditioning | Positive & Negative Reinforcement


----------



## Rottiefan (Jun 20, 2010)

Another one of these quasi-dominance/pack theorists who, whilst not advocating the "yank and crank" style training, still believe strongly that the onset of undesirable behaviour is down the extremely vague meta-reason that is pack theory. He says a dog that has a solid pack structure will not show aggressive or dominant behaviour in the presence of the human (the 'pack leader')- so the dog will do it when they are not in the presence, will they? That screams to me that the dog still has a problem but for whatever reason (or for whatever degree of punishment they have received in the past) is not comfortable performing the behaviour in the presence of one particular person. 

He wouldn't know what dominance was or how actual canine packs operate if it slapped him in the face.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

Lost me when I read this:

'When a dog is disobedient and refuses to cooperate or to follow a command that is completely understood, this is a respect issue and needs to be dealt with properly'

Are dogs truly disobedient? He made a point earlier of stating that he doesn't apply human psychology or human emotions so this doesn' fit with his 'method' 

Also it's very easy to assume when trying to train your dog (in my very limited experience) that they understand completely what you have been training them. I think this is where the frustration starts in that the commands haven't proeperly been reinforced so the dog is not being 'disobedient' at all, they just don't enderstand what is being asked.

Then I saw the e collar section ....


----------



## springerpete (Jun 24, 2010)

Rottiefan said:


> Another one of these quasi-dominance/pack theorists who, whilst not advocating the "yank and crank" style training, still believe strongly that the onset of undesirable behaviour is down the extremely vague meta-reason that is pack theory. He says a dog that has a solid pack structure will not show aggressive or dominant behaviour in the presence of the human (the 'pack leader')- so the dog will do it when they are not in the presence, will they? That screams to me that the dog still has a problem but for whatever reason (or for whatever degree of punishment they have received in the past) is not comfortable performing the behaviour in the presence of one particular person.
> 
> He wouldn't know what dominance was or how actual canine packs operate if it slapped him in the face.


 Help.... I must be getting senile in my old age so can someone tell me what a ' Meta-reason' is exactly. I need to know because I'm just about to start bringing on a new retriever and it might be helpful in his training regime.................Mind, I've managed for years without employing 'Meta- reasoning so perhaps it isn't vital in gundog training.
Cheers .Pete.


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

Cleo38 said:


> Are dogs truly disobedient? He made a point earlier of stating that he doesn't apply human psychology or human emotions so this doesn' fit with his 'method'


Probably to the common person yes. Dog knows sit in home, garden & street, so when it doesn't in park it's wilful, stubborn and disobedient.

Dog's sometimes have better ideas about what they'd like to do rather than carry out an owner request eg) bolt off when told to "come here".

Is it "disobedience"? I at times see avoidance behaviour say when dog knows he'll be leaving the park, or if I want him to walk to the car, he may show appeasement, which ppl think is guilt.

His website design, precludes me reading all of what he has to say, but he seems to be espousing the "balanced trainer" idea.


> Being flexible as a trainer is important. I am always prepared to proceed in one direction or the other depending on (i) the exercise, (ii) what stage the training is at, (iii) the temperament of the dog and (iv) what is occurring at that exact moment in the training process. My role as a trainer is to continually stay in harmony with the dog and consistently stimulate and encourage the dog to do his/her very best. It is my responsibility to teach dog owners a new language, and help them communicate in a way that dogs will listen in every situation and not just when they want. The foundation of my training is built on establishing a mutual understanding of trust and respect between the handler and the dog. This is accomplished through always working with canine intuition and natural abilities, making the dog more receptive to the training process. Being cognizant of the fact that every dog is unique with a specific tolerance and capacity to learn, helps avoid the dog ever encountering a stressful environment. My training method enhances the owner-dog bond and never jeopardizes it. A well trained dog is simply a dog that fully understands what is being asked.


That bit sounds good! 


> Accurately applying corrections to the dog training process is most certainly a refined skill. It is not a skill that can be obtained through reading one popular book or watching a television series.


Undeniably true!


> The concept of correcting a dog properly remains one of the most difficult things for most dog owners to fully decipher. Dog owners generally fail when they attempt to administer a correction but miss the importance of (i) the type, (ii) the level and (iii) the timing of the correction. A correction always needs to match the level of the infraction. Unfortunately, most dog owners are often guilty of unjustly correcting their dogs - they correct a dog for something that he/she does not completely understand or has been properly trained to perform. This is extremely unfair to the dog and will completely destroy the bond between handler and dog. Hence I strongly believe there is no place in dog training for old school yank and crank trainers. This type of training forces the dog to comply out of fear which at the very least results in the dog being hand shy or handler aggressive.


That's fair enough to.


> Dog owners opposing or neglecting to discipline a dog is unacceptable, especially when it displays improper pack behaviors. Such dogs always develop into uncontrollable, dominant and/or aggressive animals and have a direct impact on society.


 :001_tt1: :hand: :hand:

I'd have had 4 unruly aggro dogs if that were true!


----------



## Rottiefan (Jun 20, 2010)

springerpete said:


> Help.... I must be getting senile in my old age so can someone tell me what a ' Meta-reason' is exactly. I need to know because I'm just about to start bringing on a new retriever and it might be helpful in his training regime.................Mind, I've managed for years without employing 'Meta- reasoning so perhaps it isn't vital in gundog training.
> Cheers .Pete.


By 'meta-reason' I meant simply reasoning about reasoning itself. So, when people see a dog SIT for example, the pack theory/dominance advocates not only read into the behaviour as being a SIT for reinforcement (treats, cuddles etc.,) but because we are the 'pack leader'. It's a vague reason about a reason, which annoys and confuses a lot of people, including me!

Dogs are social animals. Their ancestors live in packs. But domestic dog behaviour has evolved greatly and are hardly ever in a situation where a hierarchy is needed among other dogs. Amongst humans, we are very skeptical that dogs see us as a 'pack member' and therefore the notion that we need to show pack leadership to have any control over our dogs is an out-dated theory.

It's a lovely, interesting, catchy idea...but alas, most likely a bunch of smokes and mirrors.


----------



## Colette (Jan 2, 2010)

Interesting....

So he obviously follows pack theory, ie the concept of a linear hierarchy ruled by a pack leader. But in his list of behaviours which must always be corrected, he includes behaviours aimed at other dogs - not just the owner. That makes no sense at all - if he believes that dogs live in a linear hierarchy then surely a dog has every right to exert dominance over another canine pack number, as surely they must all "know their place"?
Sorry - but that is ludicrous. Either pack theory is correct (I know its not) and dogs establish a hierarchy; or they shouldn't / don't have a hierarchy therefore pack theory is wrong. Can't have it both ways mate.

As for that list of behaviours which must be punished - again, total nonsense imo. Aggro towards other dogs? How does he know this is "dominance" even as a follower of the theory? Doesn't consider the possibility of fear aggro. And of course, I'm not convinced "correcting" (aka punishing) dog aggro is a good idea, as it will likely make the dog worse.

Correct growling at the owner for any reason. Genius. Not only should we not be correcting growling at all, as it is a vital piece of communication, but for any reason? So even if the dog is terrified? In pain? Nice.

Disrespect should be dealt with quickly and severely? That concerns me - what exactly does he mean by severe I wonder?

Hid "theory" section is laughable - he clearly doesn't have the foggiest about positive reinforcement training works.

Apparently it frowns completely on any form of discipline. Er no, it doesn't.
Apparently this method involves over consumption of food and endless inappropriate praise. Er no, it doesn't.
Apparently the dog is rewarded when it is behaving badly, even aggressive. Er no, it isn't.
Apparently it is certain that "this method will reinforce in dogs.. indulgence through exhibiting undesirable behaviour". Clueless. Totally clueless.

And my favourite bit - apparently "Typically these dogs will develop into overbearing, dominant and often antisocial aggressive animals" .
PMSL!! Guess we all better panic - our dogs are going to turn savage at any given moment because omg we gave them treats for good behaviour!! 

And let's not forget that "Praise / affection should be used as a motivational tool, not for being cute".
So don't anyone dare to pet / hug / greet / talk to etc their dog unless it is to reward good behaviour! (Seriously?)

Last but by no means least - the shock collar, sorry the "e-collar".

Despite the assertion on one page about yank and stomp training damaging the dog owner relationship and creating fearful, handler aggressive dogs he then claims to deliberately ensure that the dog knows the shock comes from him. A little contradictory I feel.

Then we have the claim that shocking a dog into compliance is "undeniably the most humane and accurate way to train a dog during challenging situations". 
I deny it. So would a great many other people. I think he will find it is very deniable. Not to mention he has zero evidence for this assertion.

Then there's the claim that "compulsion is always necessary to ensure dependability". 
Again, zero evidence for this. Plenty of evidence against in the form of all those thousands of dogs trained / reared / rehabilitated etc successfully without the use of compulsion.

Then we have the difference between correcting (shocking) disobedience and pack issues. He emphasis how grand the shock collar is at giving the correct level of correction, then goes on to state that where pack issues are concerned the dog must be given a "high level" shock that "will be imprinted upon the dogs mind forever". A correction so severe that the dog will never think "he has the ability to work through the correction and still satisfy their drive".
This would disgust me even if he were talking about extreme, life threatening behaviours - but look back to his list of pack issues to correct this way.... leg humping? ANY growling?

Nothing short of abuse and bullying IMO.

And IMO the most telling thing - his own dog is "never engaged is off leash activities without his e-collar". 
Really effective method there mate - your shock trained dog is obviously totally dependable, knows his place, is not collar smart because he think the shock comes from you, but he will still have to wear the device for life because you don't trust your own training with your own dog!!! 
Genius. Have a medal.


----------



## momentofmadness (Jul 19, 2008)

grandad said:


> Ideal K9 | Method of Dog Training | Compulsion & Motivational | Operant Conditioning | Positive & Negative Reinforcement


Do you not have any words of your own to use????

Don't click on links myself..


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Colette said:


> Interesting....
> 
> So he obviously follows pack theory, ie the concept of a linear hierarchy ruled by a pack leader. But in his list of behaviours which must always be corrected, he includes behaviours aimed at other dogs - not just the owner. That makes no sense at all - if he believes that dogs live in a linear hierarchy then surely a dog has every right to exert dominance over another canine pack number, as surely they must all "know their place"?
> Sorry - but that is ludicrous. Either pack theory is correct (I know its not) and dogs establish a hierarchy; or they shouldn't / don't have a hierarchy therefore pack theory is wrong. Can't have it both ways mate.
> ...


When this member first arrived on this forum, he purported to be someone who was trying to learn about the different methods of training and wasn't sure what a remote collar was. Now he is saying that he uses this awful device on his own dog and has a whole set of rules about how and how not to train a dog.

Something is suspect, methinks.

If this shock collar method of training is so great, then the dog should not need it now. Dogs who have been trained to recall with positive reinforcement methods, no longer need the treats every time in order to return, yet this person seems to think it perfectly normal for a dog "trained" with cruelty to never be able to behave without that cruelty.

What the hell is wrong with some people?


----------



## grandad (Apr 14, 2011)

newfiesmum said:


> When this member first arrived on this forum, he purported to be someone who was trying to learn about the different methods of training and wasn't sure what a remote collar was. Now he is saying that he uses this awful device on his own dog and has a whole set of rules about how and how not to train a dog.
> 
> Something is suspect, methinks.
> 
> ...


*Now he is saying that he uses this awful device on his own dog and has a whole set of rules about how and how not to train a dog.*

Have never used this on my dog and never will. get your facts right before slinging mud.


----------



## Rottiefan (Jun 20, 2010)

grandad said:


> *Now he is saying that he uses this awful device on his own dog and has a whole set of rules about how and how not to train a dog.*
> 
> Have never used this on my dog and never will. get your facts right before slinging mud.


I presumed Newfiesmum was talking about the actual trainer on the website


----------



## Irish Setter Gal (Mar 17, 2011)

Unfortunately I read it as Grandad said too, maybe an Edit from Newfies mum to correct?

*Momentofmadness *- another unfortunate thing of this section of the forum is that soooooo many posts have links that if you want to be involved you have no choice but to 'click and see'


----------



## grandad (Apr 14, 2011)

momentofmadness said:


> Do you not have any words of your own to use????
> 
> Don't click on links myself..


Strange, you never asked this of fellow brethren. LFL for example.


----------



## Rottiefan (Jun 20, 2010)

grandad said:


> Strange, you never asked this of fellow brethren. LFL for example.


With respect, LFL has around 10,000 posts.


----------



## Irish Setter Gal (Mar 17, 2011)

So *momentofmadness *can start now :ihih:


----------



## momentofmadness (Jul 19, 2008)

Irish Setter Gal said:


> So *momentofmadness *can start now :ihih:


Can start what?


----------



## Irish Setter Gal (Mar 17, 2011)

momentofmadness said:


> Can start what?


Clicking links


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

momentofmadness said:


> Do you not have any words of your own to use????
> Don't click on links myself...


if U do not click on links - How can U discuss what is to be found there?

if U want to discuss, suggest, promote, condemn... Some Other Person's words, methods, book, classes, etc, 
*referring to THEIR words* is the obvious choice.  thanks for the link, tho.

not clicking on links means U miss the books, articles, videos, seminars, blogs, webinars & other resources. 
that's a shame, IMO - i attended 1.5-hours of a webinar this morning, i'll be going to another 3-hours later 
this afternoon; it has included [so far] 3 nationally-known figures in animal welfare, with more to come. 
*traveling* is not in my budget; this webinar brings the info to me, & i can see photos, 
hear audio, read text, ask questions, offer observations & experience of my own... IMO it's priceless.

but of course, it is also *opt In - * it's a choice to give-up my time to attend, hopefully learn, maybe 
to share something that helps someone else, whom i would never meet otherwise.  i hope i did - 
that something i said was an insight or tip or new POV. i also hope the afternoon session is at least 
as good as yesterday & this AM! :thumbup: i'm looking forward to it.

from the Theory page at the link - 
Ideal K9 | Establishing Canine Pack Hierarchy In Dog Training | Developing Pack Structure With Proper Leadership



> *bold added - *
> 
> _Why is there a disturbing trend of more & *more disobedient, dominant and aggressive dogs* entering the society *each year*? _


where are the statistics to back this up?

in the USA there are MORE pet-dogs in MORE homes than ever in our history - over 76-million dogs. 
63% of all households have one or more pets; more than half of those have at least one dog. 
one home in 4 has 2 or more dogs - *25% being multi-dog homes* is a lot.

yet bite-rates - *the number of bites per 10k persons - * are _*down.*_ 
this despite the fact that dogs in the USA now go more places & do more things - pet-dogs rarely traveled 
when i was a kid, now 1 in 5 families takes their dog on vacation with them.

pet-dogs did not get into *dog sports* when i was a kid, except for very regimented competition obedience, 
gundog sports, rarely herding trials, and the breed show-ring; *that was pretty much it.*

[today, there are pet-dogs competing in tracking over variable surfaces - unheard of, in my youth.]

Schutzhund arrived in the mid-70s; disc-dog was the 1980s, flyball was the 90s, Rally-O! was the 90s, 
agility was the mid-80s, weight-pull was the 80s, ski-jor & bike-jor were in there somewhere, NoseWork is *new*, 
TreibBall is *new*, the _Dog Scouts of America_ was the 90s, dog-scootering is not 10-years old, 
freestyle & Heelwork to Music are maybe 20-years old, herding competitions for PET dogs are all over [with ducks 
or haired-sheep or cattle or wooled sheep]... *more dogs are traveling, competing, playing, working, 
performing - they travel by car, air, bus, ferry... there are more service-dogs doing more things. *

nobody trains a seizure-alert or diabetic-alert or psych-support dog with a shock-collar. 
30 years ago, dogs for autistic children did not exist, except as family pets who volunteered. 
balance & mobility dogs for Parkinson's affected persons are new; chemical-alert dogs for those who have 
sensitivities to fragrances, solvents, cleaners, etc, or allergen-alert dogs for folks who react to peanuts 
or shellfish or ______ are also quite new.

so i would say, conversely, 
_more dogs are being trained to a higher standard than ever before in my personal half-century 
of life-span._ I think that's terrific; i also think more dogs can & will & DO benefit from reward-based 
training than will ever thrive under 'correction' based training; as seen in World War II, with a 
60% failure rate among the dogs in military boot-camp being trained for patrol, punishment 
is only applicable to a few dogs who can survive it without emotional, mental or behavioral fallout.

the WW-2 US-military had a virtually limitless pool of dogs to break & discard; pet-owners have no spares. 
they have *a* puppy, *a* dog, *a* teenaged Lab, *a* senior Golden, *a* shy Aussie, *a* reactive GSD... 
& they want to work with their dog to make THAT dog the best s/he can become, not wreck them. 
reward-based training can be tailored to the dog's age & sensitivity, the goal, owner's or handler's skill, 
the disabled handler's physical challenges, a child's ability to grasp the concepts - it is forgiving, 
adaptable, open-ended & enjoyable for the non-human & the handler & the instructor - 
or if they have one, an audience.

very few people WANT to watch someone yank, scold, interrupt, jerk, choke, shock, push, flood, 
coerce or otherwise intimidate or punish a dog into obeying; they appear to be angry, frustrated 
or both, even when they're not. 
surprisingly, when i work with a dog in public, many times passersby stop to watch - or smile, 
or greet us, or praise the dog - or hang out with questions. It's obvious the dog is engaged, 
the handler is, too, & we are all 3 deeply involved in something interesting - and fun. 
Learning is happening, but nobody's cross, the dog may be anxious but is not made more so... 
everybody is *willing*. 
that's not to say i don't get frustrated, or the owner's never confused, or the dog's never lost - 
but it's fleeting, & compared to the coercion of my childhood training with dogs, this is *Heaven.* :001_tt1:

i've been there & done that - & this is way, way better.


----------



## momentofmadness (Jul 19, 2008)

Irish Setter Gal said:


> Clicking links


Im lazy.. 

OOOO and this part of the forum didn't used to be link speech 

Only recently it has been taken over by all these links.. 

Honestly what is so hard to type your own ideas on training?


----------



## Irish Setter Gal (Mar 17, 2011)

momentofmadness said:


> Honestly what is so hard to type your own ideas on training?


I think some like to drop an article or link in to open a debate or share info rather than 'cut n paste'

Sometimes though it would be nice for a *brief* [note LFL] supporting outline of associated personal points to add... :idea: Twitter 140 word limit to posts


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

continuing, from the Theory page at the link -


> *bold added - *
> 
> _ I have come to the realization that *most dog owners are far too lenient* when training, & end-up
> being *compliant* to their own dogs. This results in a *loss of respect* & ultimately the [*the loss
> of the*] *desired pack-leader rank* in the relationship with the dog._


* what's _'far too lenient'_? positive is not permissive; dogs who have not learned manners are not 
deliberately rebellious, they're innocently ignorant. they need to be taught, not punished.

* claiming the owner, handler or trainer is _'compliant' -_ 
this makes the human feel embarrassed, un-worthy, belittled, ridiculed... BUT THE DOG is not doing that. 
the *label - * which is applied by this person to the owner, handler, trainer, vet-tech, etc, is the thing 
which belittles, disrespects, & is also IMO inaccurate.

* claiming the dog is *dis*respectful - 
horse-dung. Respect & trust are both earned; they are not instant, except in dogs who have a solid history of good 
past experiences with many diverse people; dogs who have their trust broken are wary & defensive, they avoid 
humans if possible, they expect bad things. Trusting dogs with good past histories *ask for help - * they expect 
water when they're thirsty, help when they're stuck or hurt, and so on.

* that _'desired *pack-leader* rank' - _ 
no need to belabor the obvious; dogs aren't wolves, they are closely related but *behaviorally* very different.

the foundation of a wild wolf-pack is the *pair bond - * dogs are not monogamous, the males do not help 
bitches rear pups, males have zero interest in feeding the bitch when she's heavy in whelp, they don't feed 
their own pups nor co-rear younger pups of their own parents if there is a another litter; some males will 
PLAY with pups, some ignore them, some walk away, some snap at them - same with bitches who are not 
the dam of that litter: reactions are anything from short-term interest to fun play to ignore, to chase off the pup.

*in marked contrast,* 5-WO to 14-WO wolf-pups are candy to wild wolves, they readily adopt them 
& all members of any age are willing to feed a hungry pup who begs. Any adult or subadult will mind the litter; 
everybody watches out for them, plays with them, alerts on threats to the pups.

dogs do NOT do those things; the DAM will protect, feed, monitor, play with, & so on; she's the care-giver. 
other dogs are possible playmates & when pups are older, teach them social manners; that's about it. 
some individual dogs will adopt needy orphans, but it's not the majority.

if there's no 'pack' among dogs outside short-term common goals - like hunting a rabbit - 
then *there's no pack-leader*, either... and no need to contest for the rank. it's illusory.

continuing, from the Theory page at the link -


> *bold added - *
> 
> _This is usually the result of a handler being exposed to ineffective & inferior dog training techniques or theories.
> I see this most evident in the *recent training philosophy* which only focuses on *purely positive
> ...


* my training of many species has been effective - in my personal experience - so why would i think it 'inferior'?

* my dogs have learned many things over the years - & my clients' dogs have learned thru my coaching, 
& their owners' training, without punishment other than rare & minimal, like "Ah-ah..." or a sharp glance. 
so if "Ah-Ah..." & raised eyebrows stop the dog in her or his tracks, why escalate?

* there is no such thing as *purely positive - * it's a myth.

* *discipline* is consistency [a disciplined schedule, disciplined exercise...], rules are followed 
[the discipline of a cloister], a routine, etc; discipline is NOT punishing, use of aversives, coercive, etc.

* "over-consumption of food"...? 
i see many more UNTRAINED dogs who are fat as hogs, than i do well-trained dogs in caring homes. 
f-a-t is not a consequence of training with treats; it's a direct consequence of feed too-much & exercise too-little.

* "continuous inappropriate [praise]"...? 
- A - praise is *discontinuous* or it's just background noise 
- B - *inappropriate praise* is a personal problem - not an industry standard. 

* "...teach the dog that [s/he] can never be wrong, no matter what 
the situation or circumstance." 
- dogs trained via pos-R *learn they can be wrong - and that's OK.* 
being wrong is not a crime, there's no sin in mistakes, they can try again. 
*no-one is perfect - * so errors are to be expected, & the dog can immediately self-correct, 
ask for help, think about it... etc; in the meanwhile, the TRAINER can offer a clue, realize they asked too much, 
back up one step, ask for a different but fluent behavior, and so on. 
*drop back & punt - these things happen; how we cope is what matters.*

continuing, from the Theory page at the link -


> *bold added - *
> 
> _In fact the dog is *usually given food or praise during an excited, dominant or even
> an aggressive state*_.


* who sez? :huh: when i give a dog FOOD or PRAISE while s/he is excited, i may want that excitement - 
i may WANT that BC to be jumping up & down, barking at the approaching geese... to warn them off. 
i may WANT a guarding-breed to bark-alert, come find me & *keep barking* - to intimidate an intruder.

* *dominant* is about resources not status; it's INTRAspecies, not INTERspecies; & dyadic. 
ergo it is not a STATE - nor a character trait or lifestyle. *dominance in behavior has a definition. * 
please don't sling it about like the latest street-slang.

* if i offer a dog displaying *aggression* food or praise, odds are overwhelming that this is B-Mod. 
i am deliberately pairing a primary or secondary reinforcer with a *trigger - * usually something which scares 
or worries this dog; so long as the dog is *under threshold,* i can make happy associations 
with the formerly-frightening trigger, & change the dog's emotional response.

THAT is B-Mod: to alter the person's perception of, & emotional reaction to, their former trigger. 
we change their behavior by changing their feelings around that trigger.

continuing, from the Theory page at the link -


> *bold added - *
> 
> _This *purely positive* method actually *lures the dog into performing basic commands*
> or *bribes the dog during [distracting] situations [via] the use of food or praise*. _


* *purely positive* is a myth.

* *lures* are only used during very early, introductory training - usually for changes in *posture* or *location*. 
they are quickly & easily faded and then not used... until we need to teach the dog something else, which needs 
a change of posture that is NOT under cued-stimulus ['stand on hind-legs'...], or which needs 
a change of location that cannot be directionally cued... like hitting a mark on a stage-set.

* *bribes* are not used in training. 
a bribe is shown BEFORE the task is done, & is not used as a lure. 
lures move the subject; rewards come *after* the behavior is performed. 
so a lure is a reward, used to move the subject & given *after s/he moves*.

* if the situation is highly distracting & *the dog has not been proofed* to this degree, there is nothing *wrong* 
with keeping the dog's attention & focus on the task by offering food - or praise, or a series of simple cues 
to well-known fluent behavior, or anything else that keeps the dog successful, calm & compliant.

OTOH if the situation is highly distracting & the dog is clearly beyond her or his ability to cope, not proofed - 
then *letting the dog FAIL* is a complete fumble by the trainer, who should support their dog, 
*not spectate while their partner fails.* :nono:


----------



## Irish Setter Gal (Mar 17, 2011)

Irish Setter Gal said:


> I think some like to drop an article or link in to open a debate or share info rather than 'cut n paste'
> 
> Sometimes though it would be nice for a *brief* [note LFL] supporting outline of associated personal points to add... :idea: Twitter 140 word limit to posts


Too quick .... reposted :wink5:


----------



## momentofmadness (Jul 19, 2008)

Irish Setter Gal said:


> Too quick .... reposted :wink5:


My point being starting a thread with.. mmmmmmmmmmmm and then just a link

A link with no thoughts or opinions or reasoning to start a discussion??

Therefore .. Im not keen to click the link


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

MomentOfMadness - 


> _ Honestly[,] what is so hard[-] to type your own ideas on training? _


M-o-M wants me to type my own thoughts - presumably so they're understandable, which means 
quality if not quantity.

Irish Setter Gal - 


> _ Sometimes... it would be nice for a brief... supporting outline of associated personal points... _


I-S-G wants me to point, grunt, smile or :thumbdown: my responses.

U can't communicate much over the Net without video / audio, or text. 
i'm not going to make a UTube video of my responses... that leaves text.


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

> Do you not have any words of your own to use????





> With respect, LFL has around 10,000 posts.


I dont think thats showing LFL any respect, it will make LFL feel foolish for everyone to know that if anyone pasts a youtube link then the link displays the title OF THE VIDEO!! and after 10,000 posts LFL does not even know that simple elementary! 

What LFL was asigning to Grandad was nothing to do with what grandad wrote, it was the youtube link displaying the video title, below is an example of another youtube link, the title is the title youtube is displying on here NOT ME!!! (or grandad)

As for LFL, if they refuse to watch yoube links AND READ THE YOUTUBE TITLE which make up this subject then LFL is like a blind person crossing a ravine on a tightrope leading a herd of blind one legged sheep into the abyss of factual & intellectual poverty.

Youtube link title display example.

YouTube - ‪dogs trust (spoof contains strong language )‬‏
.


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

> LFL
> where are the statistics to back this up?
> yet bite-rates - the number of bites per 10k persons - are down.


Well not here in UK bite rates are not down, they are consistently rising every year, according to BBC dog on human bites are up 40% in only 4 years & that is an obedience problem, the statistics are from our hospitals.

NOTE >The title is from the site NOT me!!!

BBC NEWS | Health | Hospitals see rise in dog bites
.


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

> yet bite-rates - the number of bites per 10k persons - are down.


In the UK police dogs have bitten 196 police staff & 155 members of the public in the past 3 years and that's all down to lack of effective OB training.

CCTV footage - 'Britans Finest' (my title)
YouTube - ‪Worst police dog in the world‬‏

£770,000 paid out to police dog bite victims - Telegraph
.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

SleepyBones said:


> Well not here in UK bite rates are not down, they are consistently rising every year, according to BBC dog on human bites are up 40% in only 4 years & that is an obedience problem, the statistics are from our hospitals.
> 
> NOTE >The title is from the site NOT me!!!
> 
> ...


Or people are reporting bites more

You can't state that this is down to an 'obedience problem' - there is no evidence to support this.


----------



## grandad (Apr 14, 2011)

Cleo38 said:


> Or people are reporting bites more
> 
> You can't state that this is down to an 'obedience problem' - there is no evidence to support this.


If it's not an obedience problem then what problem is it?


----------



## grandad (Apr 14, 2011)

SleepyBones said:


> Well not here in UK bite rates are not down, they are consistently rising every year, according to BBC dog on human bites are up 40% in only 4 years & that is an obedience problem, the statistics are from our hospitals.
> 
> NOTE >The title is from the site NOT me!!!
> 
> ...


And they are only the bites that are reported. What about the bites that go unreported for fear of reprisals against the dog.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

dog-bite statistics are:

* notoriously under-reported - 
- since many bites are minor & need no medical attention 
- since MOST bites are from known dogs [family, rels, friends, neighbors...] 
- most *small-dog* bites are never reported

* frequently *wrong* about which BREED of dog bit the person 
- in the USA, over 35% of dogs who bite are labeled with the wrong breed

* "*big dog*" *biased* 
- bigger dogs = bigger bites, more likely to need medical attention

- even when small-breeds bite, they may be REPORTED as big-breeds: 
E-G, black-&-tan MinPins are often described as Dobermans by the victim; 
whether they genuinely believe the dog is a Dobe, don't know what the heck a MinPin is, 
were scared & recall the dog as bigger than in real-life, or are embarrassed to have been 
badly bitten by an under-20# dog, who knows? 
All we can say is, whatever the reason, it happens.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

Im certainly not going to defend the trainer who's website inspired this discussion. He can do that himself if he's interested. BTW has anyone invited him to join and do so? Or is it better for some if he does not?



Colette said:


> So he obviously follows pack theory, ie the concept of a linear hierarchy ruled by a pack leader.


This is not the only definition of _"pack theory."_



Colette said:


> Last but by no means least - the shock collar, sorry the "e-collar".
> 
> Despite the assertion on one page about yank and stomp training damaging the dog owner relationship and creating fearful, handler aggressive dogs he then claims to deliberately ensure that the dog knows the shock comes from him. A little contradictory I feel.


Not at all if you read carefully. He's talking about how difficult it is for the average pet owner (whatever that means) to be consistent if they use leash corrections v. how easy it is for the user of an Ecollar to be consistent. I prefer that the dog not realize that the stim comes from the trainer but some people want the dog to know this. Just a different way of working.



Colette said:


> Then we have the claim that shocking a dog into compliance is "undeniably the most humane and accurate way to train a dog during challenging situations".


Well, not really. You're mixing your feelings that an Ecollar is used to _"shock a dog into compliance"_ and that's not true. Then you add in his statement about the Ecollar. You can't logically mix the two.



Colette said:


> Then there's the claim that "compulsion is always necessary to ensure dependability". Again, zero evidence for this. Plenty of evidence against in the form of all those thousands of dogs trained / reared / rehabilitated etc successfully without the use of compulsion.


The term "reliability" is bandied about quite a bit. I've found that some people think their dog is reliable when it takes them ten commands to get compliance. I've found that some people mean that their dog is reliable when no distractions are present. So it's usually best to get the person's definition before making claims either way. For the record, my measure of reliability is that the dog will obey with single commands in the face of high level distractions when the dog is far from the handler but only close enough that he can hear (or otherwise sense) his commands.



Colette said:


> And IMO the most telling thing - his own dog is "never engaged is off leash activities without his e-collar".
> Really effective method there mate - your shock trained dog is obviously totally dependable, knows his place, is not collar smart because he think the shock comes from you, but he will still have to wear the device for life because you don't trust your own training with your own dog!!!
> Genius. Have a medal.


There's a vast difference between using an Ecollar for management and using it for training. Any dog can at any time decide to disobey a command, no matter what tool or method was used to train him. Only the Ecollar allows the handler to correct a dog at a distance that is disobeying a command. Sometimes this can be life saving.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

leashedForLife said:


> if U do not click on links - How can U discuss what is to be found there?


What a great question. I have one as well. If you place someone on "ignore" _"How can U discuss what is to be found there?"_



leashedForLife said:


> not clicking on links means U miss the books, articles, videos, seminars, blogs, webinars & other resources. that's a shame, IMO


*Putting someone on ignore *_"means U miss the books, articles, videos, seminars, blogs, webinars & other resources. that's a shame, IMO"_



leashedForLife said:


> from the Theory page at the link -
> Ideal K9 | Establishing Canine Pack Hierarchy In Dog Training | Developing Pack Structure With Proper Leadership


LeashedForLife Quotes from the article, _"Why is there a disturbing trend of more & more disobedient, dominant and aggressive dogs entering the society each year?"_ And then supplies the answer with this statement, 
_"in the USA there are MORE pet-dogs in MORE homes than ever in our history - over 76-million dogs."_ More dogs equal more _"disobedient, dominant, and aggressive dogs."_



leashedForLife said:


> nobody trains a seizure-alert or diabetic-alert or psych-support dog with a shock-collar.


Well, actually you're wrong. I know people who have used the Ecollars on such dogs.



leashedForLife said:


> so i would say, conversely, _more dogs are being trained to a higher standard than ever before in my personal half-century of life-span._


Both statements are correct and they are certainly not mutually exclusive.



leashedForLife said:


> I think that's terrific; i also think more dogs can & will & DO benefit from reward-based training than will ever thrive under 'correction' based training; as seen in World War II, with a 60% failure rate among the dogs in military boot-camp being trained for patrol, punishment is only applicable to a few dogs who can survive it without emotional, mental or behavioral fallout.


I think it's terrific too. But I have yet to see any evidence that the failure rate of the training of dogs _"as seen in World War II"_ has anything to do with the training methods. It's probably because they were not genetically suited for the work. Relatively few dogs can stand the noise, the confusion and the stress of a battlefield that's simulated during that kind of training. Better that they fail in training than in the field.



leashedForLife said:


> very few people WANT to watch someone yank, scold, interrupt, jerk, choke, *shock, *push, flood, coerce or otherwise intimidate or punish a dog into obeying; they appear to be angry, frustrated or both, even when they're not. [Emphasis Added]


Actually I have people come to my seminars to see me shock dogs all the time. Only problem is they can't tell when it's happening! lol



leashedForLife said:


> surprisingly, when i work with a dog in public, many times passersby stop to watch - or smile, or greet us, or praise the dog - or hang out with questions. It's obvious the dog is engaged, the handler is, too, & we are all 3 deeply involved in something interesting - and fun.


I don't find it _"surprising"_ at all. I get the same thing when I'm working a dog in public, which I do most of the time.



leashedForLife said:


> Learning is happening, but nobody's cross, the dog may be anxious but is not made more so... everybody is *willing*. that's not to say i don't get frustrated, or the owner's never confused, or the dog's never lost - but it's fleeting, & compared to the coercion of my childhood training with dogs


Ditto except that I don't have a history of using coercion.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

momentofmadness said:


> Honestly what is so hard to type your own ideas on training?


I agree. Even back before leashedForLife had me on ignore this was occurring. I'd ask several questions about something that leashedForLife had written and there wouldn't be any answers. Some people's theories just won't stand up to questioning.


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

> my measure of reliability is that the dog will obey with single commands in the face of high level distractions when the dog is far from the handler but only close enough that he can hear (or otherwise sense) his commands


My definition is similar but the same, the times I think a second command should be given is when the dog is known to chase any game around & is out of sight of owner for some time prior to any command in that kind of area, the example below is the video right at the end in the snow, providing the veiwer has seen some of the long range one command recalls. There is also another clip in this footage where the dog suddenly takes off full blast at a herd of close deer, the owner gives one vocal comend and the dog responds immediatly but then he whistles as well whilst the dog already running back, maybe the whistle is the main command & habitual.

YouTube - ‪E-Collar Trained Dog. Multiple Game Chase Recalls, Emergency Recall, Aggressive Incident Recall etc‬‏
.


----------



## CarolineH (Aug 4, 2009)

<sighs> Here we go. Back to the old e-collar tripe.  How very predictable...:Yawn:


----------



## arlow (Apr 20, 2011)

leashedForLife said:


> * my dogs have learned many things over the years - & my clients' dogs have learned thru my coaching,
> & their owners' training, without punishment other than rare & minimal, like "Ah-ah..." or a sharp glance.
> so if "Ah-Ah..." & raised eyebrows stop the dog in her or his tracks, why escalate?


But in that other thread on the use of aversives (since removed) you insisted repeatedly that you *never* use positive punishment.

Now you say you do. Which is it?


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

> <sighs> Here we go. Back to the old e-collar tripe. How very predictable...


Interesting, I just checked back & out of 37 posts your the only one whose posted exclusivly about e-collars...Im sure such a phenomina must have a name.

.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

CarolineH said:


> <sighs> Here we go. Back to the old e-collar tripe. How very predictable...


I find it fascinating that you are completely blind to the fact that we are RESPONDING to the tripe put out by those who oppose Ecollars.

THEY are the ones who are _"very predictable."_ Not a new argument anywhere on the horizon. Same old, same old. ROFL.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

arlow said:


> But in that other thread on the use of aversives (since removed) you insisted repeatedly that you *never* use positive punishment.
> 
> Now you say you do. Which is it?


It's easy Arlow. They just change the definition of the terms that they don't like. POOF, it's no longer positive punishment.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

SleepyBones said:


> Interesting, I just checked back & out of 37 posts your the only one whose posted exclusivly about e-collars...Im sure such a phenomina must have a name.
> 
> .


There is a term for it. It's called Cognitive Dissonance. There's another discussion going on about it right now. It's interesting that they think that we are the only ones who suffer from it.

Not surprisingly, the same sort of cheap shotting at Ecollars is going on.


----------



## CarolineH (Aug 4, 2009)

:Yawn: ut:


----------



## Irish Setter Gal (Mar 17, 2011)

Can I thus conclude from their posts that both Lou & L4L are in a cognitive dissonance of each other, or is this a one sided debate :ihih:


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

> Lou & L4L are in a cognitive dissonance of each other,


:ihih:


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

leashedForLife said:


> very few people WANT to watch someone yank, scold, interrupt, jerk, choke, shock, push, flood,
> coerce or otherwise intimidate or punish a dog into obeying; they appear to be angry, frustrated
> or both, even when they're not.
> surprisingly, when i work with a dog in public, many times passersby stop to watch - or smile,
> ...


That's my experience to and very often they are smiling because they see a well behaved happy dog and that inspires questions.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

Irish Setter Gal said:


> Can I thus conclude from their posts that both Lou & L4L are in a cognitive dissonance of each other, or is this a one sided debate


Not even close. At last look l4l had me on ignore. You can't be in cognitive dissonance of something that you're too afraid of to even read. *That's just complete denial. *And I'm not in cognitive dissonance of anything that comes from l4l because I use the tools and techniques discussed there. I don't have the _'preexisting beliefs"_ that are necessary for CD to form. When I first heard of those methods I read about them, found people who used them to learn from, started using them myself and found that they were good for some things and not so good for other things.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

> Originally Posted by leashedForLife -
> 
> * my dogs have learned many things over the years - & my clients' dogs have learned thru my coaching,
> & their owners' training, without punishment other than rare & minimal, like "Ah-ah..." or a sharp glance.
> so if "Ah-Ah..." & raised eyebrows stop the dog in her or his tracks, why escalate?





arlow said:


> But in that other thread on the use of aversives (since removed) you insisted repeatedly that you *never* use positive punishment.
> 
> Now you say you do. Which is it?


_Excuse me, *arlow - * 
is English Ur native tongue? i have repeatedly stated what i use, & how.

* i DON'T use choke-chains, prong-collars, shock-collars, or jerk on collars.
IMO *jerk* in dog training is a noun, not a verb. 
i *don't* hang, poke, pin, intimidate, flood, Alpha-roll, provoke, etc.

* i NEVER said i use *zero* punishment. 
i have said very clearly, over & over, i AVOID punishment. 
the most-common form i use, *& that is rare,* is negative:
remove something desirable to discourage a behavior.

* i have said very clearly, i use LIMA standards. 
don't know what that is? *search* the forum, or Google it.

* unlike some, i am very clear on what is acceptable. 
i don't put pretty frilly-pink labels on my tools or methods. 

back on Ignore... :thumbdown:_


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

leashedForLife said:


> Excuse me, *arlow - *
> is English Ur native tongue?


 EXCUSE ME l4l. is RUDENESS _"ur native tongue?"_ 



leashedForLife said:


> * i DON'T use choke-chains, prong-collars, shock-collars, or jerk on collars.


I use those tools and more. But then I know how to use them properly. Based on what you've told us of your history, you don't.



leashedForLife said:


> i *don't* hang, poke, pin, intimidate, flood, Alpha-roll, provoke, etc.


Me either. Those things have nothing to do with the previously mentioned tools.



leashedForLife said:


> * i NEVER said i use *zero* punishment.
> i have said very clearly, over & over, i AVOID punishment.


No reason to really. Communication is BEST accomplished with BOTH reinforcement punishment whether it's learning to drive, doing algebra or training a dog.



leashedForLife said:


> * unlike some, i am very clear on what is acceptable.
> i don't put pretty frilly-pink labels on my tools or methods.
> 
> back on Ignore...


 Can you say * COGNITIVE DISSONANCE? ROFLMFAO. *


----------



## arlow (Apr 20, 2011)

leashedForLife said:


> Excuse me, *arlow - *
> is English Ur native tongue? i have repeatedly stated what i use, & how.
> 
> * i NEVER said i use *zero* punishment.


Please read what I said. You said in the past that you *never * use *positive* punishment. In fact, you were quite adamant about it. Yet in this thread you acknowledge that you do.

I didn't say that you claimed to use* zero* punishment. You claimed that you use* only* negative punishment. Now you say you do, on occasion, use positive punishment. Thus you are contradicting yourself. Do you deny saying you never use positive punishment?

All I did was point out your contradiction and ask for clarification. Why that illicits such a rude response is a mystery. Cognitive dissonance perhaps?


----------



## Colette (Jan 2, 2010)

Perhaps LfLs response was warranted, given that you joined this thread for the sole purpose of berating her over semantics.

As she has said, LFL has made it perfectly clear what she finds acceptable and what she uses herself. This thread is debating a particular trainer, as posted by the OP - thus debating pack theory, and the use of harsh physical punishments (in this case shock). A world of difference compared to LFLs rare verbal correction.

My advice - get over yourself and grow up.


----------



## Pawsitive (Mar 24, 2011)

I really dislike personal attacks on members. I find it unnecessary when debating and I find it funny that it is those in support of aversives who generally tend to be the ones bashing particular people on here, and then getting upset when the person dares to respond a bit more strongly (and no, I'm not just referring to this thread).

Anyway, regarding the original topic:

I had a good look at the site and disagree with his training philosophy and style. If the trainer wants to come on here and debate with us, he is clearly welcome to do so. 

I would also like to see his statistics regarding his claim of more disobedient / dominant / aggressive dogs. 

If it were indeed the case, I wouldn't think this is down to the dogs but actually down to how we humans look after / train / teach our dogs. Is it the dogs fault when the chav cuts his tail or ears to make him 'look hard'? Is it the dog's fault when the chav encourages vicious/aggressive behaviour? I think we have a lot to answer for and blaming the dog for being 'dominant' and whacking an e-collar on him, doesn't really solve the problem.

From experience, I've walked past bull breeds and 'owners' with my collies, and been told a good few times that 'my dog could kill your dog'. Ok, he probably could. But is the dog that needs the e collar or the irresponsible t***er holding on to him?

(no criticism against chav's, I'm sure some of them are lovely.  )

In my opinion, so much about dog training does focus on educating the owners, that's what I like about clicker training. I find it effective and there isn't a lot of damage to be done with a badly timed click.


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

I've accidentally used positive punishment, I'm sure very many have to, who don't intend to, nor do they believe it's generally effective. To err is human 

There's such a thing as not seeing the wood for the trees, and "punishment" was probably a bad choice of word by the behavioural scientists to pair with reinforcer. Probably "Diminisher" and may be "Increaser" would have been less confusing, carrying less baggage than punisher with it's discipline overtones.

Oh and BTW http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7264620.stm is clearly talking about so called "status dogs" :



> "These are dramatic increases. I think in some communities these dogs have become a badge of honour, a fashion accessory in a way, and I think that's very disturbing."


Ask yourself whether these dogs trainer's are likely to use rewards, or be the types to rely on fear, intimidation to achieve results. Will the soft harness, or the spiky bladed collar appeal?

Actually that story is evidence for coercion failing!


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

> I've accidentally used positive punishment, I'm sure very many have to, who don't intend to, nor do they believe it's generally effective


A positive punisher AND a negative punisher BOTH have the same effect, they weaken any behaviour by suppressing the behaviour & the animal works to avoid the punisher.

All refs to training on this site, including yours, are describing negative pubnishment based training/teaching, NOT reward based, as you would lead those who dont understand to beleive, you write words as operant stimuli in order to influence those readers who don't understand operant.

Refs
B F Skinner, The Behaviour Of Organisms, 1938.

B F Skinner, About Behaviourism, 1974.

and numerous other B F Skinner papers & books.
.


----------



## CarolineH (Aug 4, 2009)

Pawsitive said:


> I really dislike personal attacks on members. I find it unnecessary when debating and I find it funny that it is those in support of aversives who generally tend to be the ones bashing particular people on here, and then getting upset when the person dares to respond a bit more strongly (and no, I'm not just referring to this thread).


You've noticed that too? Glad that I'm not the only one to notice that certain people make a habit of bashing the same members. 

It's all rather pathetic isn't it?


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

> You've noticed that too? Glad that I'm not the only one to notice that certain people make a habit of bashing the same members.


Poor little mites, bless
.


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

> Pawsitive
> it is those in support of aversives


Not to accept aversives as huge part the learning process of all animals is either to misunderstand how learning occurres and the benefits of learning with aversives, are we to walk infornt of buses because we cannot accept them as aversives.

There is no dog owner on the planet whose dog does not learn how to enjoy its freedom within safety whose dog has not learned as a result of experiencing physical aversives with varying degrees of discomfort through to pain.

Its an uncontroversial fact that human psychologists are in universal agreement that all deliberate learned human behaviour is avoidance behaviour and is learned via exposure to things which are aversive to that individual. It is that aversive learning which increases the quality of life and the freedom to interact successfully & freely in the environment.

Again we come back to B F Skinner whose theory of how animals learn is so often misquoted around here (at least every page). Skinner said humans learn mainly through intellect, animals through environmental stimuli

Dogs learned behaviour to physical aversives.
YouTube - ‪E-Collar Trained. Dogs Learned Responses To Aversive Stimuli‬‏

.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

Colette said:


> Perhaps LfLs response was warranted, given that you joined this thread for the sole purpose of berating her over semantics.


It's not just semantics. It's about credibility. When a trainer says that he doesnt use punishment, he's not being honest. It's impossible to train any animal without using it. that was l4l's original statement on the topic.



Colette said:


> As she has said, LFL has made it perfectly clear what she finds acceptable and what she uses herself.


NOW, after the truth has been revealed, that l4l DOES use punishment, comes forth an admission that punishment is used in the training but it's qualified. That doesnt change the original statement that punishment was not used.



Colette said:


> This thread is debating a particular trainer, as posted by the OP - thus debating pack theory, *and the use of harsh physical punishments (in this case shock). *A world of difference compared to LFLs rare verbal correction.
> 
> My advice - get over yourself and grow up.


MY ADVICE, get some education about the modern use of the Ecollar. Stim doesn't have to be a _"harsh physical punishment"_ to be effective. It seems the you too suffer from the malady that is central to another discussion, cognitive dissonance. I and others have said this repeatedly about Ecollars but you (and a few others) keep repeating this statement, almost as if it was your mantra.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

Pawsitive said:


> I really dislike personal attacks on members. I find it unnecessary when debating and I find it funny that it is those in support of aversives who generally tend to be the ones bashing particular people on here, and then getting upset when the person dares to respond a bit more strongly (and no, I'm not just referring to this thread).


Pick a thread and I'd bet that I can show you that it the anti−Ecollar folks who have started the personal attacks. Cognitive dissonance prevents you from realizing this.



Pawsitive said:


> I had a good look at the site and disagree with his training philosophy and style. If the trainer wants to come on here and debate with us, he is clearly welcome to do so.


He has no interest in arguing with folks who don't know what they're talking about.



Pawsitive said:


> I would also like to see his statistics regarding his claim of more disobedient / dominant / aggressive dogs.


Perhaps you should ask him. As I pointed out, he has not said that the rate of these dogs has changed, only that the numbers of them have increased. It only makes sense since the number of dogs as pets has increased.



Pawsitive said:


> If it were indeed the case, I wouldn't think this is down to the dogs but actually down to how we humans look after / train / teach our dogs. Is it the dogs fault when the chav cuts his tail or ears to make him 'look hard'? Is it the dog's fault when the chav encourages vicious/aggressive behaviour? I think we have a lot to answer for and blaming the dog for being 'dominant' and whacking an e-collar on him, doesn't really solve the problem.


You think that cropping a dog's tail or ears makes him _"disobedient / dominant / aggressive?"_



Pawsitive said:


> In my opinion, so much about dog training does focus on educating the owners, that's what I like about clicker training. I find it effective and there isn't a lot of damage to be done with a badly timed click.


_"There there isn't a lot of damage to be done with a badly timed stim"_ either.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

RobD-BCactive said:


> There's such a thing as not seeing the wood for the trees, and "punishment" was probably a bad choice of word by the behavioural scientists to pair with reinforcer. Probably "Diminisher" and may be "Increaser" would have been less confusing, carrying less baggage than punisher with it's discipline overtones.


You may have something there. But I think that it's those who favor the so−called "kinder gentler methods" who have added to the confusion. This happened a couple of ways. The first is when they tried to get people to believe that punishment only meant hitting, kicking or otherwise causing pain to a dog. The second is when Karen Pryor published her book, "Don't Shoot The Dog," that popularized the use of these methods and made them accessible to the general public. She deliberately said that she wasn't going to use the terms that the scientific community had been using for decades, instead she was going to use the common terms. This has resulted in the confusion of countless pet owners as to the true meaning of the word "punishment." Many of them think that it's something to be avoided.



Pawsitive said:


> Oh and BTW BBC NEWS | Health | Hospitals see rise in dog bites is clearly talking about so called "status dogs" : "These are dramatic increases. I think in some communities these dogs have become a badge of honour, a fashion accessory in a way, and I think that's very disturbing."


I don't think that the entire article is about "status dogs." I think that's a comment made by a legislator with an agenda. Its sounds as if he's talking about banning more breeds in the UK.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

CarolineH said:


> You've noticed that too? Glad that I'm not the only one to notice that certain people make a habit of bashing the same members.
> 
> It's all rather pathetic isn't it?


I agree that it is _"rather pathetic."_ As an example someone wrote,


> <sighs> Here we go. Back to the old e-collar tripe. How very predictable...


Hmmm who could that have been?


----------



## Pawsitive (Mar 24, 2011)

SleepyBones said:


> Not to accept aversives as huge part the learning process of all animals is either to misunderstand how learning occurres and the benefits of learning with aversives, are we to walk infornt of buses because we cannot accept them as aversives.
> 
> There is no dog owner on the planet whose dog does not learn how to enjoy its freedom within safety whose dog has not learned as a result of experiencing physical aversives with varying degrees of discomfort through to pain.
> 
> ...


I don't disagree that you have a point to an extent. I still don't have to _inflict_ pain on him myself to make my dog learn when there are other ways of teaching him.


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

> There's such a thing as not seeing the wood for the trees, and "punishment" was probably a bad choice of word by the behavioural scientists to pair with reinforcer.


The way that is written is plain wholy incorrect, "Punishment"(s) are NOT reinforcers, no human psychologist would portray them as reinforcers

To repeat what I keep emphasising, positive & negative punishments mean anything which WEAKENS any behaviour by suppression of the behaviour & the animal works in such a way as to avoid the punisher.

Neither Skinner or any other human psychologist I have heard of have said either punishment is a reinforcer, maybe, Robo, you could quote an esoteric source who has said it is!?

.


----------



## Pawsitive (Mar 24, 2011)

Lou Castle said:


> Pick a thread and I'd bet that I can show you that it the anti−Ecollar folks who have started the personal attacks. Cognitive dissonance prevents you from realizing this.
> 
> He has no interest in arguing with folks who don't know what they're talking about.
> 
> ...


Cognitive dissonance my @ss. I am capable of seeing who says what with my own eyes.

Does that mean you know him then? How rude to say that people on here don't know what they're talking about especially when you are the one coming across defensive and making personal digs - surely calm debate is a better method of persuading (which is the point of a debate) people that you are knowledgeable in the field and correct in what you say?

I think I will ask him. What a good idea Lou.

No Lou, it was an example to show what we humans do to our dogs. To show that through our own selfish and stupid desires, we can make a dog look completely unnatural and encourage aggressive behaviour because we think we might look cool if our dog is vicious. _Human encouragement_ of that sort of behaviour is bound to result in problem dogs.

Really? Interesting. Evidence please. And not a random youtube link that proves nothing.

As per Lou's suggestion, I have now emailed Mr. Herlan and asked him whether he would like to join the debate or could provide us with sources for his data.


----------



## l2ahanna (May 22, 2011)

Haha he looks to smooth to be a dogtrainer or expert!


----------



## arlow (Apr 20, 2011)

Colette said:


> Perhaps LfLs response was warranted, given that you joined this thread for the sole purpose of berating her over semantics.
> 
> As she has said, LFL has made it perfectly clear what she finds acceptable and what she uses herself. This thread is debating a particular trainer, as posted by the OP - thus debating pack theory, and the use of harsh physical punishments (in this case shock). A world of difference compared to LFLs rare verbal correction.


No, it's not simply a matter of semantics; it really gets to the heart of the debate and is very relevant to this thread. I'll explain.

LFL, and many others here, object to the use of ecollars because it is used to deliver a "harsh physical punishment". There are two problems with that objection, 1)it's not harsh, 2)while it may be used as punishment, there are other, better ways to use it. Let's focus on the first.

I know it's not harsh because I've tested it on myself and I can't even feel it at my dog's working level. If I turn it up to where I can feel it, it's just a weird pulsation. I've tested it on a 5 year old girl. Her response? She giggled. I also observe my dog's behavior when I hit the button. Not much of a reaction, maybe an ear scratch, maybe he'll look at me. Most observers can't even tell when I'm hitting the button, including my wife who is very familiar our dog and with ecollar protocol.

The rebuttals to my argument I've heard from LFL and other's are, 1)a dog's physiology is very different from human's and dogs are stoic so they don't show the pain, therefore "we have no idea what it really feels like to a dog", but we know it hurts because dogs will preferentially avoid it, "after all, if they did not hurt, they would not work".

But that logic is flawed. As LFL stated, her preferred methods of positive punishment will "stop a dog in it's tracks". So the fact of effectiveness is not proof of harshness.

Here's some irony for you. I mostly agree with what has been said here about the use of punishment, I think it is tool that should be used only on a limited basis and it's misuse can have negative consequences. I focus my efforts on reinforcing desireable behaviors rather than extinguishing undesirable ones. Which gets to the second objection.

I rarely use the ecollar to punish, ie., I don't "zap" my dog after he's dispayed an undesirable behavior. Rather I use it both to get his attention and as a negative reinforcer to reinforce desirable behaviors. And that brings me to the topic at hand. From what I've read of the website under discussion, I don't think he is making optimal use of the ecollar, since he seems to only use it to punish. I did contact him and was very gracious in responding. Seems he's had quite a bit of success in rehabing aggressive dogs using his methods. If I get his permission, I'll post his response.



> My advice - get over yourself and grow up.


Is this not a personal attack?

On the other hand, if I have engaged in any personal attacks, please show me examples. As for your other personal attack, my purpose here is not to berate anyone over semantics or anything else. I'm here to learn something and to share my experience and knowledge with others.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

arlow said:


> No, it's not simply a matter of semantics; it really gets to the heart of the debate and is very relevant to this thread. I'll explain.
> 
> LFL, and many others here, object to the use of ecollars because it is used to deliver a "harsh physical punishment". There are two problems with that objection, 1)it's not harsh, 2)while it may be used as punishment, there are other, better ways to use it. Let's focus on the first.
> 
> ...


If shock collars are so benign in the right hands, why have they been banned in Wales and why did the UK Kennel Club ban them years ago? They are evil things and should not be allowed in anybody's hands, even less to be sold to the general public who have no idea what they are doing.


----------



## Rottiefan (Jun 20, 2010)

E-collars: I do not doubt they can be used effectively and humanely, but I think this happens a very slim proportion of the time, which is the reason for them being banned in certain areas. 

The fact that they are publicly available is the real crime.

I don't see any point debating the matter. There are those on here that use them, swear by them, and that's their choice. We are not going to change their views over the net and neither will they change ours. 

Let's get back into digging about dominance and pack leadership....oh, wait...


----------



## Colette (Jan 2, 2010)

Lou: Just wanted to comment on this....



> MY ADVICE, get some education about the modern use of the Ecollar. Stim doesn't have to be a "harsh physical punishment" to be effective. It seems the you too suffer from the malady that is central to another discussion, cognitive dissonance. I and others have said this repeatedly about Ecollars but you (and a few others) keep repeating this statement, almost as if it was your mantra.


May I ask - did you read through the website that this particular thread is discussing? Or indeed my own post, where my comment was in context?

My comment was specifically about that particular trainer and the methods he uses, according to his website.

He does not use the shock collar as negative reinforcement, nor does he make any suggestion that it is used only on the lowest level that the dog can feel.
He uses the collar to give a physical punishment, both when the dog disobeys a command and when the dog performs certain behaviours that he relates to pack theory.
There is no real guide to how high a level to shock a dog for disobedience - the websites only reads so as to suggest the shock must be aversive enough to punish the misdemeanour.
As for the list of pack behaviours (inc humping other dogs!) he specifically recommends using a setting so high that the dog can not possibly work through it, and will remember it for a lifetime. In other words a "harsh" correction.

I stand by my description that this individual uses the shock collar to deliver harsh physical punishment.

I wasn't referring in this instance to how you, or anyone else uses it. Don't get me wrong, it is clear I don't approve of your method either - but personally I feel his is far worse.

Arlow:

As above - the trainer we are talking about in this thread DOES use the collar to deliver harsh physical punishment. 
By its nature the collar is physical - whether used as a positive punisher or a negative reinforcer. Whether or not it is "harsh" depends surely on the individual dog, the level of shock used, the way it is used, etc. Not to mention people's personal views on what constitutes "harsh".

Terry (LFL) has clearly stated that her methods are primarily positive reinforcement. The use of any positive punishment is rare and its severity level minimal. The positive puishments used only on occassion by LFL have zero chance of causing the dog pain, injury, fear, distress or behavioural fallout. 
This is a world apart from people who use aversives as thier first port of call, use them frequently, and who use aversives that may indeed cause pain, fear, distress, fallout etc.

My objection to your post, and the reason I felt the need to respond to it, is that it gets a little frustrating when people join threads (in some cases even the forum itself) without bothering to comment on the actual subject matter, but simply to start having a go at other members, particular when this is done in an inflammatory, accusatory way.


----------



## arlow (Apr 20, 2011)

Rottiefan said:


> There are those on here that use them, swear by them, and that's their choice.


That's the point. There are many who would prefer we didn't have that choice. And that preference is based on the same ignorance and emotionalism we've seen here.

I've never told anyone what they should do. Want to use R+? Fine, more power to you. Don't want to use ecollar? That's fine, too. Whatever works for you.

But folks on the other side are only too willing to tell me what I should or shouldn't be doing. But it's not enough to simply tell me. If they had their way, they would use the force of law to prevent me from using my preferred method. And that would be a crime.

Now back to the debate.


----------



## arlow (Apr 20, 2011)

Collette,
Thanks for the thoughtful response. My response to your points is below.



Colette said:


> As above - the trainer we are talking about in this thread DOES use the collar to deliver harsh physical punishment.
> By its nature the collar is physical - whether used as a positive punisher or a negative reinforcer. Whether or not it is "harsh" depends surely on the individual dog, the level of shock used, the way it is used, etc. Not to mention people's personal views on what constitutes "harsh".


I mostly agree with everything here. I'll take some exception to the last line, there are some things that are objectively harsh regardless of person views; the dog is the final arbiter of "harsh". And since we agree that there is some latitude in the definition of harsh, I can't say for sure the trainer in question uses *harsh* physical punishment. I've only quickly glanced at his site so maybe there was something else that he said to that effect. But I do agree with the substance of your point.

I do think it's fair to contrast the trainer's use of the ecollar with other ways, especially since so many here seem to believe that using it as positive punishment, if not harsh positive punishment, is the only way it can be used.



> The positive puishments used only on occassion by LFL have zero chance of causing the dog pain, injury, fear, distress or behavioural fallout. This is a world apart from people who use aversives as thier first port of call, use them frequently, and who use aversives that may indeed cause pain, fear, distress, fallout etc.


Here I have to disagree. Karen Pryor would also disagree: 


> [the trainer] folds her arms and turns her back. As she does that, the dog cringes backward to the floor, as if it had been struck...... To the cowering dog, yes: that really hurt.
> Hidden Aversives: Are You Punishing Unconsciously? | Karen Pryor Clickertraining





> My objection to your post, and the reason I felt the need to respond to it, is that it gets a little frustrating when people join threads (in some cases even the forum itself) without bothering to comment on the actual subject matter, but simply to start having a go at other members, particular when this is done in an inflammatory, accusatory way.


Yes, I could understand that, but I didn't mean to come off that way. As I follow this debate, it seems many are trying to argue against aversives in principle. I tried to clarify whether that was the case in a previous thread (since removed) . In fact, my very first post on this forum was:


> LeashedForLife, I've been following this thread with some interest, but I'm not entirely clear on what your position is. Are you just opposed to overly harsh aversives or all aversives in general? I get that you oppose ecollars, but what about an "uh uh"...a disapproving look....bitter apple? Thanks.


Terry never did respond directly to my "uh uh" or disapproving look question, but here is a sample of her responses as I sought to identify her guiding principles:


> yeesh - i was not being obscure. i'll make it simple:
> i don't use or suggest applied aversives, especially physical aversives.
> 
> As i have said several times now, i have used applied aversives only in emergencies for a couple of decades now - which means they are used very, very rarely, and are NEVER included in a training plan.
> ...


BTW, I edited out the increasing sarcasm, name calling and general nastiness. (Hers not mine)

So now I see that she does use applied aversives. My reason for pointing out the contradiction was not for the sake of a "gotcha" but to recognize that she is not opposed to applied aversives in principle. This changes the nature of the discussion from arguing against aversives in general, to arguing against specific aversives.

So why the opposition to some aversives but not others? It's not that some have the potential to cause pain while others don't. Even Terry uses methods that have the potential to cause pain (if we are to believe Karen Pryor). It's not even opposition to aversives that employ electric shock, as Terry has acknowledged that a hotwire at the base of a fence would be acceptable on occasion.

I don't mean to single out Terry, but she is the most outspoken and I think many on her side of the debate are in agreement, so she is sort of a proxy for the "other side". Not ideal, but an artifact of the medium.


----------



## Colette (Jan 2, 2010)

Thanks Arlow for explainng that - I clearly misinterpreted your previous post.

Just for info, the reason I believe the trainer in question to be harsh is this:



> When you need to extinguish an unwarranted behavior you must use a high level stimulation immediately so that it is imprinted in the dogs mind forever. People usually underestimate the power of drive in dogs, so they start low and gradually go high, never matching the correction to the level of the infraction. For example, with dog aggression - you do not want the dog to ever think he/she has the ability to work through the correction and still satisfy their drive.


A correction that not only interupts, is not merely aversive in the sense of being uncomfortable - but a powerful painful correction that the dog will remember (and fear) for life. Too severe for the dog to be aware of anything else.

For a single correction to have this impact, it must be harsh.

And lets not forget - these corrections are given for his bizarre ideas about pack behaviour. Every case of growling should get this response (even if the dog is terrified or in pain?) Leg humping or humping another dog. Pulling on the lead towards another dog. These behaviours - which may well be attributed to a lack of basic training, lack of socialisation, hormones, over-excitement, fear etc are all put down to the dog trying to assert dominance, thus giving a fantastic excuse for severe physical punishment.


----------



## arlow (Apr 20, 2011)

Colette said:


> Thanks Arlow for explainng that - I clearly misinterpreted your previous post.
> 
> Just for info, the reason I believe the trainer in question to be harsh is this:
> 
> ...


Fair enough. Now that I see it, I do remember reading that. I will say I was not comfortable with the way he described his usage, both in the way he uses it and in the level. But I will also say that, from corresponding with him, I've learned that he's been successful at rehabilitating quite a number of aggressive dogs, so I'm not going to be too quick to judge.

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to elaborate.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

Pawsitive said:


> I don't disagree that you have a point to an extent. I still don't have to _inflict_ pain on him myself to make my dog learn when there are other ways of teaching him.


That's one reason that the Ecollar is great. Only minor discomfort is necessary.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

Pawsitive said:


> Cognitive dissonance my @ss. I am capable of seeing who says what with my own eyes.


Yessiree, no rudeness there. ROFL. Actually the concept of cognitive dissonance (being discussed in another thread right now) says that it's virtually impossible for you to do so. I also notice that you have not shown us a thread where we are the ones who have started the rudeness. An accusation made without supporting evidence is worthless. Supply a link to a thread and I'll bet that I can show you where one of the antis has started the rudeness.



Pawsitive said:


> Does that mean you know him then?


Just from Email and a phone call. I let him know that this discussion was going on, something none of you folks thought to do. Far better to debate with someone who's not here to defend himself, right?



Pawsitive said:


> How rude to say that people on here don't know what they're talking about


Except that it's been shown repeatedly. As just one example, over and over some of the antis taking the lead in this discussion talk about the Ecollar ONLY as causing pain. The truth is that it's not necessary and it doesn't happen with my methods. Just about every other statement that one of you folks has made about modern Ecollar use has been wrong as well.



Pawsitive said:


> especially when you are the one coming across defensive and making personal digs 


Well of course I'm coming across as defensive. The word means "to protect against an attack." Thanks for making my point. As to the _"personal digs,"_ you claim that I'm making, please show us some of them.



Pawsitive said:


> surely calm debate is a better method of persuading (which is the point of a debate) people that you are knowledgeable in the field and correct in what you say?


I'll refer you back to the first line of your post! I agree that _"calm debate is a better method of persuading."_ I always start these conversations out that way. But very soon the antis start with misinformation and misconceptions. Usually they throw in lots of emotive arguments too.



Pawsitive said:


> I think I will ask him. What a good idea Lou.


Perhaps he'll change his mind but I doubt it.



Pawsitive said:


> No Lou, it was an example to show what we humans do to our dogs. To show that through our own selfish and stupid desires, we can make a dog look completely unnatural and encourage aggressive behaviour because we think we might look cool if our dog is vicious.


I don't think there's any relation between how a dog looks and how aggressive he is. You seem to have denied but then repeated this position.



Pawsitive said:


> _Human encouragement_ of that sort of behaviour is bound to result in problem dogs.


Cropping tails or ears has nothing to do with aggression.



Pawsitive said:


> Really? Interesting. Evidence please. And not a random youtube link that proves nothing.


I think you're referring to my statement that a "badly timed stim" isn't going to do "a lot of damage." If this is the case, showing a dog feeling his first stim when the trainer is finding his working level. Please point out to us the "damage" you see from it. Since this stim isn't attached to any training one could state that it's "badly timed." If this isn't what you were referring to, just let me know.



Pawsitive said:


> As per Lou's suggestion, I have now emailed Mr. Herlan and asked him whether he would like to join the debate or could provide us with sources for his data.


Great! Far better to go right to the source.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

l2ahanna said:


> Haha he looks to smooth to be a dogtrainer or expert!


[sarcasm] What an EXCELLENT WAY to judge the quality of a dog trainer! [/sarcasm] ROFL. No personal attack there, right?


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

newfiesmum said:


> If shock collars are so benign in the right hands, why have they been banned in Wales and why did the UK Kennel Club ban them years ago?


A couple of reasons. One is that they know nothing of modern use of modern versions of the tool. Second, in both cases people with commercial interests saw that their livelihoods would be negatively impacted by the increase in Ecollar sales and use and pressed the legislators in Wales and the UK KC to rule against them. As is often the case in politics, it's a matter of "follow the money."

I saw a video shot by the antis in Wales where they were having the legislators feel the stim, allegedly at the lowest level. Only problem was this was a lie. In the video it could be clearly seen that the collar was set on a much higher level than "the lowest level."



newfiesmum said:


> They are evil things and should not be allowed in anybody's hands, even less to be sold to the general public who have no idea what they are doing.


Oddly people who actually have used them have a differing opinion. You are welcome to yours but so that the rest of us know the experience that went into forming this opinion can you tell us a bit about your knowledge of modern Ecollars? Have you ever felt a stim at the level that you can first perceive? Ever seen a dog trained with low level stim methods?


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

Rottiefan said:


> E-collars: I do not doubt they can be used effectively and humanely, but I think this happens a very slim proportion of the time


If you're right then it seems that proper training and education of the owners/trainers is the key.



Rottiefan said:


> The fact that they are publicly available is the real crime.


I think that the real crime is trainers who tell owners that their dogs are untrainable and should be put down. Much of my work comes from these folks.



Rottiefan said:


> I don't see any point debating the matter. There are those on here that use them, swear by them, and that's their choice. We are not going to change their views over the net and neither will they change ours.


If you mean the ones who are taking part in this discussion, I'll agree. Most of those folks are suffering from cognitive dissonance and have minds that are completely closed. For some reason they think they know all there is to know about Ecollar use, a very arrogant position. But there are many reading this for whom their methods have not given satisfactory results. It's *THOSE people * that I'm aiming at. And they are listening. I've now gotten many inquiries in PM's from people wanting to know more. Quite a few have joined my Ecollar forum and are exploring the possibilities. Several have either purchased Ecollars or will shortly.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

Colette said:


> Lou: Just wanted to comment on this....
> 
> May I ask - did you read through the website that this particular thread is discussing? Or indeed my own post, where my comment was in context?


I read your post and a great deal of what's on the website in question.



Colette said:


> My comment was specifically about that particular trainer and the methods he uses, according to his website. *He does not use the shock collar as negative reinforcement, nor does he make any suggestion that it is used only on the lowest level that the dog can feel. *


He does use the Ecollar as negative reinforcement. As to using _"the lowest level that the dog can feel;"_ he doesnt talk about it on the site and you've assumed that this means that he doesnt use the Ecollar like that. I don't mention my feelings about antique furniture on my site but it would be an assumption to say that I don't like it. (Or for that matter that I DO like it). It's flawed logic to assume that because something isn't mentioned that it's one way or the other.

His website is designed to have you hire him to train your dog. It's not a place to teach you to train your own dog.



Colette said:


> He uses the collar to give a physical punishment, both when the dog disobeys a command and when the dog performs certain behaviours that he relates to pack theory.


MANY people use various tools to give a dog a correction when he know a command but doesn't obey. People who train with treats withhold the treat in that case. That is a physical punishment AND a mental one.



Colette said:


> There is no real guide to how high a level to shock a dog for disobedience - the websites only reads so as to suggest the shock must be aversive enough to punish the misdemeanour.


As I said, it's not a site for people to learn how to train their dogs from. It's so that you'll hire him to train your dog. To try and get this sort of information from this site is to guess and to assume, both of which you've done. And some of those guesses and assumptions are wrong.



Colette said:


> As for the list of pack behaviours (inc humping other dogs!) he specifically recommends using a setting so high that the dog can not possibly work through it, and will remember it for a lifetime. In other words a "harsh" correction.


Yes, and?



Colette said:


> I stand by my description that this individual uses the shock collar to deliver harsh physical punishment.


Only in very limited circumstances. I will tell you that if my dog is running towards a busy street and he's not obeying my command to recall, I'm going to crank my Ecollar up and hit the button to remind him that obedience is not optional I have no compunctions about causing him some pain to save his life.



Colette said:


> I wasn't referring in this instance to how you, or anyone else uses it. Don't get me wrong, it is clear I don't approve of your method either


Neither of us need your approval.



Colette said:


> By its nature the collar is physical


So is withholding a treat. Not sure why you think that a physical aversive is worse than a mental one. I think it's a convenient way to dismiss the Ecollar but to keep on using other tools/methods.



Colette said:


> whether used as a positive punisher or a negative reinforcer. Whether or not it is "harsh" depends surely on the individual dog, the level of shock used, the way it is used, etc. Not to mention people's personal views on what constitutes "harsh".


It matters not even a little, what _"people's personal views"_ on the Ecollar are. It matter ONLY how the dog perceives what's happening with him.



Colette said:


> Terry (LFL) has clearly stated that her methods are primarily positive reinforcement. The use of any positive punishment is rare and its severity level minimal.


She thinks it's _"minimal."_ and again it doesnt make any difference what the trainer thinks. AGAIN, it's ONLY how the dog perceives it.



Colette said:


> The positive puishments used only on occassion by LFL have zero chance of causing the dog pain, injury, fear, distress or behavioural fallout.


When did the dogs tell you this? I've seen dogs panic at the sound of a clicker. They've urinated and one even defecated. Both pretty strong signs of _"distress"_ AND _"behavioral fallout."_



Colette said:


> My objection to your post, and the reason I felt the need to respond to it, is that it gets a little frustrating when people join threads (in some cases even the forum itself) without bothering to comment on the actual subject matter, but simply to start having a go at other members, particular when this is done in an inflammatory, accusatory way.


Interestingly some of the antis were not addressing the website you mentioned. They were attacking Ecollars in general. As a result many responses were aimed at them and their comments. It's another case of cognitive dissonance that you don't see their diversions from the topic, but only see ours.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

Colette said:


> Just for info, the reason I believe the trainer in question to be harsh is this:


Colette now quotes from the trainer's website.


> When you need to extinguish an unwarranted behavior you must use a high level stimulation immediately so that it is imprinted in the dogs mind forever. People usually underestimate the power of drive in dogs, so they start low and gradually go high, never matching the correction to the level of the infraction. For example, with dog aggression - you do not want the dog to ever think he/she has the ability to work through the correction and still satisfy their drive.


You've quoted the trainer out of context. He ONLY advocates this for _"eliminat[ing] improper pack behavior. And he says that this "should not be confused with obedience commands and/or corrections."

Here's the context for what you quoted. He wrote,



*Your goal here is to fully eliminate a particular unwanted behavior or action, not to train a dog to always obey a given obedience command. * When you train a dog for advanced obedience you use the appropriate level of stimulation to reinforce the "no" during distractions. [Emphasis Added]

Click to expand...

He's not using the Ecollar for OB training here it's to eliminate behaviors that are considered dangerous. One such example would be snake proofing. I'd guess that since you don't have poisonous snakes there, you're not familiar with it. It's done in many places in the US where there are lots of poisonous snakes in the environment. Doing this can easily save a dog's life. The idea it to make the dog fear the snake and to flee it as soon as the snake's presence is detected. Another use would be for dog to dog aggression. I don't agree with this use but it's not uncommon and again, it's for life saving movement ONLY. Not as you've inferred for such things as OB.



Colette said:



And lets not forget - these corrections are given for his bizarre ideas about pack behaviour. Every case of growling should get this response (even if the dog is terrified or in pain?)

Click to expand...

He didn't say this. It's another assumption on your part._


----------



## Taylorbaby (Jan 10, 2009)

those pictures on that site are so cheesy its funny! 

but ive no idea what his on about!


----------



## Rottiefan (Jun 20, 2010)

Lou Castle said:


> If you're right then it seems that proper training and education of the owners/trainers is the key.


With proper education and training, the need for so much behaviour modification would hopefully be severely reduced!



> I think that the real crime is trainers who tell owners that their dogs are untrainable and should be put down. Much of my work comes from these folks.


So be it, Lou. But I would presume that many people who you are debating with are not these kind of people.



> If you mean the ones who are taking part in this discussion, I'll agree. Most of those folks are suffering from cognitive dissonance and have minds that are completely closed. For some reason they think they know all there is to know about Ecollar use, a very arrogant position. But there are many reading this for whom their methods have not given satisfactory results. It's *THOSE people * that I'm aiming at. And they are listening. I've now gotten many inquiries in PM's from people wanting to know more. Quite a few have joined my Ecollar forum and are exploring the possibilities. Several have either purchased Ecollars or will shortly.


Well good for you. Perhaps it would be better to stick to the e-collar forum alone. You are obviously very happy with your methods and appear to be doing well for yourself. But after so many posts here you still cause a lot of controversy- whether people are responding correctly or not- and I can't see it improving much myself. I've actually learnt a lot about from what you've written and understand that e-collars are a viable dog training tool when used properly. However, I think there's a small margin for error and the possibility of doing a lot of psychological and/or physical damage by Joe Bloggs round the corner who has seen your comments is much more possible that clicker training, for example. Thus, they should be for professional, sensible users only.

With respect, you'll either keep posting here and causing controversy, ending up in a ban, or you'll see it all as a bad job and leave, keeping in touch with the contacts you've already made here who want to try out e-collar training.

To continue posting and riling people up (directly or indirectly) is just seen as trolling. You may not start things overtly but the sheer fact of promoting e-collars causes this controversy and you, unfortunately, will always be badly accepted because of that.

If you are so happy with the method, you don't need to prove anything.


----------



## CarolineH (Aug 4, 2009)

It also appears to be a good way of gathering new members for a forum and selling a few more shock collars!  :ihih: :sneaky2:

I can also honestly say, hand on heart that I have never told anyone their dog was untrainable even though I had many come to me from another trainer who had been told that very same thing! It's not just knowing how to train dogs that makes a good instructor but also how to teach people (their owners) and keep them interested.


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

arlow said:


> LFL, and many others here, object to the use of ecollars because it is used to deliver a "harsh physical punishment". There are two problems with that objection, 1)it's not harsh, 2)while it may be used as punishment, there are other, better ways to use it. Let's focus on the first.
> 
> I know it's not harsh because I've tested it on myself and I can't even feel it at my dog's working level. If I turn it up to where I can feel it, it's just a weird pulsation


Is your test a good one? You're showing your dog is more sensitive than you!

Many who have done that, have felt nothing and then experienced "2 hot burning needles", and there's good reason to expect that, as hot & cold skin receptors stimulated to firing simultaneously are "burning hot", rather than the warmth or cold. If you think about the environment mammals are adapted to, it makes sense.

Many people believe the shock works by inflicting pain, so the dog seeks to avoid it, an advocate like Lou on his site makes many warnings about need to follow strict protocols for usage. Now the real world of casual dog owners and dog trainers, just is not like that; people are sloppy not disciplined in control police types able to follow protocols strictly. I see ppl doing counter productive disproportionate things almost every day, with equipments such as choke chains and Flexi leads used improperly and unsafely.

Even recently, a virtual shock fence implementer had 2 of friends dogs, car phobic after the owners forgot to switch off the collars, when leaving the property. Is that something the happens due to "mild stimulation"? Other examples very easy to find are dogs with burn holes from the prongs, or a well known shock collar trainer facing animal cruelty charges.

Equipment & tools, can be used properly, but in the real world a huge margin of safety is required. From what I've read of lFL's objections, it's actually due to the fallout that is seen from negative training, dogs with phobias and behavioural issues, shut down by behaviour being stamped out.

Using coercion to force the dog to do something, does not build a happy relationship; the same automatic response can be achieved by enjoyable activity, which the dogs love. At the end of the day, a positvely dog is "manipulated", it does not have a choice, however it feels happy about that and trusts the owner.


CarolineH said:


> It also appears to be a good way of gathering new members for a forum and selling a few more shock collars!  :ihih: :sneaky2:
> 
> I can also honestly say, hand on heart that I have never told anyone their dog was untrainable even though I had many come to me from another trainer who had been told that very same thing! It's not just knowing how to train dogs that makes a good instructor but also how to teach people (their owners) and keep them interested.


And don't dog owners just love to play up how difficult their dogs are seeking sympathy? Very often, claiming things about their breed in order to justify poor behaviour & training, or "special measures" that they impose on the dog.

One "hard to train" dog I know, was changing it's behaviour the next day just after 1 trial reward of tiny piece of hot dog. Due to motivated reasoning, the owner remains blind to the obvious conclusion, that he simply employed ineffective methods to train his dog, which resulted in his wife being nipped for years!


----------



## arlow (Apr 20, 2011)

Rob, I'll have to confess I didn't understand most of what you said here. I will respond to this little bit.



RobD-BCactive said:


> Using coercion to force the dog to do something, does not build a happy relationship; the same automatic response can be achieved by enjoyable activity, which the dogs love. At the end of the day, a positvely dog is "manipulated", it does not have a choice, however it feels happy about that and trusts the owner.


I don't' rely on coercion to force my do to do something. I do have a happy relationship with my dog. In fact, our relationship took a turn for the better when we started training with the ecollar, and has continued to improve over time. He feels happy about training and trusts his owner. He's a great dog and source of immeasurable joy to my family and me.

I'm not working on supposition, or hearsay. I have first hand experience, and it's worked out really well for us. Maybe I'm one of the lucky few who's somehow dodged all the negative fallout, but given the experience of others I've met though my classes and over the web, I don't think so.


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

Negative reinforcement is coercion, the dog's avoiding something.
Pretending it is not, is being in denial.


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

> It's not just knowing how to train dogs that makes a good instructor but also how to teach people (their owners) and keep them interested


Agreed, there arn't many trainers in UK only an insignificant little finger full, there are far less behaviourists in UK, regardless of that, there is hardly a teachers training qualification between them all.

After 16 years of marketing itself (since 1995, John Fisher founded) the membership of the largest 'training' co-operative has fallen from appx 660 3 years ago to 509 3 months ago in the 4 countries of the UK, their methods have fallen out of marketable favour and are now in rapid commercial decline. The largest behaviourist equivilent, many of whose members ALSO belong to the above commercial training co-operative, after 21 years of marketing itself, now has only 49 members in UK, thats as close as the end of behaviourists here in UK, people aren't buying what they offer anymore.

Because some belong to both organisations the total number of trainers and behaviourists combined amounts to less than 558 UK members. I doubt there are more than half a handfull who have any teacher training qualifications at all. A Bristol uni survey gives the number of dogs in UK (potential client base) as 10.5 million.

This unusual video below spells it all out by a user, she compares Ian Dunbar & Jean Donaldsons teaching & results ability to Robin Macfarlane.

A pet owner spells it out
YouTube - ‪Opinions about Remote Collar Training vs Other Trainer's Seminars‬‏

.


----------



## Colette (Jan 2, 2010)

Lou - I'm not sure we're reading the same website you know...

1) According to the website, the trainer teaches new behaviour using positive reinforcement. the only "punishment" for non compliance is witholding the reward. Once the dog is deemed to be "trained", ie understands the command, the trainer begins using the shock collar to proof the behaviour around distractions. When the dog fails to obey a command, it gets zapped.

This is a very clear case of positive punishment. It is very different to the negative reinforcement method that you and Arlow have explained you use.

2)


> He's not using the Ecollar for OB training here it's to eliminate behaviors that are considered dangerous. One such example would be snake proofing. I'd guess that since you don't have poisonous snakes there, you're not familiar with it. It's done in many places in the US where there are lots of poisonous snakes in the environment. Doing this can easily save a dog's life. The idea it to make the dog fear the snake and to flee it as soon as the snake's presence is detected. Another use would be for dog to dog aggression. I don't agree with this use but it's not uncommon and again, it's for life saving movement ONLY. Not as you've inferred for such things as OB.


Again, not the case.

The trainer specifically lists the inappropriate pack behaviours to be punished this way:



> Dog owners opposing or neglecting to discipline a dog is unacceptable, especially when it displays improper pack behaviors. Such dogs always develop into uncontrollable, dominant and/or aggressive animals and have a direct impact on society. Improper pack behaviors are the inappropriate actions that dogs initiate on their own and should not be confused with disobedience. Therefore, improper pack behaviors should be corrected without first employing a learning phase. We can do this because the dog knows exactly what it is doing at that moment of the infraction. Puppies that exhibit improper pack behaviors are willfully testing the structure of the pack or directly challenging the strength of the leadership role. Adult dogs which display bad pack behaviors are no longer testing the leadership role, but instead have assumed it due to the owners demonstration of poor or lax leadership techniques. Some improper pack behaviors that should never be overlooked and disciplined with an appropriate correction are as follows (i) When a dog exhibits any signs of dominance or aggression towards other dogs or people, (ii) dogs that pull on the leash or bark like mad when they see other dogs, (iii) dogs that show toy or food aggression toward the handler or another dog, (iv) dogs that hump peoples legs or other dogs, (v) dogs that growl at the owner for any reason whatsoever as this is respect issue and a clear challenge.


Clearly we a re not talking about life saving issues here, like stopping a dog running into traffic or venomous snake avoidance.

A juvenile dog that starts humping your leg, or another dog. Dogs that pull on the leash towards other dogs. Dogs that growl for any reason whatsoever.

My first family dog growled / air snapped once when my mother tried to pick her up. Far from zapping the hell out of her we took her to the vet and found she was in a lot of pain with a slipped disc in her back. Yet THAT would have punished by a massive level painful correction by said trainer - because apparently it is a bid for dominance.

Humping is fairly normal practice in young dogs as they approach adolescence, usually related to hormones. It can also be related to excitement or insecurity. It may be annoying or distasteful - but it sure as hell ain't life threatening and deserving of an abusive response.

Pulling on a lead to get to other dogs, with or without barking, has various motivations. It may be aggrsession, but it could equally be an excited sociable dog trying to get to a potential playmate. Give the dog a correction of the level described and there is a huge risk of causing dog aggression.

It is all well and good you making claims that the trainer in question uses the collar as negative reinforcement, and to save lives in dire situations - but this is NOT what the trainer states on his own website. He clearly states that behaviours he perceives as dominance bids (which is ludicrous anyway) should be severely (positively) punished with a very high level shock.

I should add, I did specifically mention the difference between using the collar to punish disobedience, and to punish pack issues. With the first there is no mention of what level of correction to use, with the second only to make it high.


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

Colette said:


> Dogs that growl for any reason whatsoever.
> 
> My first family dog growled / air snapped once when my mother tried to pick her up


Punishing growling is not only downright stupid, but actually positively dangerous. Those who succeed at it, have a dog that escalates to snapping or connect with a bite, with very little warning.

Personally if I see anyone object to growling, or correct avoidance behaviour; I avoid them and their dog in future.


----------



## Pawsitive (Mar 24, 2011)

Lou Castle said:


> Yessiree, no rudeness there. ROFL. Actually the concept of cognitive dissonance (being discussed in another thread right now) says that it's virtually impossible for you to do so. I also notice that you have not shown us a thread where we are the ones who have started the rudeness. An accusation made without supporting evidence is worthless. Supply a link to a thread and I'll bet that I can show you where one of the antis has started the rudeness.


I didn't say I wasn't rude there Lou. However, I don't think I said anything particularly outrageous in comparison. What's the point. Regardless of what I may find, you will always have another answer. I'm a bit fed up of debating a moot point tbh.



> Just from Email and a phone call. I let him know that this discussion was going on, something none of you folks thought to do. Far better to debate with someone who's not here to defend himself, right?


Funnily enough I emailed him too! No response yet though.



> Except that it's been shown repeatedly. As just one example, over and over some of the antis taking the lead in this discussion talk about the Ecollar ONLY as causing pain. The truth is that it's not necessary and it doesn't happen with my methods. Just about every other statement that one of you folks has made about modern Ecollar use has been wrong as well.


hard evidence please. none of the ecollar threads / videos / articles I have seen have changed what I saw with my own eyes when I saw e collars on dogs. _You_ might be able to use them properly. I can't judge as I haven't seen you use them. Most pet owners wouldn't.



> Well of course I'm coming across as defensive. The word means "to protect against an attack." Thanks for making my point. As to the _"personal digs,"_ you claim that I'm making, please show us some of them.


I think you know very well what I'm referring to.



> I'll refer you back to the first line of your post! I agree that _"calm debate is a better method of persuading."_ I always start these conversations out that way. But very soon the antis start with misinformation and misconceptions. Usually they throw in lots of emotive arguments too.


Maybe because it's an emotive topic. There are lots of people who dislike punishment because of the potential fall out and damage it can do to the dog.



> Perhaps he'll change his mind but I doubt it.


Shame. Was looking forward to reading his data / sources.



> I don't think there's any relation between how a dog looks and how aggressive he is. You seem to have denied but then repeated this position.
> Cropping tails or ears has nothing to do with aggression.


I feel like you are deliberately misunderstanding me. I was talking about the trainers claim that there are more dominant / aggressive dogs entering society. My argument is:
1 - I would like to see proof of this 
2 - I am inclined to think that it is _human fault_ if this is indeed the case and has nothing to do with dogs _just being dominant_



> I think you're referring to my statement that a "badly timed stim" isn't going to do "a lot of damage." If this is the case, showing a dog feeling his first stim when the trainer is finding his working level. Please point out to us the "damage" you see from it. Since this stim isn't attached to any training one could state that it's "badly timed." If this isn't what you were referring to, just let me know.


No I wasn't referring to that at all. I was referring to my experience of clicker training. 
I watched the video and note it's from 3 yrs ago. Is this dog still in an e collar?

I did notice what I consider to be displacement behaviour even before the dog sniffs the ground. I would consider this a sign that the dog is not entirely comfortable - in pain? well if the level is low enough perhaps not. If the level has to be increased to 'leave a lasting effect' as the trainer on the website states, then surely a degree of pain is being used. Otherwise why would it work?



> Great! Far better to go right to the source.


Well I've invited him and have asked for feedback - will be interesting to see what he says.


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

Pawsitive said:


> I watched the video and note it's from 3 yrs ago.


Me to, I don't understand how these guys in the pub, cannot find this wrong nevermind filming it openly, but please look at what lFL is saying!!

This thread needs to be back on topic. Being oblivious to signs of a dog being confused and discounting them, would be, I think.

But may be that confused puppy on a slip lead being taught to heel that got posted as a "good example" few months ago, would be a less inflammatory. It's very similar, puzzlement on being checked, rather than the active engagement and directness of being taught what is required, with the love of training we expect and desire that makes it a fun activity for our dogs.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

Rottiefan said:


> With proper education and training, the need for so much behaviour modification would hopefully be severely reduced!


Ecollars are not just for behavior mod. The reality is that while _"proper education and training"_ would be great, little is going to change along those lines.



Rottiefan said:


> So be it, Lou. But I would presume that many people who you are debating with are not these kind of people.


Perhaps not.

Earlier I wrote,


> If you mean the ones who are taking part in this discussion, I'll agree. Most of those folks are suffering from cognitive dissonance and have minds that are completely closed. For some reason they think they know all there is to know about Ecollar use, a very arrogant position. But there are many reading this for whom their methods have not given satisfactory results. It's *THOSE people * that I'm aiming at. And they are listening. I've now gotten many inquiries in PM's from people wanting to know more. Quite a few have joined my Ecollar forum and are exploring the possibilities. Several have either purchased Ecollars or will shortly.





Rottiefan said:


> Well good for you.


Good for THEM! It's not about me. It's about owners being able to train their dogs and get results in a timely manner.



Rottiefan said:


> Perhaps it would be better to stick to the e-collar forum alone.


As long as the mods on various forums allow it I'll post where I please.



Rottiefan said:


> You are obviously very happy with your methods and appear to be doing well for yourself.


It's not about me. It's about owners of dogs getting them trained.



Rottiefan said:


> But after so many posts here you still cause a lot of controversy- whether people are responding correctly or not- and I can't see it improving much myself.


I don't see it changing much myself. As I've said, I have no hope of changing the minds of those who are taking part in the discussion.



Rottiefan said:


> I've actually learnt a lot about from what you've written and understand that e-collars are a viable dog training tool when used properly. However, I think there's a small margin for error and the possibility of doing a lot of psychological and/or physical damage


It's impossible for any Ecollar to cause physical damage by way of the electrical current they put out. They can cause the same sort of thing that one sees with a head collar if it's left on for too long or not properly fitted. But I don't see you warning people against head collars. As far as psychological damage. No study ever done has shown it. If you disagree, please show us the study.



Rottiefan said:


> With respect, you'll either keep posting here and causing controversy


I'm not causing anything. I'm merely responding to posts put up by others who consistently badmouth Ecollars. Along the way I'm correcting errors and misconceptions about the tool. I didn't start this thread, I've just responded to comments made in it.

I have not seen an anti−controversy policy here. Mods, if there is one please let me know.



Rottiefan said:


> ending up in a ban


I've been banned from forums before. It's not a big deal. I see the people who do that sort of thing as book burners. Can't have something that we don't agree with out there now can we?



Rottiefan said:


> or you'll see it all as a bad job and leave, keeping in touch with the contacts you've already made here who want to try out e-collar training.


I've been on many forums for years. I rarely leave them.



Rottiefan said:


> To continue posting and riling people up (directly or indirectly) is just seen as trolling. You may not start things overtly but the sheer fact of promoting e-collars causes this controversy and you, unfortunately, will always be badly accepted because of that.


I'll disagree that _"promoting Ecollars causes this controversy."_ I think that spreading myths, misconceptions and misinformation about any topic related to dog training is horrible. I'm just correcting those errors.



Rottiefan said:


> If you are so happy with the method, you don't need to prove anything.


I wonder why you don't mention this fact to l4l who never misses an opportunity to bash Ecollars. IF she is so happy with her method, why does she need to bash others. Doesn't your comment apply to her too? Sauce for the goose and all .....


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

RobD-BCactive said:


> Many people believe the shock works by inflicting pain, so the dog seeks to avoid it


A dog that's lying in the sun gets up and moves into the shade because he's hot. Is he in pain or is he just avoiding some minor discomfort? You start to walk around the block but discover that it's just a bit colder outside than you thought it was. So you go back to the house to get a jacket before continuing your walk. Were you in pain?

Obviously all it takes for a dog to work to avoid something is minor discomfort.



RobD-BCactive said:


> Now the real world of casual dog owners and dog trainers, just is not like that; people are sloppy not disciplined in control police types able to follow protocols strictly.


Then they're not going to be able to get training done with any tool or method.



RobD-BCactive said:


> *Using coercion to force the dog to do something, does not build a happy relationship; *the same automatic response can be achieved by enjoyable activity, which the dogs love. *At the end of the day, a positvely dog is "manipulated", it does not have a choice, *however it feels happy about that and trusts the owner.


This seems highly contradictory. _"Forc[ing] the dog to do something"_ and _"manipulate[ing]"_ a dog that _"does not have a choice"_ are the same thing. Yet you say that the first _"does not build a happy relationship"_ while the second makes the dog _"feel happy."_


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

RobD-BCactive said:


> Negative reinforcement is coercion, the dog's avoiding something.
> Pretending it is not, is being in denial.


I seem to be missing something. Many of you, like us, use negative reinforcement. What's your point?


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

Colette said:


> Lou - I'm not sure we're reading the same website you know...
> 
> 1) According to the website, the trainer teaches new behaviour using positive reinforcement. the only "punishment" for non compliance is witholding the reward. Once the dog is deemed to be "trained", ie understands the command, the trainer begins using the shock collar to proof the behaviour around distractions. When the dog fails to obey a command, it gets zapped.
> 
> This is a very clear case of positive punishment. It is very different to the negative reinforcement method that you and Arlow have explained you use.


First, as I've said, this website is NOT a place to learn how to train your dog. Second, the website does not contain everything this trainer does.

In order for a trainer to use R (to remove something that will tend to make a behavior repeat) he either must apply something that the dog will work to avoid (+P) or he places the dog in a situation he finds uncomfortable. You can't have one without the other. In my case, and I think in Arlow's, there's just as much learning going on in the R phase as in the +P phase. But +P is still present.

Here Collette quotes me, although she does not make this clear.


> He's not using the Ecollar for OB training here it's to eliminate behaviors that are considered dangerous. One such example would be snake proofing. I'd guess that since you don't have poisonous snakes there, you're not familiar with it. It's done in many places in the US where there are lots of poisonous snakes in the environment. Doing this can easily save a dog's life. The idea it to make the dog fear the snake and to flee it as soon as the snake's presence is detected. Another use would be for dog to dog aggression. I don't agree with this use but it's not uncommon and again, it's for life saving movement ONLY. Not as you've inferred for such things as OB.





Colette said:


> Again, not the case.


Yes, it is, You just aren't understanding his terminology.



Colette said:


> The trainer specifically lists the inappropriate pack behaviours to be punished this way:


Colette now quotes the website, again this is not made clear.


> Dog owners opposing or neglecting to discipline a dog is unacceptable, especially when it displays improper pack behaviors. Such dogs always develop into uncontrollable, dominant and/or aggressive animals and have a direct impact on society. *Improper pack behaviors are the inappropriate actions that dogs initiate on their own and should not be confused with disobedience. * Therefore, *improper pack behaviors should be corrected without first employing a learning phase. *We can do this because the dog knows exactly what it is doing at that moment of the infraction. Puppies that exhibit improper pack behaviors are willfully testing the structure of the pack or directly challenging the strength of the leadership role. Adult dogs which display bad pack behaviors are no longer testing the leadership role, but instead have assumed it due to the owners demonstration of poor or lax leadership techniques. *Some improper pack behaviors that should never be overlooked and disciplined with an appropriate correction are as follows (i) When a dog exhibits any signs of dominance or aggression towards other dogs or people, (ii) dogs that pull on the leash or bark like mad when they see other dogs, (iii) dogs that show toy or food aggression toward the handler or another dog, (iv) dogs that hump peoples legs or other dogs, (v) dogs that growl at the owner for any reason whatsoever as this is respect issue and a clear challenge. * [Emphasis Added]





Colette said:


> Clearly we a re not talking about life saving issues here, like stopping a dog running into traffic or venomous snake avoidance.


You're right these are not _"like"_ the traffic or snake issues. But these *are *life saving issues. Dogs get put to sleep because their owners can't stop these behaviors. It's just a different kind of "life saving."



Colette said:


> A juvenile dog that starts humping your leg, or another dog. Dogs that pull on the leash towards other dogs. Dogs that growl for any reason whatsoever.


Colette he's talking about "dogs" not puppies or juveniles. Another misunderstanding based on choice of words not methods.



Colette said:


> My first family dog growled / air snapped once when my mother tried to pick her up. Far from zapping the hell out of her we took her to the vet and found she was in a lot of pain with a slipped disc in her back. Yet THAT would have punished by a massive level painful correction by said trainer - because apparently it is a bid for dominance.


This trainer was only considering growling as it relates to pack matters. You're taking things out of context again.



Colette said:


> Humping is fairly normal practice in young dogs as they approach adolescence, usually related to hormones. It can also be related to excitement or insecurity. It may be annoying or distasteful - but it sure as hell ain't life threatening and deserving of an abusive response.


Same as above. This would not happen if you'd stop taking his comments out of the context in which they were written.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

Earlier I wrote,


> Yessiree, no rudeness there. ROFL. ...





Pawsitive said:


> I didn't say I wasn't rude there Lou.


With comments of "rudeness" being flung around, although aimed only at us, I thought it fair to balance the scales.



Pawsitive said:


> However, I don't think I said anything particularly outrageous in comparison.


So you think we're "more rude" than you folks are? I notice that as is almost always the case, you've failed to provide statements or threads where you think we start this rudeness ... another accusation without support that simply is untrue.

Earlier I wrote,


> Except that it's been shown repeatedly. As just one example, over and over some of the antis taking the lead in this discussion talk about the Ecollar ONLY as causing pain. The truth is that it's not necessary and it doesn't happen with my methods. Just about every other statement that one of you folks has made about modern Ecollar use has been wrong as well.





Pawsitive said:


> hard evidence please. none of the ecollar threads / videos / articles I have seen have changed what I saw with my own eyes when I saw e collars on dogs.


No one can change what you saw. But to think that what you saw is the−only−way is just silly. I, and others, have repeatedly shown videos of Ecollars being used. Many times I've invited people to show exactly where on the time line the Ecollar was being used or to show us where the dog was in pain. Yet the few times that people have tried, they've been wrong for various reasons.

The overwhelmingly majority of dogs feeling the sudden onset of pain, (rather than chronic [long lasting] pain) rather than minor discomfort react quite differently. They move quickly, sometimes described as a jump or a leap) away from what they perceive as the source. They often vocalize. Yet the JRT does not do this.



Pawsitive said:


> _You_ might be able to use them properly. I can't judge as I haven't seen you use them. Most pet owners wouldn't.


My website has dozens of letters from the owners and handlers of pets and working dogs who have used the Ecollar with my methods. I can't prove this to you because you won't see it even if it was right under your nose. I can only provide evidence for it. If you want to be blind to it, you can.

Earlier I wrote,


> Well of course I'm coming across as defensive. The word means "to protect against an attack." Thanks for making my point. As to the "personal digs," you claim that I'm making, please show us some of them.





Pawsitive said:


> I think you know very well what I'm referring to.


If I did, I'd not have written what I wrote. I deny that I'm making digs at anyone who hasn't done the same to me and who hasn't done it first. AGAIN we can see that you've failed to do as requested, show us some of those comments.



Pawsitive said:


> Maybe because it's an emotive topic. There are lots of people who dislike punishment because of the potential fall out and damage it can do to the dog.


It's only an _"emotive topic"_ to those who don't know about the modern use of modern versions of the tools. As to _"lots of people ... dislik[ing] punishment ..."_ EVERYONE USES IT! It's impossible to train a dog without using it.



Pawsitive said:


> I feel like you are deliberately misunderstanding me. I was talking about the trainers claim that there are more dominant / aggressive dogs entering society. My argument is:
> 1 - I would like to see proof of this
> 2 - I am inclined to think that it is _human fault_ if this is indeed the case and has nothing to do with dogs _just being dominant_


There are more dogs entering society (meaning that more people are getting pets) than in the past. Therefore there are more dominant/aggressive dogs entering society. Why this is occurring (you think it's a human fault) does not affect this statistic.

Perhaps if we changed it to something that you didn't have an emotional attachment to it would become clear. One could say that "there are more black dogs entering society." Since there are more people getting pets than (let's say) 50 years ago, there are going to be more black dogs than there were 50 years ago. Is that better?

Earlier I wrote,


> I think you're referring to my statement that a "badly timed stim" isn't going to do "a lot of damage." If this is the case, showing a dog feeling his first stim when the trainer is finding his working level. Please point out to us the "damage" you see from it. Since this stim isn't attached to any training one could state that it's "badly timed." If this isn't what you were referring to, just let me know.





Pawsitive said:


> No I wasn't referring to that at all. I was referring to my experience of clicker training.


I'm sorry then, I don't understand your reference. If you want to discuss this further you'll have to back up a bit and bring me up to speed.



Pawsitive said:


> I watched the video and note it's from 3 yrs ago. Is this dog still in an e collar?


I don't know. It's not my video and so I don't know the owner.



Pawsitive said:


> I did notice what I consider to be displacement behaviour even before the dog sniffs the ground.


Please tell us where this occurs and what displacement behavior you are talking about. Are you attributing this displacement behavior to the Ecollar?


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

RobD-BCactive said:


> Me to, I don't understand how these guys in the pub, cannot find this wrong nevermind filming it openly


Please tell us what is _"wrong."_



Pawsitive said:


> but please look at what lFL is saying!!


NOW l4l is asking us to get back on topic. But she OFTEN takes cheap shots at Ecollars as side comments in many of her posts. It's not unreasonable and should not be unexpected that we'll respond to those comments. If the posts I was responding to were on topic so would be my responses.



Pawsitive said:


> This thread needs to be back on topic. Being oblivious to signs of a dog being confused and discounting them, would be, I think.


Please show us where on the timeline the JRT in the pub is "confused." And then tell us why this is important.



Pawsitive said:


> But may be that confused puppy on a slip lead being taught to heel that got posted as a "good example" few months ago, would be a less inflammatory.


AGAIN off topic. No idea what video you're referring to. Perhaps a link might help?



Pawsitive said:


> It's very similar, puzzlement on being checked, rather than the active engagement and directness of being taught what is required, with the love of training we expect and desire that makes it a fun activity for our dogs.


AGAIN off topic. Since we have no idea what you're referring to, this statement has no value.


----------



## ClaireandDaisy (Jul 4, 2010)

Lou Castle said:


> AGAIN off topic. Since we have no idea what you're referring to, this statement has no value.


Actually, since you`re not a moderator I think you can leave it to the rest of us to make up our own mind on what is or isn`t on topic. 
Why not simply make your case instead of clouding the issue?


----------



## Pawsitive (Mar 24, 2011)

Lou Castle said:


> With comments of "rudeness" being flung around, although aimed only at us, I thought it fair to balance the scales.
> 
> So you think we're "more rude" than you folks are? I notice that as is almost always the case, you've failed to provide statements or threads where you think we start this rudeness ... another accusation without support that simply is untrue.


Lou, I wrote *I* not *we*. I have no affiliation with anyone else on this forum and therefore cannot and do not speak for them. I think to assume I was saying that 'you' are more rude than 'we are' is jumping the gun a bit considering I was only talking about myself. Nobody else.

As I stated, I am not going to trawl through the threads and feed this debate anymore. Both sides have been forceful and, in my opinion, some comments have been made that would have been better off unsaid. If anyone would like to see what I mean, they only have to look for themselves.



> Earlier I wrote,
> 
> No one can change what you saw. But to think that what you saw is the−only−way is just silly. I, and others, have repeatedly shown videos of Ecollars being used. Many times I've invited people to show exactly where on the time line the Ecollar was being used or to show us where the dog was in pain. Yet the few times that people have tried, they've been wrong for various reasons.


I never said it was the _only_ way. I said it is what I have seen to date. There is a difference.



> The overwhelmingly majority of dogs feeling the sudden onset of pain, (rather than chronic [long lasting] pain) rather than minor discomfort react quite differently. They move quickly, sometimes described as a jump or a leap) away from what they perceive as the source. They often vocalize. Yet the JRT does not do this.
> 
> My website has dozens of letters from the owners and handlers of pets and working dogs who have used the Ecollar with my methods. I can't prove this to you because you won't see it even if it was right under your nose. I can only provide evidence for it. If you want to be blind to it, you can.


I'm not being blind. My statement that I do not know if you can use an ecollar properly is true. It is no reflection on you.

Reading client letters mean nothing. I'm sadly one of those people who prefer to view with their own eyes and I do not mean via youtube. Perhaps one day I will see a trainer putting it into practice and realise that there is a use for the tool. I have not seen that as yet.



> Earlier I wrote,
> 
> If I did, I'd not have written what I wrote. I deny that I'm making digs at anyone who hasn't done the same to me and who hasn't done it first. AGAIN we can see that you've failed to do as requested, show us some of those comments.
> 
> It's only an _"emotive topic"_ to those who don't know about the modern use of modern versions of the tools. As to _"lots of people ... dislik[ing] punishment ..."_ EVERYONE USES IT! It's impossible to train a dog without using it.


There are, as you know, differing levels of punishment. To my mind, a high level stim is very different from a well-timed and soft spoken 'Ah-Ah' which is again very different from someone screaming and beating their dog. (and no, before you jump on what I said, I am not likening e collars to screaming at and beating a dog).

My emphasis in bold:



> *There are more dogs entering society* (meaning that more people are getting pets) than in the past. *Therefore there are more dominant/aggressive dogs entering society*. Why this is occurring (you think it's a human fault) does not affect this statistic.
> 
> Perhaps if we changed it to something that *you didn't have an emotional attachment to it would become clear*. One could say that "there are more black dogs entering society." Since there are more people getting pets than (let's say) 50 years ago, there are going to be more black dogs than there were 50 years ago. Is that better?


Why must one automatically mean the other?

It may not affect the statistic but my argument is that if these dogs are 'becoming dominant' through [email protected] handling / training by people then the ecollars would be put to better use on the owner. My argument is that dogs are not 'born' dominant or aggressive and not looking at the underlying cause for an increase in aggressive dogs, _if that is indeed the case_, would be a massive error.

I don't have an emotional attachment to the statistic Lou. Or the fact that there may or may not be more aggressive / dominant dogs coming into society. I would just like to see empirical data.



> Earlier I wrote,
> 
> I'm sorry then, I don't understand your reference. If you want to discuss this further you'll have to back up a bit and bring me up to speed.


I wasn't referring to anything specific. I was looking at the differences between ecollar and clickertraining and feel that there is less potential fallout from clickertraining. It was not said in reply to anything you'd mentioned.



> Please tell us where this occurs and what displacement behavior you are talking about. Are you attributing this displacement behavior to the Ecollar?


I've just tried clicking the link again and it came up with the JRT -although it's currently telling me it's unavailable to view. Earlier I clicked and it jumped to a lab with a collar - still the same trainer. It's that video I was commenting on.

Without being there I agree that it is impossible to know exactly what's going on. However, in my humble opinion, I find the whining, lip movements, panting, yawn and even the tail wags - to be signs of stress showing the dog is not entirely comfortable - and then once 'working level' of the collar is reached, the sniffing and tongue flick.

Having said that, I've never proclaimed myself to be an expert so don't expect everyone to see it the same way as me.

On another note, some of the quotes you said were from me in your last post were actually not stated by me. Therefore I won't reply to those.


----------



## arlow (Apr 20, 2011)

RobD-BCactive said:


> Negative reinforcement is coercion, the dog's avoiding something.
> Pretending it is not, is being in denial.


Rob, if your definition of coercion is so broad, then yes, I use it. But then so do you..... you call it "manipulating a dog who has no choice"

More importantly, given your broad definition of coercion, your theory, that it doesn't lead happy relationship, is not generally true.

And speaking of broad definitions and denial, couldn't you say the same of R+ trainers? After all R+ in practice often uses P-. In fact by definition, reinforcing one behaviour punishes alternatives. So R+ trainers are really negative punishment trainers in denial.


----------



## arlow (Apr 20, 2011)

Pawsitive said:


> Funnily enough I emailed him too! No response yet though..


By my count at least 3 of us have contacted this guy by now. He's aware of the thread and will respond if he's interested.


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

arlow said:


> But then so do you..... you call it "manipulating a dog who has no choice"


No, the dog is not coerced.

The field is tilted so it wants to work. If it does not then I check there's not a reason that I need to address, but often being patient or going back some stages and then trying again works well.

The fact is, a trained dog, responding automatically does not have "choice", it doesn't decide to be taught a sit, nor the rules when it is expected to do so.

Rather similar to having a job, where you need to fulfill certain requirements. Pretending the trained dog still has free will in the sense that a person has would be dishonest; that's what I meant by "manipulating".

However dogs do have a choice about having a training session, they can appeal for one, and often do. Just what is then trained & practiced is not their choice; however there's no doubt that eventually that dog will learn, even if it doesn't on a particular day. See no choice, but it's manipulated into wanting to work.


----------



## Colette (Jan 2, 2010)

Lou: (I'm going to reference every quote individually for your benefit)

Lou said:


> You're right these are not "like" the traffic or snake issues. But these are life saving issues. Dogs get put to sleep because their owners can't stop these behaviors. It's just a different kind of "life saving."


Personally I think we are getting silly now. Of course there are people in this world who will dump or pts a dog for the most ludicrous of reason - including not matching the sofa - but generally speaking people do not get thir dogs destroyed because of leg humping or lead pulling! And of course, there are a wide variety of ways of stopping such unwanted behaviours that do not require harsh physical punishment.

Lou said:


> Colette he's talking about "dogs" not puppies or juveniles. Another misunderstanding based on choice of words not methods.


Please re-read this line from the website:


> Puppies that exhibit improper pack behaviors are willfully testing the structure of the pack or directly challenging the strength of the leadership role. Adult dogs which display bad pack behaviors are no longer testing the leadership role, but instead have assumed it due to the owners demonstration of poor or lax leadership techniques.


The trainer specifically mentions puppies as well as adults performing "improper pack behaviour" as a bid for dominance.

He then goes on to say (on the same page):


> Some improper pack behaviors that should never be overlooked and disciplined with an appropriate correction are as follows


So - he specifically mentions both pups and adult dogs, and categorically states that such behaviours should NEVER be overlooked - they must be punished with an "appropriate correction", which he later describes as I quoted before.

Lou, you then go on to say in relation to punishing growling:


> This trainer was only considering growling as it relates to pack matters. You're taking things out of context again.


Was he? Doesn't say so.... in fact he specifically says that this behaviour should NEVER go unpunished. He also uses the deliberate wording:


> dogs that growl at the owner for any reason whatsoever as this is respect issue and a clear challenge


Underlining was added by me - ANY REASON WHATSOEVER.
He does not say growling only related to "dominance" or "pack behaviour". He states ANY reason. Apparently "as this is a respect issue..." 
Not "if" this is a respect issue. Not "only under certain conditions". But any time, every time, for any reason whatsoever.

I also happen to agree that punishing growling (for any reason!) is a dangerous and foolhardy idea, which is a fsat way to a dog that bites without warning.

Lou also said, in relation to leg humping:


> Same as above. This would not happen if you'd stop taking his comments out of the context in which they were written.


I'm not the one taking them out of context - they are not in any context, save for this trainers nonsense ideas about pack behaviour. 
The trainer specifically states humping must be severely punished. He specifcally comments on pups as well as dogs. Seems pretty clear cut to me, and I imagine to anyone else reading the website. The trainer certainly does not clarify the point, except with the "any time, every time" mantra.



> And speaking of broad definitions and denial, couldn't you say the same of R+ trainers? After all R+ in practice often uses P-. In fact by definition, reinforcing one behaviour punishes alternatives. So R+ trainers are really negative punishment trainers in denial.


You're not going to do a "sleepyBones" on us are you, and try to claim that shocking a dog into compliance is actually a pleasent experience for the dog, whilst likening clicker training to torture are you?

I believe everyone involved in this debate understand the four quadrants, and how they work together.
Yes, if you want to get technical, whatever training method you use you will be reinforcing some behaviours while punishing others - that is not the issue.
The issue is how.

A dog trained to sit by click-and-treat training (positive reinforcement) sits because he knows good things happen when he does. (ie. get the treat.)

A dog trained to sit by positive punishment does so in order to avoid (prevent) something bad from happening. (i.e. not get shocked)

A dog trained to sit by negative reinforcement does so to avoid (stop) something bad from happening. (i.e. turn off the shock)

A dog trained to sit by negative punishment sits to prevent something good from going away. (i.e. his owners attention)

My point is, that however Skinner himself explained it, in practice trainers concentrate on one specific area depending on what they are doing. The method yourself and Lou use is one of negative reinforcement. You do not offer a reinforcer other than lack of aversive*. The method I use myself, as do many other posters here, is one of positive reinforcement. We do not use a punisher except the lack of reward.

Personally, I do not feel that they are necessarily opposites anyway. The way I see it, the opposite of getting a reward, is getting no reward - not getting an aversive instead.

*Want to add here, the only part of your training methods that has been mentioned is the shock until the dog obeys part. You may indeed use rewards as well when they dog obeys, I don't know. All I am saying is that the basic principle is not a reward based method, but an aversive based one.

I think it should be obvious that doing things because they result in good things happening is far more fun and enjoyable than doing things because bad things happen if you don't.

I simply can not understand why any dog loving person would choose to teach a behaviour using aversives (which are by definition unpleasent for the dog) when they could use rewards (which are pleasent for the dog). 
Even without the pain versus discomfort debate - why would someone want to cause any unpleasentness to their dog that was not necessary?
And electric shocks / neck yanks / jabs / asphyxiation etc are NOT necessary


----------



## arlow (Apr 20, 2011)

Colette said:


> You're not going to do a "sleepyBones" on us are you, and try to claim that shocking a dog into compliance is actually a pleasent experience for the dog, whilst likening clicker training to torture are you?


Don't understand the reference, but nope not going to liken clicker training to torture. Nor am I'm going to claim that training is a "pleasant" experience for my dog. No, he loves his training. Loves it! He's a goofy fun loving lab so "pleasant" doesn't begin to capture the exuberance he displays towards training. As we approach the training facility, he can hardly contain himself. It's fun for him and it's fun for us to see him get so excited. Did I say *he loves it*?



> I believe everyone involved in this debate understand the four quadrants, and how they work together.


I believe otherwise. In fact, I admit that I've had to explore my own understanding as a result of these discussions as I don't think various methods fit in the quadrants as neatly as I once thought or as others seem to believe.



> Yes, if you want to get technical, whatever training method you use you will be reinforcing some behaviours while punishing others - that is not the issue.


Actually, I don't want to get technical. I posed the question as food for thought. I'm not even sure I agree with it. But if you accept the premise, it's not, as so many here have said, that you're against punishment, it's that you choose not to see it that way. ("You" in the general sense)



> My point is, that however Skinner himself explained it, in practice trainers concentrate on one specific area depending on what they are doing. The method yourself and Lou use is one of negative reinforcement. You do not offer a reinforcer other than lack of aversive*.


I've seen your note below, so I'll address it here. I do offer other reinforcers, food, praise, play. I have a lot of tools available to me. Try not to limit myself by ideology.



> The method I use myself, as do many other posters here, is one of positive reinforcement. We do not use a punisher except the lack of reward.


As we've discussed previously, some posters have claimed they use only negative punishers, but actually do use positive punishers. Furthermore I don't know why using only negative punishers is a good thing. I cited an article further up this thread that illustrates the negative fallout that could result for negative punishment. Since timing is so important in punishment, it seems to me a quick "uh uh" is easier to administer and more directly communicates to the dog than trying to remove a reward. Why limit yourself?



> Personally, I do not feel that they are necessarily opposites anyway. The way I see it, the opposite of getting a reward, is getting no reward - not getting an aversive instead.


But it really doesn't matter how you or I see it. It's how the dog sees it.



> All I am saying is that the basic principle is not a reward based method, but an aversive based one.


The principle behind the ecollar is that it's aversive, but I would characterize my overall training principles as rewards based.



> I think it should be obvious that doing things because they result in good things happening is far more fun and enjoyable than doing things because bad things happen if you don't.


Good things do happen in training with -R. The discomfort is relieved. Plus the dog learns that to some extent they can control their environment. In the case of punishment, positive or negative, the dog gets clear signals on what not to do. Can make for a confident happy dog.



> I simply can not understand why any dog loving person would choose to teach a behaviour using aversives (which are by definition unpleasent for the dog) when they could use rewards (which are pleasent for the dog)


I had to wrestle with that issue myself. In fact, I put off signing on with the trainer I did for 6 months because of that. In the meantime, I wasted time and money with two other trainers that provided only limited results. I didn't make a decision to use the ecollar; I made the decision to use a particular trainer who had a great track record but used ecollars. My only regret is that I put it off for so long. My concerns have proven to be unfounded, and my dog is better off for it.



> Even without the pain versus discomfort debate - why would someone want to cause any unpleasentness to their dog that was not necessary?


Because the results were so extraordinary. My dog's off leash behaviour improved dramatically within days. (So did his onlead behaviour, but that was within minutes) Any unpleasantness introduced by the collar was more than offset by the joy he experienced with his new found freedom. If you asked him, I'm sure he would tell you he much prefers his ecollar to that stupid Halti he was wearing. He hated it. _Hated it._

And let me head this one off at the pass. For the sake of argument, I'll concede that I could have continued my search through the hundreds of trainers that practice in my area and found one that uses "positive methods" and gotten good results. But that also has costs in term of time, money and "dog unpleasantness".

P.S. Colette, In your original post, you're quoting Lou, but that last quote came from me


----------



## Guest (May 24, 2011)

arlow said:


> By my count at least 3 of us have contacted this guy by now. He's aware of the thread and will respond if he's interested.


Hes probably too busy training to contribute to a forum


----------



## arlow (Apr 20, 2011)

rona said:


> Hes probably too busy training to contribute to a forum


I am too, but it doesn't seem to stop me!:biggrin:
(not training, just busy)


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

RobD-BCactive said:


> *bold added - *
> 
> No, the dog is not coerced. *The field is tilted so* [*that the dog*] *wants to work. * [SNIP]
> ...dogs do have a choice about having a training session, they can appeal for one, and often do.
> ...


yes - my Akita-girl would prance, wag & play-bow, all VERY out of the ordinary behaviors, when she'd see me get out 
the clicker - big toothy grin, bright eyes.

my GSD x Keeshound, the first dog that was my dog & trained from puphood, was more pointed about it - 
he was my 4-H dog & we lived on a 40-acre family farm; he was entirely free to do as he pleased, in summer 
he would often lie in the stream on hot days & rise dripping to dry off in the shade, under a tree. 
in winter he might hunt mice under the snow, or curl up in the straw of the sheep-barn for a warm nap, 
or chase squirrels - unlike mice, which he ate, he never *caught* squirrels but chased them for fun.

with 40-acres to roam over, what would he do at random intervals? 
go into the spring-house, stand on his hindlegs to reach the nail, & lift off the 6-ft leather leash hanging there; 
then come find me, wherever i was & whatever i was doing, carrying the coiled leash in his mouth - 
and present it by sitting in front of me, looking classically 'guilty' - *IOW* appeasing or soliciting, 
in hopes that i'd clip the leash to his collar & ask him to heel... so that we could walk together & he'd be praised.

i might be hoeing in the garden, chopping kindling or splitting wood, fixing fence or reading under a tree... 
it made no difference, he showed up carrying the leash one day while i was feeding the sheep flock and walked 
back & forth with me from barn to feedlot 3 times, carrying the leash, while i brought out hay, sweet-feed & lamb 
pellets, and then he got a heeling session.  whaddaya gonna do?... i mean, all that effort - he should get 
_some_thing, right?


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

arlow said:


> some posters have claimed they use only negative punishers, but actually do use positive punishers. Furthermore I don't know why using only negative punishers is a good thing. I cited an article further up this thread that illustrates the negative fallout that could result for negative punishment. Since timing is so important in punishment, it seems to me a quick "uh uh" is easier to administer and more directly communicates to the dog than trying to remove a reward. Why limit yourself?


OK, so one example of a positive-punisher I used accidentally was a food reward, yes the normally loved training treat. My timing was off, and it was a punisher because it punished the behaviour I wanted rather than reinforced it. The dog was more interested and motivated by something else at that moment (like another throw).

The statement P+ is effective is a tautology, because the very definition of P is that it deters (reduces liklihood of future occurence).

Punishment (discipline) sense often acts as positive-reinforcer for the unwanted behaviour, or neutral, not the intended P+.

P- is a strategy of withdrawing opportunity to go wrong, unwanted behaviour is less likely in future eg) not playing ball with a barking dog, but simply ignoring the attention seeking and then R+ the quiet auto-sit with praise and rewarding with the desired play after the dog has worked for it.

A P- is for example entering a park with dog on line, then recalling it and after releasing to play with and interact with friendly safe dog. You diminish by preventing the behaviour of dashing off to see the other dog, by not permitting "free running" but using the "distraction" as a reward.

P- is generally not forceful and is summed up by "setting the dog up to succeed" eg) nipping heels may be diminished by P- of distraction onto a good toy, or a rewards based obedience session which the dog enjoys.

This is very different from P+, which tends to involve trying to deter the dog, requires timing, proportionality, a lack of emotion and sufficient intensity to be effective. Furthermore common methods, the dog associates with the owner which can easily undermine the bond.

Another example of P+ which I benefitted from, was an accidental clop on head of my dog with cycle wheel. His careless behaviour was indeed deterred, however he did not view it as my act, rather the accident it was, and he respected the wheel better after that. So that was an effective punisher, intensity, lack of emotion, timing and proportionality were there, I got lucky by an accident.

In general intentions to punish require forward planning, hence "trappy situations" where the dog is "set up to fail" in order that the lurking trainer/behaviourist can time the planned and considered punishment.

Very often P+ is used to stamp out unwanted behaviours, which leads to supressing symptoms rather than address the cause.


----------



## arlow (Apr 20, 2011)

RobD-BCactive said:


> No, the dog is not coerced.
> 
> See no choice, but it's manipulated into wanting to work.


No, I don't see, but I"m content to leave it at that.


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

arlow said:


> Since timing is so important in punishment, it seems to me a quick "uh uh" is easier to administer and more directly communicates to the dog than trying to remove a reward. Why limit yourself?


Now I think you have not been fully informed by previous trainers. Possibly because of the tendency to "let's get started" and diving into practice in the hall. Even if not everyone would read short written material, those who do could benefit greatly from the perspective.

One of first things to teach for rewards based training, is that the dog politely accepts an offered reward, that trying to snaffle it does not work. Some emphasise this by saying "take it!", think kikopups youtube channel shows that.

Now I'm going to paste a piece from Dog training - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, not because it's authoriative in any way, but for the value in the ideas :



Dog training - Wikipedia said:


> Communication
> 
> Fundamentally, dog training is about communication. From the human perspective, the handler is communicating to the dog what behaviors are correct, desired, or preferred in different circumstances and what behaviors are undesirable.
> 
> ...


When you have a dog offering behaviour, it tries to earn the reward and puzzle it out, so an NRM (eg) "uh oh") fits your scenario. A Click, "Yess!" is a "Reward" marker. KGS is useful when you want a dog to remaining sitting or continue heeling and not try a different behaviour to earn reward.

Your "Ah ah" is liikely a NRM even if harshly delivered, rather than the "Punishment" marker which suffers draw backs as you noted.

The learning difficulties and unreliable performance that I have witnessed, have been due to the emotional state of the dog, with handler unable to calm "stress" so the dog is secure and receptive to learning, or poor choice of training environment meaning distractions are too great eg) poorly socialised dogs in a relatively confined indoor space.


arlow said:


> Good things do happen in training with -R. The discomfort is relieved. Plus the dog learns that to some extent they can control their environment. In the case of punishment, positive or negative, the dog gets clear signals on what not to do. Can make for a confident happy dog


Now I do the same actually, without the dog being inhibited by non-understandable stimming, when certain actions are taken. I simply require the dog to do an alternative, for example a firm "Off!" from some distance is clear enough and allows the dog to behave obediently, rather than having some unclear disproportionate untimely punishment, which is ineffective as P+.

The danger in the "stimming" approach is that the discomfort may not be associated with what you want it to be. In the video clips I've watched, I have seen nervousness, not the relaxed and happy dogs that are with me; considering these were chosen as "Showcase" examples that would concern me.

"Discipline" is discouraged for practical reasons, the rules for "Effective Punishment of a Dog" are too hard to get right, and most attempts at P+ actually seem to reinforce unwanted behaviour, or not diminish it; even if some short term relief is obtained by "interruption". Remember effective P+ deters repetition in the future.

However, I do feel early on in rewards based training, there ought to be guidance on how to effectively deal with unwanted behaviour and have follow through in training by non-forceful but effective ways; as well as explanation how to phase out lures and food rewards and phase in other rewards to avoid common difficulties those diving in face.


----------



## arlow (Apr 20, 2011)

RobD-BCactive said:


> Now I think you have not been fully informed by previous trainers.
> 
> Your "Ah ah" is liikely a NRM even if harshly delivered, rather than the "Punishment" marker which suffers draw backs as you noted.


Rob, it's not _my_ "Ah ah" it belongs to LeashedforLife.


> * my dogs have learned many things over the years - & my clients' dogs have learned thru my coaching,
> & their owners' training, without punishment other than rare & minimal, like "Ah-ah..." or a sharp glance.
> so if "Ah-Ah..." & raised eyebrows stop the dog in her or his tracks, why escalate?


If I am misinformed, then so is she, as it was she who referred to "Ah ah" as punishment. You may want to let her know.

Now I'm going to paste a piece from Karen Pryor's website, not because it's authoritative in any way, but for the value in the ideas :


> Because the trainer introduces the NRM upon the learners mistake (adds an aversive stimulus that modifies behavior), the NRM is positive punishment.
> Should You Use No Reward Markers? Examining the Debate | Karen Pryor Clickertraining


To paraphrase someone else on this board:


> NRM is punishment, the dog's avoiding something.
> Pretending it is not, is being in denial.


Which brings us back to my point. Positive punishment, used appropriately, can be an effective tool. Why limit yourself?


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

arlow said:


> If I am misinformed, then so is she, as it was she who referred to "Ah ah" as punishment. You may want to let her know
> ..
> Which brings us back to my point. Positive punishment, used appropriately, can be an effective tool. Why limit yourself?


That "Ah ah" would be intended as a correction, and you mentioned saying that rather than just "withholding" a reward.

Well one reason is because that "Ah ah" gets habituated when over-used and so does not really do P+. I see lots of corrections, very few seem to actually P+ the behaviour. Many corrected dogs I see have exact same problem this year as last 

From what I have seen, getting an alternative behaviour in place works much better and is what the people you mention seem to recommend when I read their words.

lFL can undoubtedly explain what she said, but I was going by your words; and if you use rewards and withold, then an NRM alerts the dog it needs to try as it's on the wrong track, so actually speeds up the process.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

ClaireandDaisy said:


> Actually, since you`re not a moderator I think you can leave it to the rest of us to make up our own mind on what is or isn`t on topic.
> Why not simply make your case instead of clouding the issue?


One doesnt have to be a moderator to think or to state the opinion that something is on or off topic. I'm perfectly happy to let everyone make their own decision. But I see no reason not to state mine.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

Pawsitive said:


> in my opinion, some comments have been made that would have been better off unsaid.


I agree but quite a few are claiming that we are the only ones making such comments. In truth it's those who oppose Ecollars who start with them. I don't think it's unreasonable that after a while some of us start responding in kind.

Earlier I wrote,


> No one can change what you saw. But to think that what you saw is the−only−way is just silly. I, and others, have repeatedly shown videos of Ecollars being used. Many times I've invited people to show exactly where on the time line the Ecollar was being used or to show us where the dog was in pain. Yet the few times that people have tried, they've been wrong for various reasons.





Pawsitive said:


> I never said it was the _only_ way. I said it is what I have seen to date. There is a difference.


Let's review. My comment ("no one can change...") came after you wrote this,


> none of the ecollar threads / videos / articles I have seen have changed what I saw with my own eyes when I saw e collars on dogs."


I'm assuming that you watched the videos that I and others have sent in  perhaps I should not, and not one of them showed a dog showing pain as a result of the Ecollar being used. In fact, in many of them you could not even tell when the button was being pressed. Yet you claim that none of them persuaded you that what you had seen was not the result of all Ecollar use. That's a case of a disconnection, where you see only what you want to see. The cognitive dissonance that was under discussion in another thread.



Pawsitive said:


> I'm not being blind. My statement that I do not know if you can use an ecollar properly is true. It is no reflection on you.


The statement that you don't know whether or not *I *can use an Ecollar properly is NOT a reflection on me? Either I'm misunderstanding or you're not being clear. Perhaps both. But isn't the statement that _"[you] don't know if I can use an Ecollar properly"_ a reflection DIRECTLY on me?



Pawsitive said:


> Reading client letters mean nothing.


Perhaps to you. I think they're more meaningful than videos. A video can be edited to show any darn thing you want. Think "Star Wars."



Pawsitive said:


> I'm sadly one of those people who prefer to view with their own eyes and I do not mean via youtube. Perhaps one day I will see a trainer putting it into practice and realise that there is a use for the tool. I have not seen that as yet.


It's a good thing that the rest of the world does not have to personally experience everything to believe it or to understand it. We'd still be living in caves and eating our meat raw. Fortunately MOST people can learn from the experiences of others.

Earlier I wrote,


> It's only an _"emotive topic"_ to those who don't know about the modern use of modern versions of the tools ...





Pawsitive said:


> There are, as you know, differing levels of punishment. To my mind, a high level stim is very different from a well-timed and soft spoken 'Ah-Ah'


High level stim is not part of _"the modern use of modern versions of the tools."_ That is about using low levels of stim to teach new behaviors with. To some dogs the _"soft spoken 'Ah−Ah' "_ is far more aversive than a low level stim. It's now how you perceive the stim, it's only how the dog perceives it that is important.

I've written a couple of times,


> There are more dogs entering society (meaning that more people are getting pets) than in the past. Therefore there are more dominant/aggressive dogs entering society.





Pawsitive said:


> It may not affect the statistic but my argument is that if these dogs are 'becoming dominant' through [email protected] handling / training by people then the ecollars would be put to better use on the owner.


[email protected] handling / training does not make a dog "dominant." His genetics do that. A dog may protest crap handling with a bite or other aggression but he's expressing the fact that you're hurting him too much, not that he's dominant.



Pawsitive said:


> My argument is that dogs are not 'born' dominant or aggressive and not looking at the underlying cause for an increase in aggressive dogs, _if that is indeed the case_, would be a massive error.


I disagree. Dominant dogs (and there are very few of them on the planet) ARE born that way. It's from their genetics. Aggression may be a result of this dominance and it can often be, as you say, as a result of _[email protected] handling / training." _



Pawsitive said:


> I don't have an emotional attachment to the statistic Lou. Or the fact that there may or may not be more aggressive / dominant dogs coming into society. I would just like to see empirical data.


Perhaps there's a misunderstanding. I'm agreeing with the person who said this because if there are more dogs there will be more dogs of all kinds. More dominant dogs. More black dogs, more submissive dogs, more white dogs. The numbers of ALL kinds of dogs will increase if the number of dogs increase. Think of the bell shaped curve that represents just about everything that has some variance. When we get more dogs the bell just shifts upward representing a change in the absolute numbers. I'm not talking about a shift one way or the other, just that *all *the numbers are increasing across the board. I don't think one needs _"empirical data"_ to see that UNLESS you disagree with the basic premise that the number of dogs in homes is increasing? Do you?



Pawsitive said:


> I wasn't referring to anything specific. I was looking at the differences between ecollar and clickertraining and feel that there is less potential fallout from clickertraining. It was not said in reply to anything you'd mentioned.


Now I get it. Thanks for clarifying. I think you think this way because you've not seen modern Ecollar use. I can only assume that you've not been watching the many videos that have been sent in by Ecollar users. If I only considered the way that Ecollars have been used in the past, I'd agree. High levels of stim and using the collar only to punish can easily result in fallout. But using low level stim, is just not traumatic enough for it to occur. Many dogs find it less aversive than when a treat is withheld.



Pawsitive said:


> I've just tried clicking the link again and it came up with the JRT -although it's currently telling me it's unavailable to view. Earlier I clicked and it jumped to a lab with a collar - still the same trainer. It's that video I was commenting on.


I think THIS is the video you're now referring to when you wrote, _"But may be that confused puppy on a slip lead being taught to heel that got posted as a "good example" few months ago, would be a less inflammatory."_ Is this the right video?



Pawsitive said:


> Without being there I agree that it is impossible to know exactly what's going on. However, in my humble opinion, I find the whining, lip movements, panting, yawn and even the tail wags - to be signs of stress showing the dog is not entirely comfortable - and then once 'working level' of the collar is reached, the sniffing and tongue flick.


I agree that the dog is _"not entirely comfortable."_ Two comments. First I don't think it's necessary or even a good thing that a dog be "entirely comfortable" every moment of his life. In fact, stress, which makes a dog display the things you mention is good for an animal as long as it's not so severe that the animal is overwhelmed. Some even think that it makes puppies' brains grow.

Second that dog is being work with a pinch collar. I don't see any connection to modern use of modern Ecollars.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

Colette said:


> Personally I think we are getting silly now. Of course there are people in this world who will dump or pts a dog for the most ludicrous of reason - including not matching the sofa - but generally speaking people do not get thir dogs destroyed because of leg humping or lead pulling!


Some do. It's rare that those are the only issues and since most dogs that are PTS by their owners are killed for behavioral issues, those are just a couple of examples.



Colette said:


> And of course, there are a wide variety of ways of stopping such unwanted behaviours that do not require harsh physical punishment.


It's not just a matter of stopping the behavior and if it comes from dominance then those methods won't stop it.



Colette said:


> The trainer specifically mentions puppies as well as adults performing "improper pack behaviour" as a bid for dominance.


What age does he consider to be a puppy? Do you think this makes a difference?

Earlier I wrote,


> This trainer was only considering growling as it relates to pack matters. You're taking things out of context again.





Colette said:


> Was he? Doesn't say so....


Yes he was. He mentioned in while we were talking on the phone.



Colette said:


> Underlining was added by me - ANY REASON WHATSOEVER.
> He does not say growling only related to "dominance" or "pack behaviour". He states ANY reason. Apparently "as this is a respect issue..."
> Not "if" this is a respect issue. Not "only under certain conditions". But any time, every time, for any reason whatsoever.


Again you're taking his comments out of context. He's ONLY talking about growling as it's related to dominance or pack issues throughout that section.



Colette said:


> I also happen to agree that punishing growling (for any reason!) is a dangerous and foolhardy idea, which is a fsat way to a dog that bites without warning.


Not if it's done properly.



Colette said:


> I'm not the one taking them out of context - they are not in any context, save for this trainers nonsense ideas about pack behaviour.


Sure they are. It's just not convenient for you to see it, so you don't.



Colette said:


> The trainer specifically states humping must be severely punished. He specifcally comments on pups as well as dogs.


Now you're combining two things he talks about separately. Another version of removing context. You're trying to make connections he never made.

Someone wrote,


> And speaking of broad definitions and denial, couldn't you say the same of R+ trainers? After all R+ in practice often uses P-. In fact by definition, reinforcing one behaviour punishes alternatives. So R+ trainers are really negative punishment trainers in denial.





Colette said:


> You're not going to do a "sleepyBones" on us are you


I didn't write this so I won't comment.



Colette said:


> and try to claim that shocking a dog into compliance


But I will comment on this. Statements like this show nothing but how little you understand about ways that an Ecollar can be used.



Colette said:


> I believe everyone involved in this debate understand the four quadrants, and how they work together.


I'd like to believe that but based on what you say, you do not. You appear to have only a surface understanding of the quadrants. (ACTUALLY there's a fifth part that some forget, extinction).



Colette said:


> Yes, if you want to get technical, whatever training method you use you will be reinforcing some behaviours while punishing others - that is not the issue.


I disagree, It *IS at least *part of the issue.



Colette said:


> A dog trained to sit by click-and-treat training (positive reinforcement) sits because he knows good things happen when he does. (ie. get the treat.)


He also knows that if he does not that bad things happen, (i.e. he does not get the treat). Most of you folks want to overlook this side of the coin because it doesnt jive with what you think of your methods. But since it's the other side of the same coin, it's right there for all to see. Still many won't.



Colette said:


> A dog trained to sit by positive punishment does so in order to avoid (prevent) something bad from happening. (i.e. not get shocked)


Your statement is incomplete. He know (what you state) *AND * he sits because he knows that he gets praised, played with or treated. We use reinforcement as well, you folks just tend to ignore it or pretend that we don't.



Colette said:


> A dog trained to sit by negative reinforcement does so to avoid (stop) something bad from happening. (i.e. turn off the shock)


Here's another hole in your statements. There's a vast difference between escaping something unpleasant and avoiding it completely. He's not _"turn[ing] off the stim"_ if it's never been turned on.



Colette said:


> My point is, that however Skinner himself explained it, in practice trainers concentrate on one specific area depending on what they are doing.


Yep. That's what some people do. As has been shown, you've done it right here.



Colette said:


> The method yourself and Lou use is one of negative reinforcement.


First, when did you start talking to someone else? And second, you're wrong. It's a combination of + and  P and + and  R and extinction. For the purpose of this discussion it's convenient for you to think that we only use one part of OC but in reality I use all five.



Colette said:


> You do not offer a reinforcer other than lack of aversive*. The method I use myself, as do many other posters here, is one of positive reinforcement.


No, you're wrong on both counts. You use punishment too. It's impossible not to.



Colette said:


> We do not use a punisher except the lack of reward.


And for many dogs that may be far more aversive than a physical punisher. You just refuse to see this. That does not change the fact that it's true. But I'd bet that you also use +P. You may not even be aware of it.



Colette said:


> Personally, I do not feel that they are necessarily opposites anyway. The way I see it, the opposite of getting a reward, is getting no reward - not getting an aversive instead.


Such thinking is one of the reasons that you've having problem talking about OC. If you're going to talk about this you should not be talking about rewards and aversives. Those can change depending on the situation and the dog in question. You should be talking about positive and negative (meaning adding to or removing from the situation) and punishment and reinforcement (something that will tend to make a behavior not repeat or something that will make it tend to repeat).



Colette said:


> *Want to add here, the only part of your training methods that has been mentioned is the shock until the dog obeys part. You may indeed use rewards as well when they dog obeys, I don't know. All I am saying is that the basic principle is not a reward based method, but an aversive based one.


I'll disagree. If one uses BOTH rewards and punishment, as I do then the training is balanced. People make your statement just because it supports their argument, makes them feel better and as a marketing technique.



Colette said:


> I think it should be obvious that doing things because they result in good things happening is far more fun and enjoyable than doing things because bad things happen if you don't.


BOTH are necessary for good training to result. Imagine trying to learn math or to drive a car with ONLY positive reinforcement.



Colette said:


> I simply can not understand why any dog loving person would choose to teach a behaviour using aversives (which are by definition unpleasent for the dog) when they could use rewards (which are pleasent for the dog).


Fact is, it's impossible _"to teach a behavior WITHOUT using aversives."_ I've never understood why you people make this claim when it's so easy to shoot it down. The best results come when BOTH reinforcements and punishments are used. Any effective training uses both. Pretending that you (or anyone) does not is simply not true.



Colette said:


> Even without the pain versus discomfort debate - why would someone want to cause any unpleasentness to their dog that was not necessary?
> And electric shocks / neck yanks / jabs / asphyxiation etc are NOT necessary


Blanket statements like this are always wrong. Wait, wasn't that a blanket statement? Fact is with some dogs some of those things while they are not necessary certainly make the training go faster and easier because they allow for a different level of communication with the dog.

Colette I discovered reading the next post (the one after this one of yours) that you were quoting Arlow. Not going to go back and change my comments though. Turns out that our responses were similar.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

leashedForLife said:


> yes - my Akita-girl would prance, wag & play-bow, all VERY out of the ordinary behaviors, when she'd see me get out
> the clicker - big toothy grin, bright eyes.


Same way all my dogs behave when they hear "the tinkle" of the Ecollar buckle.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

RobD-BCactive said:


> The statement P+ is effective is a tautology, because the very definition of P is that it deters (reduces liklihood of future occurence).


+P is NOT the same as punishment. It's but one form of punishment. It's where something is *added *to the situation such as a disapproving word, a pop on the leash or an Ecollar stim.



RobD-BCactive said:


> Punishment (discipline) sense often acts as positive-reinforcer for the unwanted behaviour, or neutral, not the intended P+.


You're mixing up the common use of the word punishment and the OC use of the term. You really can't do that and still make sense. In fact, you'll confuse many readers.



RobD-BCactive said:


> P- is a strategy of withdrawing opportunity to go wrong,


No, the definition of P is removing something that will tend to make a behavior not repeat. It has nothing to do with _"opportunity to go wrong."_



RobD-BCactive said:


> A P- is for example entering a park with dog on line, then recalling it and after releasing to play with and interact with friendly safe dog. You diminish by preventing the behaviour of dashing off to see the other dog, by not permitting "free running" but using the "distraction" as a reward.


Not allowing a dog to do something is not P. It's not part of OC at all. *Stopping or preventing *a dog from doing something he wants to do may be P if it tends to make the behavior not repeat.



RobD-BCactive said:


> P- is generally not forceful and is summed up by "setting the dog up to succeed" eg) nipping heels may be diminished by P- of distraction onto a good toy, or a rewards based obedience session which the dog enjoys.


Distracting a dog onto a good toy is not P. It's +R. In this case you may be rewarding the dog for nipping heels by giving him the toy, depending on the timing involved and how the toy is delivered. It has nothing to do with _"setting the dog up to succeed."_



RobD-BCactive said:


> This is very different from P+, which tends to involve trying to deter the dog, requires timing, proportionality, a lack of emotion and sufficient intensity to be effective.


Actually using +R (especially with a clicker) takes better timing. It also requires that the treat, toy or praise be of _"sufficient intensity,"_ meaning of sufficient interest to the dog to be rewarding.



RobD-BCactive said:


> Furthermore common methods, the dog associates with the owner which can easily undermine the bond.


This is one of the mantras of those who favor the so−called "kinder gentler methods." It's nonsense. Just about every police patrol dog in the world has been trained with corrections yet they don't hesitate to spring to the defense of their handlers, a very strong sign of the bond that they have. And an Ecollar used with my methods to teach the recall will establish a bond faster than any other method. I've worked dogs that wanted to bite me, one that thought she had to kill me to survive. Everyone of them became bonded (to some degree) within the first session. The one that wanted to kill me was licking my face about 25 minutes later.



RobD-BCactive said:


> Another example of P+ which I benefitted from, was an accidental clop on head of my dog with cycle wheel. His careless behaviour was indeed deterred, however he did not view it as my act, rather the accident it was, and he respected the wheel better after that. So that was an effective punisher, intensity, lack of emotion, timing and proportionality were there, I got lucky by an accident.


It's easy to set up these "accidents" with an Ecollar since the dogs associate the stim with the environment, rather than with the handler, when the training is done properly. Steven R. Lindsay discusses this study in volume three of his "Handbook of Applied Dog Behavior and Training."



> In practice, dogs do not appear to link ES with the handler, especially persons with whom the dog is closely attached and familiar. In fact, the most interesting uses of the collar depend on this lack of aversive association, including lasting reward and opponent safety effects





RobD-BCactive said:


> In general intentions to punish require forward planning, hence "trappy situations" where the dog is "set up to fail" in order that the lurking trainer/behaviourist can time the planned and considered punishment.


Nonsense. Opportunities to punish exist virtually all the time when a dog does something undesirable as long as he's wearing the Ecollar and the basic foundation work has been done.



RobD-BCactive said:


> Very often P+ is used to stamp out unwanted behaviours, which leads to supressing symptoms rather than address the cause.


This is another mantra of these folks that, as we can see, is usually wrong. You just gave us an example that worked perfectly for you, the _"clop on [the] head of [your] dog with [the]cycle wheel."_ Notice that no symptoms were suppressed and that the cause was _"addressed."_ Also the bond with the handler was not damaged.

One more thing. This whole "setting up to succeed" that you say happens with the so−called "kinder gentler methods" v. "setting up to fail that you say happens with more conventional methods is another bit of nonsense. It's great marketing but it's not true. BOTH do the same thing, present the dog with distractions so that the quality of his training can be tested. In EITHER CASE, if the dog performs properly, he's praised, treated, etc. If he fails, he's punished. Some of you folks will ignore the behavior in the hopes that it will become extinct. (That ignoring may, by itself, be punishing). But if it's self−rewarding as are most behaviors that dogs engage in, on their own, it won't.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

RobD-BCactive said:


> Now I'm going to paste a piece from Dog training - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, not because it's authoriative in any way, but for the value in the ideas :


Folks should realize that Wiki is not a very good source of information. It's convenient but it's easy for ANYONE to post anything they want, including things that are obviously wrong. For quite some time anti−Ecollar folks had a line on the entry for Ecollars that said in large type, "THESE COLLARS CAN KILL." A complete and total lie. Corrections for this sort of babble come along but they don't come along very quickly. In fact at the top of this article (the one that RobD cited) you'll find this, _" [This article] needs additional references or sources for verification ... *Its neutrality or factuality may be compromised * by weasel words."_ [Emphasis Added]



RobD-BCactive said:


> When you have a dog offering behaviour, it tries to earn the reward and puzzle it out, so an NRM (eg) "uh oh") fits your scenario. A Click, "Yess!" is a "Reward" marker. KGS is useful when you want a dog to remaining sitting or continue heeling and not try a different behaviour to earn reward.


Remember in your last post you wrote this, _"This is very different from P+, which tends to involve trying to deter the dog, *requires timing, proportionality, a lack of emotion and sufficient intensity to be effective."*_ [Emphasis Added] Delivering the KGS ALSO requires these things. If your "Yess!" is improperly timed, too forceful or delivered with too much emotion it can distract the dog from his task and be an invitation to play. If it's not delivered with "sufficient intensity" it may have no effect. And so we can see that _the problems _ you tried to associate ONLY with punishment apply JUST AS MUCH to using reinforcement. Conveniently you omit this fact.



RobD-BCactive said:


> Your "Ah ah" is liikely a NRM even if harshly delivered, rather than the "Punishment" marker which suffers draw backs as you noted.


NRM is a term that was developed so that these folks could avoid using the word "punishment." It's another example of clever marketing. If it tends to make a behavior not repeat (and that's the intent of it) it's punishment. But they want people to believe that they don't use punishment so they invented a new term to replace it.



RobD-BCactive said:


> The learning difficulties and unreliable performance that I have witnessed, have been due to the emotional state of the dog, with handler unable to calm "stress" so the dog is secure and receptive to learning, or poor choice of training environment meaning distractions are too great eg) poorly socialised dogs in a relatively confined indoor space.


Interesting. The learning difficulties and unreliable performance that I have witnessed have been due primarily to inept or incompetent trainers. The relative effectiveness of these methods is shown by the fact that they require _"relative confined indoor space"_ where distractions are at a minimum. Of course all methods work best in such an environment but I usually work in public places where lots of distractions are present. It's "training for the real world," where the dog actually lives.



RobD-BCactive said:


> Now I do the same actually, without the dog being inhibited by non-understandable stimming


If stim was _"non−understandable"_ no dog would ever learn a thing. Yet somehow they do.



RobD-BCactive said:


> when certain actions are taken. I simply require the dog to do an alternative, for example a firm "Off!" from some distance is clear enough and allows the dog to behave obediently, rather than having some unclear disproportionate untimely punishment, which is ineffective as P+.


Your _"firm 'OFF' "_ is a positive punishment. You've added something to the situation and it will tend to make the behavior not repeat. How is it that you don't realize this?



RobD-BCactive said:


> The danger in the "stimming" approach is that the discomfort may not be associated with what you want it to be.


This is a "danger" no matter what training tool or method is in use. If you click 1/2 second after the desired behavior you will probably be reinforcing the wrong thing. As you say, it _"may not be associated with what you want it to be."_ I find it fascinating that you apply these things you've been discussing that you think are not good, ONLY to the conventional methods and the Ecollar, all the while ignoring the fact that they apply to ALL tools/methods. It's a complex form of blindness, aka cognitive dissonance.



RobD-BCactive said:


> In the video clips I've watched, I have seen nervousness, not the relaxed and happy dogs that are with me; considering these were chosen as "Showcase" examples that would concern me.


Harry Nilsson wrote, "You see what you want to see." Here's a video for you to watch. Please show us on the timeline where the dog is nervous.

And HERE'S another one. Again, please show us on the timeline where the dog is nervous.



RobD-BCactive said:


> However, I do feel early on in rewards based training, there ought to be guidance on how to effectively deal with unwanted behaviour and have follow through in training by non-forceful but effective ways; as well as explanation how to phase out lures and food rewards and phase in other rewards to avoid common difficulties those diving in face.


The way _"to effectively deal with unwanted behavior and have follow though"_ is to punish that behavior. Punishment is the only thing that tells a dog, "Don't do that again." The dog decides what is _"forceful"_ not the human.


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

Lou Castle said:


> NRM is a term that was developed so that these folks could avoid using the word "punishment." It's another example of clever marketing. If it tends to make a behavior not repeat (and that's the intent of it) it's punishment. But they want people to believe that they don't use punishment so they invented a new term to replace it


Is this actually rational thinking, or a distortion to fit a skewed world view to justify using coercion and passing electric currents through peoples cherished pets?

In fact :

Our dogs are uninhibited and encouraged to freely offer a behaviour to earn a reward, but he must puzzle it out. We want to reward success, to R+ it, but we must withold the reward until completion, so we already have some P- going on, as we withold reward until dog hits on the desired behaviour.

Now you're saying an NRM, is P+, because it is telling the dog it's a behaviour that will go unrewarded, however you are *dead wrong* because no unpleasant intimidation, pain, aversive or other coercion tactic is used, this behaviour is not punished in future. It's simply not the solution this time.

So the effect of NRM, is to cooperate with the dog, giving feedback, helping it reduce the time to discover what earns the reward, the behaviour you're reinforcing.

As the NRM is really a "wrong track" signal, timing is not critical, you're simply advising the dog to give up on that behaviour this time and try another.

The problem with punishing behaviour, for instance lying down when you wanted a sit, is as Newfiesmum put it before, you got the sit, but now you scared the dog from lying down. Not good when you're now teaching the lie down! :shocked:


----------



## Colette (Jan 2, 2010)

Arlow - yes you're right, after all that I then forgot to put your name there when I switched to talking to you... glad you worked it out.

To both Arlow and Lou:

(From Arlow)


> Quote:
> Personally, I do not feel that they are necessarily opposites anyway. The way I see it, the opposite of getting a reward, is getting no reward - not getting an aversive instead.
> 
> But it really doesn't matter how you or I see it. It's how the dog sees it.


(From Lou)


> I'd like to believe that but based on what you say, you do not. You appear to have only a surface understanding of the quadrants. (ACTUALLY there's a fifth part that some forget, extinction).


You have both hit the nail on the head there!

Some people have tried to claim that aversives are fine and dandy, and necessary, because they occur in nature. I think, if I remember correctly, it was SleepyBones who tried to assert that every learned behaviour is the result of avoidance.

BUT - nature also utilises lack-of-reward as a training method, in a great many scenarios, without aversives, or indeed "punishers" being involved.

Finding food for example - if an animal forages in a place where no food for them exists, they go elsewhere and will not bother to return (after perhaps one or two attepts) because there is no point. They have not been punished for visiting the area - they were simply not rewarded for doing so, so they don't waste their time.

Animals do things that they find find somehow rewarding. If a behaviour is not rewarding at all, they stop doing it.

This is extinction. It is not only natural and free from aversives, it is also easily used as a training tool in a practical sense. Take begging. The most effective way to stop a dog from begging is to NEVER give the dog food when it does so. Dogs that jump up for attention - if attention is not forthcoming, the dog gives up and tries something else. When he finds out what does result in attention (eg a polite sit) he will offer this instead.

As Lou correctly stated, extinction works alongside the 4 quadrants. It is not P+ or P-, it is nothing. Neutral. A lack of response.

On this issue, I also disagree that witholding a reward and / or using a NRM is a form of P+ or aversive. Certainly not when used correctly.

I will address the two separately:

When using, say food rewards you do not actually withold the reward as such, you simply reward intermittently. 
Rewarding every time ONLY occurs very briefly at the beginningwhen a new behaviour is being taught, in order for the dog to form the association and understand exactly what behaviour is required. As soon as this occurs, rewars are given intermittently, preferably in such a way as to shape (ie improve) the quality of the response.
As the dog improves the frequency of the rewards reduces. This does not punish the behaviour - far from it. It makes the dog try harder. It works along similar lines to gambling - it is enjoyable to see if you can "win".

The treat is not being taken away from the dog in order to punish other behaviours, it is simply only offered for certain behaviours. As such, this lack of reward can at best only be considered a form of extinction rather than punishment. (In the sense that other behaviours will be extinguished in this particular circumstance, ie not lying down when told to sit).

If an individual dog finds an intermittent reward schedule aversive, it would suggest that either the training was not done correctly (eg using constant rewars for far too long, making the dog think it is gauranteed) or the state of not having a treat is genuinely unpleasent itself (eg in the case of a dog that is particularly hungry).

A properly introduced, non aversive* NRM does not punish behaviours - it simply balances the process of using rewards in order to make things easier. It makes it very clear to the dog that the behaviour it is carry out at that moment will not enable it to "win" a treat. If a wants a treat it needs to try something else. It does not punish the behaviour - the dog can continue if it so desires - but no reward will be forthcoming.
It can be useful in cases for example where the dog keeps throwing the wrong behaviour, similar to an extinction burst, by clearly indicating that this won't work.

*I added this bit in for a reason. The commercial version of the NRM is training discs. The problem with this is that many dogs (particularly those that are noise sensitive) find these intrinsically aversive - thus they are in fact a punisher, rather than a NRM. A NRM should be neutral, just like a reward marker should be. I tend to use the word "oops" in a neutral tone. Its not a telling-off (no harsh tone or raised voice etc) simply another word. Like a cue for "don't bother".

As with the lack of reward issue - if a dog find a NRM aversive it is likely to be for one of two reasons. Either the NRM is intrinsically aversive to that dog (or has been poisoned by association with punishment), or the dog has not been trained properly and thus finds intermittent reward schedules and the idea of not winning aversive rather than exciting.

Arlow:


> Good things do happen in training with -R. The discomfort is relieved.


I disagree with this on a technicality. It isn't something good happening, it is something bad not happening (or being stopped).
To compare, if I walk down Baker Street and find a ten pound note on several occassions, I will walk down Baker St more often because I know there is a chance something good - like finding money - might happen. If, on the other hand, I got robbed of £10 every time I walked a different street, I would walk down Baker St more often in order to avoid the unpleasent situation.
Honestly - which would you prefer? To behave in a particular way because you find it rewarding, or because doing otherwise is somehow aversive?



> Positive punishment, used appropriately, can be an effective tool. Why limit yourself?


Two reason. Necessity and ethics.

As a general rule I have no need to use P+. 
A combination of R+ (including life rewards), P- in certain circumstances, counter-conditioning, and a NRM seems to work just fine thanks. Of course this is combined with other areas such as good management, not allowing unwanted behaviours to become habit, and being in control of rescources. As a general rule I find P+ to be completely unnecessary.

On the rare occassion I feel any need to use P+ I will use the least severe, least aversive (for that particular dog) form that I can, such as a verbal correction. I do not believe it is ethical to cause pain or fear in the name of training at all, nor do I believe it is ethical to use use any more force / aversive than absolutely necessary.

Lou:



> Such thinking is one of the reasons that you've having problem talking about OC. If you're going to talk about this you should not be talking about rewards and aversives. Those can change depending on the situation and the dog in question. You should be talking about positive and negative (meaning adding to or removing from the situation) and punishment and reinforcement (something that will tend to make a behavior not repeat or something that will make it tend to repeat).


Please try re-reading my post to see the point I was getting at. I deliberately used those particular words there because I was specifically talking about rewards / aversives as the dog sees them, ie pleasent versus unpleasent - rather than getting into the semantics and technicalities of reinforcement vs punishment.
Damn these semantics, I'm not struggling to explain myself. Try again... in that comment I was not referring to the four quadrants of OC. Ok? I was not refering to R and P, as defined by Skinner, therefore the terminology would have been misplaced here. No doubt you would have corrected me (no pun intended!) had I done so.

Lastly I want to comment on this exchange between Lou and Rob:

Rob said:


> This is very different from P+, which tends to involve trying to deter the dog, requires timing, proportionality, a lack of emotion and sufficient intensity to be effective.


Lou responded:


> Actually using +R (especially with a clicker) takes better timing. It also requires that the treat, toy or praise be of "sufficient intensity," meaning of sufficient interest to the dog to be rewarding.


My thoughts:
R+ doesn't require better timing than P+. It requires the same timing. For learning to occur the consequence must occur at the same time as the behaviour, or immediately afterwards. The longer the time lag, the less likely the animal is to associate one with the other. Little to no time lag is the easiest to understand and thus the most effective - reagrdless of whether than consequence is pleasent or aversive.

With R+ a clicker can make a considerable difference to timing. Trying to use a food reward will always involve a time delay, especially if the dog is at a distance or the behaviour is one that is incompatible with eating. The clciker can be used with precision, to mark at the exact moment and negate the time lag until the treat is given.

With P+ I can certainly see why the remote collar is a better option than many other forms of P+. Like the clicker all you have to do is press a button, and the timing can be deadly accurate, which is better for the learner. P+ that requires manual intervention on the part of the handler are more likely to have a time lag, and thus less effective / harder to understand.

Indeed both rewards and punishments need to be of sufficient intensity - that goes without saying. If intensity is insufficient they will have no effect.

However, whilst too low an intensity in either case will have no effect, with P+ there is also the risk of too much intensity.

You can't really do any damage by "over-rewarding" (in terms of intensity, not frequency). In fact, some schools of thought recommend "jackpots" in certain cases. 
Over-correcting on the other hand risks causing unnecessary suffering, and the potential harm (eg behavioural fallout) that can go with it.

I could also point out that should there be any need to continue having your R+ or P+ available at a later date, a clicker is safer in some ways. One of the safety issues with ecollars is that they can cause skin damage / pressure necrosis simply by being worn for long periods, even without the dog ever being shocked. Going back to the trainer in question - he states owners need to be able to punish the dog immediately for various indiscretions, not simply during training. For this to be possible, the dog must (at least for the first while) be wearing the collar constantly - which poses a health risk.
Carrying a clicker and a dog treat in your pocket "just in case" isn't going to risk a trip to the vets.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

Earlier I wrote,


> NRM is a term that was developed so that these folks could avoid using the word "punishment." It's another example of clever marketing. If it tends to make a behavior not repeat (and that's the intent of it) it's punishment. But they want people to believe that they don't use punishment so they invented a new term to replace it





RobD-BCactive said:


> Is this actually rational thinking, or a distortion to fit a skewed world view to justify using coercion and passing electric currents through peoples cherished pets?


RobD have you taken leave? It's a WONDERFULLY emotive argument, (the _"cherished pets"_ is a VERY nice touch, ROFL) but it has nothing to do with Ecollars.

In any case, it's really quite simple. If something you do tends to make a behavior not repeat, it's punishment. In this case it's +P (because you added it to the situation), something that many of you folks claim that you don't use. You can call it a NRM or a vanilla ice cream cone if you like, but that doesn't change the fact that it's +P.



RobD-BCactive said:


> Now you're saying an NRM, is P+, because it is telling the dog it's a behaviour that will go unrewarded, however you are *dead wrong* because no unpleasant intimidation, pain, aversive or other coercion tactic is used, this behaviour is not punished in future. It's simply not the solution this time.


Punishment has NOTHING to do with _"unpleasant intimidation, pain, or other coercion tactic"_ AT ALL. Punishment *IS * ANYTHING that will tend to make a behavior not repeat. That's it. That's all there is too it. So when your dog throws a behavior but it's not the one you want and you give him a NRM, that will tend to make the [wrong] behavior not repeat. It's the very definition of punishment.



RobD-BCactive said:


> So the effect of NRM, is to cooperate with the dog, giving feedback, helping it reduce the time to discover what earns the reward, the behaviour you're reinforcing.
> 
> As the NRM is really a "wrong track" signal, timing is not critical, you're simply advising the dog to give up on that behaviour this time and try another.


You can put whatever spin on it that you like. The fact is that if what you're doing tends to make a behavior not repeat it's punishment. The end. That's it. You can make up any name for it that you like but it doesnt change the fact that it's +P.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

Colette said:


> Some people have tried to claim that aversives are fine and dandy, and necessary, because they occur in nature.


I don't think that anyone has made the _"fine and dandy ... because the occur in nature"_ argument. I think that a couple of us have said that it's natural because they occur in nature.



Colette said:


> I think, if I remember correctly, it was SleepyBones who tried to assert that every learned behaviour is the result of avoidance.


I think that every learned behavior is the result of avoidance and/or reward.



Colette said:


> BUT - nature also utilises lack-of-reward as a training method, in a great many scenarios, without aversives, or indeed "punishers" being involved.


Stating that nature _"utilizes lack of reward as a training method"_ is a bit off base. Nature doesn't do anything "as a training method." Nature just is.



Colette said:


> Finding food for example - if an animal forages in a place where no food for them exists, they go elsewhere and will not bother to return (after perhaps one or two attepts) because there is no point. They have not been punished for visiting the area - they were simply not rewarded for doing so, so they don't waste their time.


This is a very weak illustration of extinction. In fact the dog WILL eventually return to that area because the game he hunts moves around and he knows it.



Colette said:


> Animals do things that they find find somehow rewarding. If a behaviour is not rewarding at all, they stop doing it.


In this example, the dog will return to areas he finds game in because he's successful. Because the game knows that they're being hunted in that area they'll eventually leave it and return to the area they were in before. Now they'll be hunted in that area. Also covering the range is not just a matter of a dog wandering randomly. They know where the game is because they smell them.



Colette said:


> This is extinction. It is not only natural and free from aversives, it is also easily used as a training tool in a practical sense.


Actually, while it is fairly easily used, it's often not successful. In the case of a dog doing something that the human does not like, such as jumping up, that behavior is self−rewarding. You can ignore it till the cows come home, but it's not going to stop with some dogs. I once saw an entire family whose legs were scratched up from their upper legs down, because their trainer had told them to turn their backs on the dog when he jumped up. The dog just became more and more frantic. The youngest daughter had been hospitalized because her scratches became infected and she needed IV antibiotics.

Try ignoring a dog that's getting into the garbage and see how quickly that behavior stops.



Colette said:


> On this issue, I also disagree that witholding a reward and / or using a NRM is a form of P+ or aversive. Certainly not when used correctly.
> 
> A properly introduced, non aversive* NRM does not punish behaviours - it simply balances the process of using rewards in order to make things easier. It makes it very clear to the dog that the behaviour it is carry out at that moment will not enable it to "win" a treat. If a wants a treat it needs to try something else. It does not punish the behaviour - the dog can continue if it so desires - but no reward will be forthcoming.


If, as a result of the NRM being given, the behavior tends to not repeat, the behavior has been punished. This is the definition of punishment and no matter what you want to call it you're not going to change that fact.



Colette said:


> It can be useful in cases for example where the dog keeps throwing the wrong behaviour, similar to an extinction burst, by clearly indicating that this won't work.


I'm not denying that it's _"useful."_ I'm simply pointing out that it's punishment.



Colette said:


> A NRM should be neutral, just like a reward marker should be.


If the NRM tends to make a behavior not repeat, it's punishment. If the RM tends to make a behavior repeat, it's reinforcement. It's as simple as that. Some folks, don't like admit that they use punishment BOTH + and - and so instead they've adopted these terms. But it doesn't changes the facts one bit.



Colette said:


> I tend to use the word "oops" in a neutral tone. Its not a telling-off (no harsh tone or raised voice etc) simply another word. Like a cue for "don't bother".


If it tends to make the behavior not repeat, it's punishment.

Earlier Arlow wrote,


> Good things do happen in training with -R. The discomfort is relieved.





Colette said:


> I disagree with this on a technicality. It isn't something good happening, it is something bad not happening (or being stopped).


Negative reinforcement is NOT at work if something _"bad [does] not happen."_ It IS at work if _"something bad ... stops."_

Earlier Arlow wrote,


> Positive punishment, used appropriately, can be an effective tool. Why limit yourself?





Colette said:


> Two reason. Necessity and ethics.
> 
> As a general rule I have no need to use P+.


If you give your dog NRM's, and they tend to make a behavior not repeat, you're using +P. Why do you folks keep denying this simple fact?



Colette said:


> A combination of R+ (including life rewards), P- in certain circumstances, counter-conditioning, and a NRM seems to work just fine thanks.


I'm sure that in many situations it will work. But I'm also just as sure that in many situations it won't. When it doesn't I have no problem in using +P.



Colette said:


> Of course this is combined with other areas such as good management, not allowing unwanted behaviours to become habit, and being in control of rescources. *As a general rule I find P+ to be completely unnecessary. * [Emphasis Added]


You use +P and you don't even realize it. Actually it's far worse than that. You use it regularly and deny it!



Colette said:


> I do not believe it is ethical to cause pain or fear in the name of training at all


Me too, that's why I use an Ecollar. No pain, no fear.



Colette said:


> R+ doesn't require better timing than P+. It requires the same timing. For learning to occur the consequence must occur at the same time as the behaviour, *or immediately afterwards. * The longer the time lag, the less likely the animal is to associate one with the other. Little to no time lag is the easiest to understand and thus the most effective - reagrdless of whether than consequence is pleasent or aversive. [Emphasis Added]


I disagree. Positive punishment as you say can occur _"immediately afterwards"_ Some say as late as three seconds later. (some say one second and some say two). If you click three seconds after the dog has shown the behavior you want, chances are that he'll have moved on to another behavior and THAT BEHAVIOR is the one that you'll be capturing and reinforcing.



Colette said:


> With P+ I can certainly see why the remote collar is a better option than many other forms of P+. Like the clicker all you have to do is press a button, and the timing can be deadly accurate, which is better for the learner. P+ that requires manual intervention on the part of the handler are more likely to have a time lag, and thus less effective / harder to understand.


Agreed.



Colette said:


> However, whilst too low an intensity in either case will have no effect, with P+ there is also the risk of too much intensity.


Making low level stim with my methods the ideal response. When you find the dog's working level you do so when he's at rest and is minimally distracted. Anytime he's later distracted, this level will be too low. It's a simple matter of repeating the command and slowly turning the dial until you see that he feels the stim. And so _"the risk of too much intensity"_ does not exist.



Colette said:


> You can't really do any damage by "over-rewarding" (in terms of intensity, not frequency). In fact, some schools of thought recommend "jackpots" in certain cases.


One of the problem with using food as a reward is that people don't remember to cut back on the dog's regular food. Either because they haven't been told or they forget. The result is an overweight dog. This is slow death. It's worse than an overweight human. When dogs put on weight they first lay fat down between their internal organs. Their heart and lungs don't have the space they have on a dog that's at the proper weight and so their overall health suffers.



Colette said:


> Over-correcting on the other hand risks causing unnecessary suffering, and the potential harm (eg behavioural fallout) that can go with it.


As I've just shown, with my methods it's not an issue.



Colette said:


> I could also point out that should there be any need to continue having your R+ or P+ available at a later date, a clicker is safer in some ways. One of the safety issues with ecollars is that they can cause skin damage / pressure necrosis simply by being worn for long periods, even without the dog ever being shocked. Going back to the trainer in question - he states owners need to be able to punish the dog immediately for various indiscretions, not simply during training. For this to be possible, the dog must (at least for the first while) be wearing the collar constantly - which poses a health risk.


It's easy to keep an Ecollar on a dog for long periods of time. Simply move the collar to a new spot every couple of hours. There are also devices that can be purchased, one is called a Surface Contact Grid, that eliminate the issue completely.



Colette said:


> Carrying a clicker and a dog treat in your pocket "just in case" isn't going to risk a trip to the vets.


True but when your dog decides to chase that cat into the busy street your _"clicker and a dog treat in your pocket"_ won't be of much help.


----------



## Pawsitive (Mar 24, 2011)

I am growing tired of debating on this thread and this shall be my last post. At the end of the day, you use ecollars and find them useful. I don't use them as I prefer a different style of training. Whatever _cognitive dissonance_ or _cognitive disequilibrium_ is going on, clearly applies to us both as neither are prepared / willing / able to change our views.

And to be honest, the world would be a lot more boring if we all thought the same anyway.

I am replying only to the few snippets that I want to clarify.



Lou Castle said:


> The statement that you don't know whether or not *I *can use an Ecollar properly is NOT a reflection on me? Either I'm misunderstanding or you're not being clear. Perhaps both. But isn't the statement that _"[you] don't know if I can use an Ecollar properly"_ a reflection DIRECTLY on me?


No. I *don't know* if you use an ecollar correctly. How can I possibly know that when I've never met you or seen you using one? Likewise, you can't possibly know whether I am a good clickertrainer or not just by what I post on a forum.

Just as I _don't know_ whether the other R+ trainers on here are great trainers or not. It is not possible to know via a virtual conversation.

my emphasis:



> It's a good thing that the rest of the world does not have to personally experience everything to believe it or to understand it. We'd still be living in caves and eating our meat raw. Fortunately *MOST* people can learn from the experiences of others.


If that were true why would teenagers continue to make the same mistakes their parents did? I think the most effective learning comes from making our own mistakes and having our own experiences. Otherwise you'd be following everyone else's advice all the time and never experiencing anything for yourself.

That's quite a statement to make. I'd love to know where MOST of these
people are. They must live quite perfect and easy lives.



> [email protected] handling / training does not make a dog "dominant." His genetics do that. A dog may protest crap handling with a bite or other aggression but he's expressing the fact that you're hurting him too much, not that he's dominant.


I'm talking about dogs who are perceived as 'dominant' because they are aggressive. I suppose we must be explaining the word differently.

my emphasis


> I disagree. Dominant dogs *(and there are very few of them on the planet) *ARE born that way. It's from their genetics. Aggression may be a result of this dominance and it can often be, as you say, as a result of _[email protected] handling / training." _


Lou, a point we agree on. I feel common ground ahead, we'd best be careful lol. 

I have also seen nervous / less confident dogs become 'aggressive' due to improper socialisation and bad decisions made on the part of the owner (who I consider is responsible for the dog's training).

Unfortunately, there are trainers out there - including tv trainers - who *would likely* use dominance as an explanation for the behaviour. 'That dog, he just doesn't respect you. He is trying to be pack leader because he doesn't think you are the alpha and capable of sorting the problem out' blah blah. (Not saying you would think that either. But I have very definitely seen and heard people making daft claims like that in similar scenarios.)



> I think is what the vid jumped to when I clicked the JRT link.
> 
> _"But may be that confused puppy on a slip lead being taught to heel that got posted as a "good example" few months ago, would be a less inflammatory."_ Wasn't me that wrote that I'm afraid.


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

Lou Castle said:


> No, the definition of -P is removing something that will tend to make a behavior not repeat. It has nothing to do with _"opportunity to go wrong."_
> 
> Not allowing a dog to do something is not -P. It's not part of OC at all. *Stopping or preventing *a dog from doing something he wants to do may be -P if it tends to make the behavior not repeat.
> 
> Distracting a dog onto a good toy is not -P. It's +R


What strikes me in your broken up posts, if your failure to understand the implications of the learning theory quadrant.

You show you do not understand that :

R+ of one behaviour, acts as if it were P- for others due to extinction of unreinforced behaviours.
That R- of one behaviour, acts as if it were P+ for others due to extinction of unreinforced behaviours.
[ Originally: Was R+ of one behaviour, is P- for others & R- of one behaviour, is P+ for others ]

Whether you view an action as R+ or P- depends purely on the definition of a behaviour. Furthermore it is easy to find discipline behaviours which are common errors, that actually R+ an undesirable behaviour and therefore really P- good behaviour by withdrawing opportunity (eg) pushing away forcefully an excited nipping pup/young dog).

Anyone reading your views on training, can if they choose verify that.

Furthermore when you talk about "opportunities" to punish; well you know what, my dog is well behaved!

I do not need to punish him! If I don't want him to chase deer, he stays near me and we go round, or wait, or I have him look at them, and they move out the way.

There's rewards based trained dogs walking off leash every day and the general public comment positively on how well behaved and cutely obedient they are!

Your view of the world, is distored by your desire to coerce and stim dogs. You've decided the outcome you want, and now go seek the evidence to support it and rationalise or ignore things that don't fit.

My objection to electrical stimulation of dogs as training aid, is shared by parlimentary comittees and bodies like the KC; it is generally unecessary and any rare justified usage ought to be in my view prescribed by a fully qualified Veterinary Behaviorist, not a cultish mutually supporting group, who appear to be in denial that non-forceful approaches do work.

The objection is moral, and no amount of banal examples of dogs, doing things that are easy to train, nor aggressive negative dissembling and claims change that bottom line.

If rewards based approach, avoiding discipline, force & coercion or the dog avoiding something nasty works well enough in pets & in dog sports; it is therefore self evidently superior to the negative aversive & intimidatory methods, purely on animal welfare grounds. If you don't have the skill set required, tough, buy in a good trainer and learn!


----------



## CarolineH (Aug 4, 2009)

RobD-BCactive said:


> My objection to electrical stimulation of dogs as training aid, is shared by parlimentary comittees and bodies like the KC;* it is generally unecessary and any rare justified usage ought to be in my view prescribed by a fully qualified Veterinary Behaviorist, not a cultish mutually supporting group, who appear to be in denial that non-forceful approaches do work.*
> 
> The objection is moral, and no amount of banal examples of dogs, doing things that are easy to train, nor aggressive negative dissembling and claims change that bottom line.
> 
> If rewards based approach, avoiding discipline, force & coercion or the dog avoiding something nasty works well enough in pets & in dog sports; it is therefore self evidently superior to the negative aversive & intimidatory methods, purely on animal welfare grounds. If you don't have the skill set required, tough, buy in a good trainer and learn!


Absolutely! :thumbup1:

We prefer our dogs to be happy pets, not slavish robots afraid of getting zapped if they put a paw wrong!:001_huh: The majority of people who come on the forum are pet owners who should not even be thinking of such contraptions and here you are promoting them (and your wares surreptitiously!):skep:

Sod off with your e collars Lou! This is one forum you are not going to take over with your big ideas though I know that you haven't much choice left, having been banned from so many because this is what you do, bomb them with post after post extolling the use of e collars until everyone gets sick of it!


----------



## arlow (Apr 20, 2011)

Rob, if this is true.....


RobD-BCactive said:


> R+ of one behaviour, is P- for others.


....then this is not:


> I do not need to punish him!


By your defiinition, you're punishing him all the time?


----------



## hapiday (May 26, 2011)

Im just a little bit taken aback by the fodder on this site. Im having a hard time understanding who has experience and who is just running at the mouth. I picked up my dog 3 years ago on her 8-week birthday. She was adorable and lovely and within a month turned into the biggest landshark known to man. By that I mean she bit me over and over and over again. She was small but continued to establish her dominance. She is a Boston Terrier and Ive been bit by many of them in my day, but she seemed special. I knew that she wanted to play, but didnt understand that what she was doing wasnt play at all. I became terrified that my 2 year old niece would never meet her b/c she posed too great a threat. My NO meant  please bite me harder. Yes, thats what I said. You didnt read it wrong. I worked with three different trainers in a month. Each one was all about teaching me, not my dog  which is grand, but they implied that only positive behavior could incite better behavior from my dog. They insinuated that she was going to grow out of it. They told me to reward her and distract her with treats when she misbehaved. She continued to get worse and worse and bit several of my friends. I was afraid to have her socialize with any children or small dogs. Thats when I reached out to Martin Herlan for help.

Within 3 weeks of working with Martin (Ideal K9), I started to see a difference. What amazed me is Martin required me to work harder than I ever realized. It wasnt about being dominant and mean. It was about balance. My dog is now the best dog ever! My dog goes everywhere with me now and when we see Martin in the park, she runs up to him like hes her long lost love. You dont see that when someone is abusive  because HE ISNT! Hes so caring with each dog he works with. Hes incredible. Hes rehabilitated so many of my friends dogs. Thats why Im a bit taken aback by the postings on this site. Have any of you actually read his information thoroughly? Have any of you gone through the amazing training? Have any of you experience this type of training? No? Then I think you should pipe down. Why so much noise over something you havent fully explored? Purely positive is lovely for dogs who are already well balanced. At this point in my life, I have to say I havent met one yet, but who knows? Maybe someday.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

this sounds more like a sales-pitch than a former client's testimonial. :huh:


hapiday said:


> *bold added - *
> 
> I picked up my dog 3 years ago, [at] 8-week[s-old]. She was adorable...
> and within a month turned into the biggest landshark known to man. By that I mean she bit me over & over & over again.
> *She was small but continued to establish her dominance.*


yet again - *dominance* has a specific definition in behavior science, which makes this use nonsense. 
*dominance* is: 
* about resources 
* intraspecies, not interspecies: dog to dog, horse to horse, human to human... 
* dyadic - between 2 animals only 
* an event - not a lifestyle, personality, character trait, etc.

IOW - *there is no* 'dominant dog' who walks into a dog-park and all the dogs there come & bow 
at his feet [it's usually a 'he'  ], nor does ONE dog in a household determine everything for the others, 
like what common activity we will all do now, where each may sleep, who eats & in what order... 
it's a crock, a complete misrepresentation of dominance as it exists.

also BTW - deference is far more important in the everyday lives of dogs than dominance, IME. 


hapiday said:


> *bold added - *
> 
> [my dog] is a Boston Terrier... Ive been bit by many of them... but she seemed special. I knew that
> she wanted to play, but *didnt understand that what she was doing wasnt play at all*.


let's make it simple - she had poor bite-inhibition, which is hardly rare in puppies, and generally speaking, 
most pet-dog owners manage to get thru this stage successfully, even with *bully-breeds who once fought.*

the bull-and-terrier crosses of the 1500s into the 1800s were all similarly prone to the terrier-reactivity, 
with the athleticism & power of the old bull-baiting dogs added to that low arousal threshold. 
it's not that rare, even today, to have a Boston who is dog-aggressive or dog-reactive - 
and any former-fighting breed can become excited by biting, especially as a puppy. 
teaching a soft-mouth is pretty simple - and requires NO *dominance* hooey whatever.

when pups play & one bites their playmate too hard, the bitee - pup or adult - will stop play, or turn away. 
several of those reactions have the hard-biting pup moderating their bite - it is FEEDBACK, not 'dominance', 
that dogs use to teach each-other a soft mouth for play.


hapiday said:


> *bold added - *
> 
> I became *terrified* that my 2-YO niece *would never meet her* b/c she posed *too great a threat*.


"terrified"...? that's a bit of an over-reaction. The fighting-Boston [Bull And Terriers]s fought in 3 separate 
weight-classes, the largest for 60# and up; the modern-Boston is under 20#.

i am not minimizing the hazard of a bite to a toddler, i am well-aware of the thin skin, fatty cheeks, etc, 
and the severe damage a dog-bite can cause - but the *puppy* at this time cannot be 6-MO yet. 
*never meet her* seems wildly exaggerated, under the circs.


hapiday said:


> *bold added - *
> 
> My NO meant  please bite me harder. Yes, thats what I said. You didnt read it wrong.
> *I worked with three different trainers in a month.*


oh, for pity's sake - 3 people in 4 weeks?! how in heaven's name do U expect to make ANY progress? 


hapiday said:


> *bold added - *
> 
> Each one was *all about teaching me, not my dog*  which is grand, but they implied
> that *only positive behavior could incite better behavior from my dog*. They insinuated that
> ...


* a simple time-out EVERY time the pup bites too hard is easy - 
short, immediate, succinct; within 30 to 45-seconds, the pup gets an opportunity to play again. 
lather, rinse, repeat - most pups are moderating their bites within 5 time-out, less than 10-minutes 
in many cases; *removing the chance to play or interact* is painless, short-lived, & effective. 
it's feedback - just like the dogs or pups give by stopping their play with a pup who bites hard.

* 'positive' behavior is here used colloquially or conversationally. 
i can reward softer bites selectively by continuing play, and time-out only for the hardest bites - 
it is a simple shaping-process, the dog or pup is taught that humans have incredibly tender skin, 
by reacting to softer & softer bites until they become mere mouthing without tooth pressure. 
that is a *behavioral* or training-method using 'positive reinforcement' [reward softer bites] 
and 'negative punishment' [stop play instantly when harder bites occur].


hapiday said:


> *bold added - *
> 
> Within *3 weeks of working with Martin*... I started to see a difference.


if U had actually 'worked for 3 weeks' with any of the prior 3 trainers, U might not have needed 
trainer #2 or possibly trainer #3 - 
what qualifications, affiliations & credentials did any of those 3-in-4-weeks trainers possess? 
were they APDT-uk, COAPE, APBC? 


hapiday said:


> *bold added - *
> 
> It wasnt about being dominant and mean. It was about balance. My dog is now the best dog ever!
> My dog goes everywhere with me now & when we see Martin in the park, she runs up to him like
> hes her long lost love.


 - i don't work with puppies; most of my clients have dogs 9-MO & up, the majority are 2-YO and over.

- the owner may not recognize me months or years later - the dogs ALWAYS do, many recognize 
my voice & alert the owner that there's someone she or he knows... Even formerly-fearful dogs 
& those who began life as semi-feral, are thrilled to see me.

- greetings from a former fear-biter or EX-human-aggro dog with happy enthusiasm can make me teary-eyed.


hapiday said:


> *bold added - *
> Have any of you *actually read his information thoroughly*?


yes. 


hapiday said:


> *bold added - *
> 
> *Purely positive is lovely for dogs who are already well balanced*.
> ...I have to say I havent met [such an already well-balanced dog] yet, but who knows? Maybe someday.


* there is no such thing as *purely positive - * we can bias training very strongly in favor of rewards, 
but because everything in life & the world around us is not under our personal control, no dog's life 
is one unending string of joyful experiences. Into each life, a little rain must fall.

* we can use very minimal punishment in the simplest form: *take away* something desirable, 
for which the dog would gladly work... just as other dogs do, when the dog in play bites too hard - 
they end the game, or freeze with a hard-look at their playmate, or air-snap, or yelp & turn away, or... 
*ending the game* or *halting play for a moment* is positive [added] punishment [reduce 
the unwanted behavior]; a hard-glance is also positive-punishment, and for many eye-breeds like BCs, 
a quelling glance can be very potent; so much so that it must be used judiciously, so as not to shut-down the dog.

dominance & pack-theory are as superfluous as teats on a bull; we can breed, rear, train, work, 
compete & play with our dogs, live with them for their entire lives, and never need to refer to either one, 
not even in conversation - let alone supposedly 'use this' as a training concept.

please see David Mech's UTube video explaining the demise of all things 'Alpha' in wolves, which of course 
was the original source of this misbegotten concept; *family*, often multigenerational, is a much better 
description of the wild-wolf social unit than Jack London's hoary old concept of the PACK, with males fighting 
other males to determine their status in the group, females fighting females, and occasionally males & females 
fighting - IF THEY FIGHT SO MUCH, wolves waste energy & get hurt; no predator can afford that, as they 
must be able to hunt & take down prey to survive. Crippling another healthy adult in one's own family 
would be suicidal, as such injuries are unlikely to leave the other combatant unhurt, & hurt means hungry. 
hurt too badly or recover too slow, & hurt becomes starved - and then dead.

almost all conflicts are handled by *ritualistic signals of aggro & deference or appeasement - * 
there are fights, there are even fatal fights, but they aren't everyday events. 
neither wolves nor dogs "want" to constantly quarrel; they have their elaborate visual displays 
and rich grammar of body-language precisely to minimize conflict, & get along with others - 
even strangers. Hunting parties think nothing of packing a half-dozen dogs who never met before into a car, 
or into a duck-blind, or running them as a pack on scent - and expect them to get along. Generally, they do.


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

arlow said:


> By your defiinition, you're punishing him all the time?


No P- is not punishment in the discipline correctional or zapping with electric current sense. If you read about the Learning Theory quadrant, then you'll understand the difference between learning theory "punish a behaviour by witholding" and the common Enlish language term used for nasty things intended to deter a behaviour.

Perhaps someone has mislead you, if you search for thread by "Old Shep" asking about "Negative Reinforcement", you'll see the terms and the learning theory quadrant explained.



hapiday said:


> My NO meant - please bite me harder. Yes, that's what I said. You didn't read it wrong. I worked with three different trainers in a month. Each one was all about teaching me, not my dog - which is grand, but they implied that only positive behavior could incite better behavior from my dog. They insinuated that she was going to grow out of it


Yes, indeed your attempt to punish the unwanted behaviour backfired and caused the excited puppy to do it more, punishment reinforcing unwanted behaviour. A puppy nipping, wants to play, so a really good toy and teaching desirable games was the correct reward for desirable behaviour. Obedience training with food rewards also establishes control of a pup and calms them.

Your anecdote is mirrored by a Man I know, who always used to try to persuade me to yell at my dog, to punish him. His wife was bitten for years, due to poor handliung of a nipping puppy. Eventually they stamped out the behaviour, the dog did indeed grow out of it, but his many years effort training the dog mean he felt he has expertise, which he should pass on.

Today, with his incorrectly given food treats and pushing off, he wanted to yell, so I simply required my dog to sit, and he was and calmly looking at me, then I rewarded. The guy tries, and has another push, and has dog jumping all over him. Bad discipline, has trained the dog to jump on him.

OK, so finally he agreed after almost 1 year to try the rewards based way. He requires a "Sit!" dog sits, then he fumbles for treats which he put away, dog impatent. I say y ou need to give reassurance he's doiung the right thing now eg) good dog, but too slow jumps. I say "Sit!" dog sits, I say "Up!" dog jumps up on me, all calm and orderly. Not the excited pushy dog of a few seconds before.

This time.. "Sit!" calmly and nicely, dog sits, "good boy", few seconds later gives treat. Calm dog, not jumping.

Aversive negative cruel methods can work, using R- & P+, but with far more risk of problems, require more expertise, and don't build the same relationship with the dog. There's lots of ppl who have had their dogs harmed by classes with forceful aversive using trainers.

Handling puppies incorrectly causes problems, you have from 8 to between 14-16 weeks to have bite inhibition in place, and begin to wean a pup off of mouthing. If you don't do it, then with adult teeth the stakes are much higher, as you found to your cost.


----------



## arlow (Apr 20, 2011)

RobD-BCactive said:


> No P- is not punishment in the discipline correctional or zapping with electric current sense.


Ok, got it. Sometimes when you use the word punishment you mean punishment. Sometimes when you use the word "punishment" you mean something else.

Clear.


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

That's why I wrote P- or P+.
I don't like the choice of "punish" and "reinforce" and you'll find I've suggested less confusing alternatives eg) I (Increaser) & D (Diminisher) but the world uses P & R so we must live with that.


----------



## arlow (Apr 20, 2011)

Earlier I said in response to Rob:


> Ok, got it. Sometimes when you use the word punishment you mean punishment. Sometimes when you use the word "punishment" you mean something else.
> 
> Clear.


Guess I wasn't clear. I was being sarcastic.


----------



## arlow (Apr 20, 2011)

Colette said:


> Two reason. Necessity and *ethics*.
> On the rare occassion I feel any need to use P+ I will use the least severe, least aversive (for that particular dog) form that I can, such as a verbal correction. I do not believe it is ethical to cause pain or fear in the name of training at all, nor do I believe it is ethical to use use any more force / aversive than absolutely necessary.


But this is just begging the question. Would it be unethical to use +P if one adheres to your standard of "no more force than necessary"? Is there something inherently unethical about +P as opposed to -P? Both can be misused.


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

That depends. I used a P+ technique having put jump up on cue. I simply on arrival had my dog "Sit!", then rewarded with a jump up after. Soon when he wants to jump up he sat down.

So adding the "Sit!" was effective P+ for the behaviour uninvited jumping up on greeting. But the behaviour auto-sit on greeting was R+'d by the reward of jumping up on cue.

Really the terms R+/P-, P+/R- are useless out of context, you should actually stop focussing on these terms, and think about what you are doing!

Eg) Is my dog doing this because he is afraid, an electric current may pass through him.
Or is my dog doing this, because he wants to work for me as I'm a good employer?


----------



## arlow (Apr 20, 2011)

Message deleted


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

think of the quadrants as maths - 
*positive* = add. 
*negative* = deduct.

*reinforce* = strengthen or increase; multiply the odds of a prior behavior. 
anything which increases the likelihood that the behavior will be done again is a reinforcer.
*punish* = weaken or decrease; lower the odds of a prior behavior. 
anything which makes it less-likely the behavior will be done again is a punisher.

that all animals work to increase rewarding behaviors & decrease unrewarding or punishing behaviors 
is a tautology - nobody wants to do work that results in no gain [extinction - the 5th option], or worse yet, 
results in unwanted things: startling noises, pain, a bite, the end of the fun play, time solo, yelling, etc.

*positive* reinforcement adds something to strengthen [reinforce] the behavior - *a reward.* 
*pos-R means the animal acts to earn a reward.*

*positive* punishment adds something UNwanted which the subject will work to avoid - 
often an aversive, which may be innate or learned.

*negative* reinforcement takes something AWAY to increase the likelihood of a wanted behavior: 
the dog stops pulling on the leash? we loosen the prong-collar, & the pressure is diminished. 
generally, neg-R requires the prior application of an aversive [tighten the prong, shock the dog, etc] 
before it can be *removed* - that 'negative' part --- but sometimes it is the mere *threat* of an aversive 
which is removed, not the actual experience of the aversive; often the threat is quite sufficient. 
*neg-R means the animal acts to avoid an aversive.*

*negative* punishment takes away a desired thing: something the animal would gladly work to earn. 
if the dog jumps-up happily to greet me, there is no need to knee the dog's chest; that makes greetings scary, 
and can lead to a dog who avoids people altogether, or is unhappy in their company. 
instead, if i simply walk away, the dog LOSES that deeply desired attention - there is no pain, no fright, 
but no reward, either. "jumping-up makes people go away" is a simple clear consequence.

conversely, if i REWARD an incompatible behavior - "sit to be greeted" - the dog cannot jump-up while sitting. 
the dog does something alternative which is desirable & worth rewarding, both human & dog are happy.

_______________________________________________ 
2 articles explaining the concepts - 

simple: An Introduction to Reinforcement | Stale Cheerios 
Mary Hunter is a grad-student in the Behavior Analysis Department at the University of North Texas.

in depth: http 
"An in-depth look at using the 4 quadrants of operant conditioning & how it applies to clicker training", by Katie Bartlett; March 2009
__________________________________________

the 5th option - 
*extinction* is what happens when a behavior is never rewarded - often this is unintentional, 
& even disastrous - people often create whining dogs by ignoring the happily content, self-occupied dog 
who is contentedly lying nearby, chewing a toy or self-grooming or watching meal preparations... 
*extinction* can be deliberately used to 'starve' an unwanted behavior, or accidentally used to kill a wanted one.

the spouse who fails to notice when their partner has done something helpful or kind, unasked, will be sorry - 
when the partner STOPS voluntarily taking out the trash, making a nice meal, rubbing their sore back, & so on.

children and pets are especially prone to being IGNORED when they are good, and SCOLDED when 'bad' - 
leaving them less & less willing to do anything that is not on the clearly-rewarding list of 'good' actions, 
or even afraid to do anything that is not cued - they stop offering behavior for fear of being 'wrong' or 'bad'. 
dogs trained by using punishment AKA corrections can be difficult to train via free-shaping, because they offer 
so little spontaneous behavior - they have a narrow repertoire of safe-behaviors, & won't go off the list. 

pups, kittens & young children with a minimal history of punishment are more spontaneous & trusting - 
they offer many alternative behaviors in the hope that one or more may be rewarding. 
this makes them delightful as training subjects, since they offer a wealth of potential behaviors to shape. :001_smile:


----------



## arlow (Apr 20, 2011)

leashedForLife said:


> think of the quadrants as maths........ -


NIcely done! Clear, to the point, no gratuitous editorializing or meandering anecdotes to dilute your message. Consistent font and even a little punctuation to aid readability!

By far your best post yet.


----------



## Martin Herlan (May 27, 2011)

Hello Hayley,

I appreciate your invitation to debate. Numerous individuals made me aware of this forum. This debate has grown to a point where it seems that my contributions will be valuable.

I am surprised that someone I have not met or worked with is callous enough to call me abusive. I love all dogs, including the most aggressive ones. My goal is to work together with a canine companion, and establish the right balance to progress him/her to being what many of my clients refer to as  best dog ever!

If one has time to fully peruse my website, one would see that I train dogs on what human verbal words actually mean. For example, what does it mean to: sit, stay, come, drop/out and the meaning of the word no. These are accomplished by positive reinforcement.

I use food, toys and heavy praise to encourage a canine in training to accomplish goals. I use this format whether it is in obedience training or aggression rehabilitation. I use positive motivation to its fullest potential. I strongly feel that if a handler chooses not to take advantage of the proven benefits of reward based motivation, then that individual is discarding one of the most effective tools for canine training. There is no better feeling in the world then when a dog works with you for your enthusiasm. However, when a trainer or a human companion abandons the proper use of corrections, where it can prove beneficial to both, then that individual does not have the best interest of the dog in mind or just lacks adequate experience. Yes, I do use corrections, but they are kept to the very minimal. My goal is that the dogs I work with will learn to follow always the human companions "NO" and therefore avoiding any corrections from the training. An individual that truly cares about a dog will properly use every technique available to create a companion dog that is not only a joy for the owner but also to the surrounding community it interacts with. 

From what I see here, there are a few armchair quarterbacks that may have owned one or two dogs in their lifetime and maybe a couple of part time dog trainers. And, in addition, there are a few true experts who are the individuals who called my attention to the grossness of misinformation here. The former do not have the practical hands on experience in training dogs that I have gained over the past two decades, let alone what I achieved in the past year. Through no fault of their own these purely positive activists do not have the mental capacity to think outside of the box to help rehabilitate a dominant or severely aggressive dog. I see the psychological and emotional damage it creates between the dogs and its adopted family continuously, often resulting in abandonment, sending to rescue centers or worst euthanasia. The lack of understanding of canine companion behavior comes at the heavy emotional expense, which often results from aggression related injury to family members or a financial settlement when a third party is involved. This is never the fault of the dog, but as a result of poor training that did not prevent or resolve behavioral issues. Training methods need to match a canines temperament and successfully accomplish objectives. 

I am glad there are many passionate animal lovers out there. I never, in my humblest of moments, thought my time tested training methods could inspire such passionate debate. I truly believe, as well as have seen the results of my well-balanced training method resulting in wonderful canine companions of all breeds.

This is the only response I feel necessary to give in this debate; I will not be lured further into this discussion.

Regards, 
Martin Herlan
Idealk9.com

PS  I would also like to thank Lou Castle for remaining so passionate to canine causes and protecting the integrity of what we do with our loving canine companions every day.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Martin Herlan said:


> *bold added - *
> 
> Through *no fault of their own* (a), these *purely positive* (b) *activists* (c) * do not have the mental
> capacity* (a), cont'd] to *think outside of the box* (d) to *help rehabilitate a dominant [dog]
> (e) or [a] severely aggressive dog*. (f)


a) those pathetic, deluded creatures - they're retarded & have such a limited skill-set. :nonod: 
and it's not their fault... so sad.

b) purely-positive is a myth, and as a highly-biased reward-based trainer for approx 30-years, i think i can speak 
with some experience to this issue.

c) activists? 
have U been picketed, lately? been the target of a petition with thousands of signatures? 
how have U been targeted by 'activists'? :blink:

d) 'outside the box' refers to exploring alternatives. 
pack-theory & dominance are older than Konrad Lorenz' hypotheses about jackals as the ancestors of some breeds.

e) *dominant dog*: referring to any dog as consistently dominant is a misuse of the term. 
dominance is defined as *conflict over resources; INTRA- not INTERspecies; dyadic; an event.* 
it is not about status, it is not INTER species, it is not one individual 'over' all or most other dogs, 
it is not a character-trait, a personality disorder, it's not permanent; dogs are very context sensitive, 
that's why a Chihuahua on their own front-lawn can see off a Great Dane who's away from home.

f) i've worked with *severely aggressive* dogs, including those with bite histories. 
i still have yet to use coercion, aversive tools [headcollars are happily-conditioned for an average of 7-days], 
intimidation, flooding, or other confrontational methods. 
i have also worked with profoundly-fearful dogs: semi-feral, under-socialized, neglected, former puppy-mill breeders. 
the aggro dogs don't 'need' aversives any more than a globally-fearful dog does, IME & IM professional Opinion. :001_smile:

according to a survey of veterinary-behaviorists, over 85% of k9-aggression is rooted in fears. 
yet i commonly see aggression used to justify harsh handling & highly-aversive tools. Why?


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

Martin Herlan said:


> I use food, toys and heavy praise to encourage a canine in training to accomplish goals. I use this format whether it is in obedience training or aggression rehabilitation. I use positive motivation to its fullest potential. I strongly feel that if a handler chooses not to take advantage of the proven benefits of reward based motivation, then that individual is discarding one of the most effective tools for canine training. There is no better feeling in the world then when a dog works with you for your enthusiasm


Martin, that's nice to know but you haven't actually addressed the reasoned criticism made by for example Collette's response or this one lFL's points. Much of the rational criticism, was aimed at the adherence to "pack theory", which is often an excuse for practices, considered to be counter-productive by bodies such as AVSAB.

The problem with words like "discipline", "correction" or "most pet owners are too lenient", is the subjective nature of the terms, unfortunately I all too often see abusive attempts at correction & justice; rather than an appropriate, proportionate but firm follow through which does not frighten or intimidate the dog so avoiding displacement aggression (as observable frequently on CM the DW programme for example).

Whilst you may not like the labels, some have used, perhaps you could use the information given by their impressions to improve & clarify, so potential clients would not be mislead.

If Shock Collars are used as a disciplinary tool for "Punishment" then have you considered alternative methods of "correction".

The reason for particular concern is that very many of us, come into contact regularly or own Rescue dogs, who have been subjected to abusive owners or handling, and those know that aggressive treatment of dogs, causes serious issues which need genuine rehabilitation and it takes time.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

arlow said:


> NIcely done! Clear, to the point, no gratuitous editorializing or meandering anecdotes
> to dilute your message. Consistent font and even a little punctuation to aid readability!
> By far your best post yet.


rather than by patronizing comments, i would be more impressed if U could use pos-R / neg-P 
and pos-P / neg-R correctly in sentences - instead of as ammo for snide comebacks, as in... 


> _*arlow *, Pet Forums Junior Member
> Join Date: Apr 2011; Posts: 61
> arlow is an unknown quantity at this point
> 
> ...


*negative* punishment & *positive* punishment are not the same concepts.

if U actually used the terms accurately, then i'd believe that U'd read the articles, & gotten something 
worthwhile from them - if U don't want to read both, i recommend the in-depth version by Bartlett.


----------



## arlow (Apr 20, 2011)

leashedForLife said:


> rather than by patronizing comments, i would be more impressed if U could use pos-R / neg-P
> and pos-P / neg-R correctly in sentences - instead of as ammo for snide comebacks, as in...
> 
> *negative* punishment & *positive* punishment are not the same concepts.
> ...


I'm well aware they're not the same concepts.

Please show me where I've used the terms incorrectly.

I know, I know, back on ignore!


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

arlow said:


> I'm well aware they're not the same concepts.
> Please show me where I've used the terms incorrectly


You've shown you don't understand them, by your snippy responses. It's almost like you pose questions, but don't actually want to hear an answer.

It should be obvious, that certain posters who frequently refer to Skinner or sound very authoriative and advocate punishment & correction, have *not understood* the implications of the learning theory. Yet they attack Professional Dog Trainers methods (some who have even won Crufts Obedience competition) as unworkable, despite the evidence that unqualified normal dog owner can do to.

They cannot have it both ways, either the ppl who are successful with their dogs are experts and know what they're talking about, or they are inexperienced amateurs, which implies either that the criticism levelled is based on knowledge, or rewards based tools and methods are usable by ordinary ppl to turn out good pets. Of course the correct answer, is that both are true, and those distorting the Learning Theory are wrong.


----------



## arlow (Apr 20, 2011)

leashed,

Yes I was needling you a bit. Couldn't resist. Still I'd say it was quite mild compared to what you dish out. But I really did mean it when I said it was great post. I thought you were directing it at Rob since you used the sit example.

As to understanding learning theory, help me out here. Is this an example of positive punishment?

"Ah-ah..." or a sharp glance.
Ah-Ah..." & raised eyebrows that will stop the dog in her or his tracks

I say yes.


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

arlow said:


> As to understanding learning theory, help me out here. Is this an example of positive punishment?
> 
> "Ah-ah..." or a sharp glance.
> Ah-Ah..." & raised eyebrows that will stop the dog in her or his tracks


You *still* have not understood the point. It is not about correction, whether a behaviour is interrupted!

Learning, is about the future; very often "Ah-Ah" or "No!" do not P+, the handler is constantly having to repeat the correction. Using a better strategy, there's no need to repetitively stop a behaviour, because it becomes less and less fluent, and finally extinguised because it's unrewarding.

So in learning theory terms, your question is absolutely meaningless.

P - means a behaviour is less likely to occur in future
R - means a behaviour is more likely to occur in future

So when Lou Castle wrote how frequent "the opportunities are to punish" with a remote shock collar, he was actually admitting his failure with the method he advocates. This is backed by Scientific paper disparaged by shock collar advocates, where "dogs that perform worse, received more corrections". In other words, the higher performing dogs were not the ones subject to correction, but ones set up by handler to succeed and rewarded for it.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

arlow said:


> ...I really did mean it when I said it was great post.


ah - my mistake, i'm sorry. i took it for sarcasm, as there's been a lot of it going around. 


arlow said:


> I thought you were directing it at Rob...


it wasn't directed at anyone - there'd been so much confusion, i thought it was time for review.  
otherwise i was afraid anyone who wasn't a grad-student in behavioral-psych would be lost. 


arlow said:


> Is this an example of positive punishment?
> "Ah-ah..." or a sharp glance.
> 'Ah-Ah...' & raised eyebrows that will stop the dog in her or his tracks
> 
> I say yes.


it could be - the sharp-glance is most likely to be perceived as pos-P, as dogs use such glances themselves, 
in precisely that way. *pos-P adds something which STOPS the prior behavior.*

if it stops the prior behavior, it is an effective punisher - if the behavior is repeated anyway, 
it is ineffective & a waste of time, at best; if it is ineffective & aversive, it can be nagging or actual abuse, 
if we continue to use that same ineffective punisher over & over.

equally, dogs who have been conditioned to 'Ah-ah...' as a *no-reward marker* will stop the behavior, 
but their motivation is quite different - a verbal interruptor that predicts an escalation to higher-level punishment 
stops behavior as the dog wants to avoid the escalation, but a dog who responds to a No-Reward Marker 
is simply saving time & energy --- s/he's been told, _this won't earn the prize,_ so the dog cuts their losses 
& tries something else.

it's like the Hot & Cold game: a No-Reward Marker means U are cold; change directions & try again.

it is also possible to use 'Ah-Ah...' as a positive-interruptor: it's a reset signal, generally meaning, 
_'come back to the handler, i'll cue U to do something guaranteed to be rewarding.' :thumbup1: _

the dog's name is another easily-taught positive-interruptor. Anytime the dog hears it, simple attention 
to the handler for a new-cue is rewarded, & the handler has 2 benefits: an easy way to stop one behavior 
& begin another, AND a simple way to reward the dog, as using it often-enuf makes *the dog's Sacred Name*, 
that positive-interruptor, increasingly rewarding in & of itself - another conditioned secondary reinforcer.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

Pawsitive said:


> I am growing tired of debating on this thread and this shall be my last post. At the end of the day, you use ecollars and find them useful. I don't use them as I prefer a different style of training. Whatever _cognitive dissonance_ or _cognitive disequilibrium_ is going on, clearly applies to us both as neither are prepared / willing / able to change our views.


I'll disagree on several counts and you misstate the facts at hand. First, I use your methods. In fact, I use just about every method extant in dog training, depending on what I'm training and the dog I'm working with. Second, that fact, which several conveniently overlook makes me not susceptible to the cognitive dissonance that you folks have, at least on this topic. I know about your method, and put them to use when it's appropriate. YOU folks however not only don't use Ecollar AT ALL, you don't even know the first bit about using them with modern methods. You ONLY know about using them with high stim levels to correct a dog or to stop undesired behaviors. You've been presented with the information but you refuse to read it. NOT ONE OF YOU has asked for my complete articles! So when you make these statements you're talking about what YOU know of Ecollars, not what I know and not what I share.

Earlier I wrote,


> The statement that you don't know whether or not *I *can use an Ecollar properly is NOT a reflection on me? Either I'm misunderstanding or you're not being clear. Perhaps both. But isn't the statement that _"[you] don't know if I can use an Ecollar properly"_ a reflection DIRECTLY on me?





Pawsitive said:


> No. I *don't know* if you use an ecollar correctly. How can I possibly know that when I've never met you or seen you using one?


You can read my testimonial letters. You can correspond with the people who wrote them. You can make a logical assumption, that based on the fact that 51 times I've done seminars, standing in front of people from many walks of life (including many dog trainers) talking about and demonstrating their use on the dogs that those people brought to the seminars, that what I'm doing is "proper." The test is "are there good results and are they achieved humanely?"

If you're using the verb "to know" in the philosophical sense as "can we ever truly know anything." I have no time for such nonsense. It's another "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin" question.



Pawsitive said:


> Likewise, you can't possibly know whether I am a good clickertrainer or not just by what I post on a forum.


If you had a place where dozens of testimonial letters were available and those folks had volunteered to allow people with questions to contact them (as is the case with my letters) then I'd be able to get a pretty good idea of whether you knew what you were writing about or not; about whether or not you were a good clicker trainer. AND if you had done 51 seminars where people were happy with your work, I'd have even more evidence of it.



Pawsitive said:


> Just as I _don't know_ whether the other R+ trainers on here are great trainers or not. It is not possible to know via a virtual conversation.


If one wants, one can easily move beyond this virtual conversation. But one has to want to.

Earlier I wrote,


> It's a good thing that the rest of the world does not have to personally experience everything to believe it or to understand it. We'd still be living in caves and eating our meat raw. Fortunately *MOST *people can learn from the experiences of others. [Bold Emphasis Added by Pawsitive]





Pawsitive said:


> If that were true why would teenagers continue to make the same mistakes their parents did?


Because they are teenagers. Because they lack common sense. Because they think that they know everything and that their parents are barely smart enough to remember to breathe in and out. Because their hormones are raging and they have other things on their mind. Because they have homework. Because they have football games to go to. ... The list is just about endless.



Pawsitive said:


> I think the most effective learning comes from making our own mistakes and having our own experiences. Otherwise you'd be following everyone else's advice all the time and never experiencing anything for yourself.


I agree. But I bet that you have a huge chunk of knowledge that you got from others. Any high school? (Sorry, don't know if that's the right term for your system). Any college education? Any higher degrees? Just about all of that knowledge came directly or indirectly from the experiences of others. Now, suddenly you must personally experience Ecollars or you can't learn anything about them. Seem illogical to me.



Pawsitive said:


> That's quite a statement to make. I'd love to know where MOST of these people are. They must live quite perfect and easy lives.


Even if everyone had *the best *knowledge available it would not mean that they lived _"quite perfect and easy lives."_ People would still make bad decisions. I'd bet the farm that you're NOT living in a cave or eating all of your meat raw so you have benefitted at least a little, from the experiences of others.

Earlier I wrote,


> I disagree. Dominant dogs (and there are very few of them on the planet) ARE born that way. It's from their genetics. Aggression may be a result of this dominance and it can often be, as you say, as a result of [email protected] handling / training."





Pawsitive said:


> Lou, a point we agree on. I feel common ground ahead, we'd best be careful lol.


A couple of pigs just flew over my house. lol



Pawsitive said:


> I have also seen nervous / less confident dogs become 'aggressive' due to improper socialisation and bad decisions made on the part of the owner (who I consider is responsible for the dog's training).


I've seen the same thing but I think it's an error to call them "dominant."



Pawsitive said:


> Unfortunately, there are trainers out there - including tv trainers - who *would likely* use dominance as an explanation for the behaviour. 'That dog, he just doesn't respect you. He is trying to be pack leader because he doesn't think you are the alpha and capable of sorting the problem out' blah blah. (Not saying you would think that either. But I have very definitely seen and heard people making daft claims like that in similar scenarios.)


I agree. I just got a phone call from Hell asking if I needed any ice cubes. ROFL.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

RobD-BCactive said:


> What strikes me in your broken up posts, if your failure to understand the implications of the learning theory quadrant.
> 
> You show you do not understand that :
> 
> ...


I understand these things. I'll disagree with you here.



RobD-BCactive said:


> Furthermore when you talk about "opportunities" to punish; well you know what, my dog is well behaved!
> 
> I do not need to punish him! If I don't want him to chase deer, he stays near me and we go round, or wait, or I have him look at them, and they move out the way.


Yes, and? What is the dog like when he's 100 yards from you? Instead of _"stay[ing] near [you]"_



RobD-BCactive said:


> There's rewards based trained dogs walking off leash every day and the general public comment positively on how well behaved and cutely obedient they are!


There are also dogs that have been trained with those methods that are chasing deer, not recalling, dashing outdoors and chasing cats into traffic. What's your point?

BTW there is no "carved in cement" definition of what "rewards based training" is, I consider that all my training is rewards based, including the use of the Ecollar.



RobD-BCactive said:


> Your view of the world, is distored by your desire to coerce and stim dogs.


ROFL. Love the repetition of "coerce ... dogs." LOVE how you conveniently overlook the fact that you are doing just as much coercing. ANOTHER great example of cognitive dissonance.



RobD-BCactive said:


> You've decided the outcome you want


Yep, an efficiently trained dog that is bombproof.



RobD-BCactive said:


> and now go seek the evidence to support it and rationalise or ignore things that don't fit.


*I'm *not the one doing the rationalizing. lol



RobD-BCactive said:


> My objection to electrical stimulation of dogs as training aid, is shared by parlimentary comittees


Just one of the hundreds of legislative bodies that exist. And that one was sold a bill of goods by people who lied to them. Not the first time, nor the last.



RobD-BCactive said:


> and bodies like the KC


Another teeny group who like you isn't interested in learning about modern use of the modern Ecollars. They have become famous for their erratic behavior and poor decisions on training gear and methods, yet you hold them up as something to almost be revered.



RobD-BCactive said:


> it is generally unecessary


So are clickers, head halters. no jump harnesses, discs, and dozens of other tools, quite a number of which can cause physical injury and damage, even when used properly. Oddly I don't see you speaking ill of them. The only tool that I've seen you do this with is the Ecollar, one that you know next to nothing about.



RobD-BCactive said:


> and any rare justified usage ought to be in my view prescribed by a fully qualified Veterinary Behaviorist, not a cultish mutually supporting group, who appear to be in denial that non-forceful approaches do work.


Love LOVE *LOVE *the way that you completely misstate the facts. I've said MANY times that I sometimes use the so−called "kinder gentler methods." I just know when they're appropriate and also know that they're not appropriate for all things for all dogs. If they didn't work at all, I'd not be using them. How is it that you keep missing that?



RobD-BCactive said:


> The objection is moral, and no amount of banal examples of dogs, doing things that are easy to train, nor aggressive negative dissembling and claims change that bottom line.


Except that your bottom line is not the only one. People who have actually investigated my methods know that any discomfort caused is minor. People who have not, and that is probably most of the people in this discussion, keep their old theories and ideas and work from that place.



RobD-BCactive said:


> If rewards based approach, avoiding discipline, force & coercion or the dog avoiding something nasty works well enough in pets & in dog sports; it is therefore self evidently superior to the negative aversive & intimidatory methods, purely on animal welfare grounds. If you don't have the skill set required, tough, buy in a good trainer and learn!


Good advice. EXCEPT THAT if these methods were as superior as some would like to believe they'd have completely replaced all other methods. People who compete in various dog sports would be completely dominating the winner's podium at ALL such events. People who used any other method would not even be in the running. But that's not the case except in a very few events that were created especially for those who use those methods. In the US where many more people know about Ecollars it's virtually unheard of for a national champion in such sports as field trials, or any of the biting sports, SchH, Ring Sport, Mondio, KNPV, Police dog trials etc. NOT to have had an Ecollar used on them. That's enough evidence for me of the relative results of the various tools/methods.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

CarolineH said:


> We prefer our dogs to be happy pets, not slavish robots afraid of getting zapped if they put a paw wrong!


I'll have to say that anyone who makes such a statement at this point in the discussion has not watched the multitude of videos that I and others have submitted. NONE of them show a dog that's even close to this description.



CarolineH said:


> The majority of people who come on the forum are pet owners who should not even be thinking of such contraptions and here you are promoting them (and your wares surreptitiously!)


There's nothing special about pet owners except that it's relatively rare (especially in the UK) that they'll get a dog that does not respond to these methods. But it does happen. Look through this (or any forum) that's about training dogs and you'll find people who have been to many trainers who favor the so−called "kinder gentler methods" who have NOT had them give the desired results. Often those posts start with something like "HELP  Fido chases deer and won't come back when I call." Go to a forum devoted to discussion about Ecollars and you'll find people who want to perfect their heeling, getting the precise position required for good finishes in competition. It's unheard of that they have a dog that has not responded at all to their methods.

So while you dismiss pet owners as not needing these tools to get the results they want, I know better. Most of my client base consists of them.



CarolineH said:


> Sod off with your e collars Lou!


Thanks for the gratuitous rudeness. Do you go down to the library, take books of the shelf and burn them too? Or is there room for other ideas on this forum.

Many people love head halters and some hate them. Is the first group banned here? They can cause physical injuries even when used properly, yet I doubt that you've called for them to _"sod off."_



CarolineH said:


> This is one forum you are not going to take over with your big ideas though I know that you haven't much choice left, having been banned from so many because this is what you do, bomb them with post after post extolling the use of e collars until everyone gets sick of it!


There are plenty of choices left. Some forums don't permit discussion of Ecollars. Their owners have a fiscal interest in seeing that they are not used. If people find out about how easy they are to use, how little impact there is on the dogs and their personalities and how fast the results come, especially after they told the lies and the myths about them, they'll be out of a job.

People get sick of it because they're afraid to explore the possibilities. Far more comfortable that they stay in what they know than to learn something new that might cause conflict in their heads.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

leashedForLife said:


> IOW - *there is no* 'dominant dog' who walks into a dog-park and all the dogs there come & bow at his feet [it's usually a 'he' ]


The second part of your sentence conflicts DIRECTLY with the first. You say that such a dog does not exist and then you say that usually it's a male.



leashedForLife said:


> nor does ONE dog in a household determine everything for the others, like what common activity we will all do now, where each may sleep, who eats & in what order... it's a crock, a complete misrepresentation of dominance as it exists.


I'll disagree and having seen a couple of such dogs (they're VERY rare) I know whereof I speak. It's that you've not seen such a dog. When you do, if you ever do, it will rock your ideas.



leashedForLife said:


> also BTW - deference is far more important in the everyday lives of dogs than dominance, IME.


You don't get deference without dominance. The submissive dog defers to the dominant dog (or human).



leashedForLife said:


> oh, for pity's sake - 3 people in 4 weeks?! how in heaven's name do U expect to make ANY progress?


Note what the trainers told her. That the dog would _"grow out of"_ the biting. They were more interested in training the owner than the dog. Nothing wrong with that, but the biting has to stop very quickly. One of the problems with the so−called "kinder gentler methods" is that even when they work they often take a relatively great deal of time, particularly for problem solving of this nature.



leashedForLife said:


> * a simple time-out EVERY time the pup bites too hard is easy - short, immediate, succinct; within 30 to 45-seconds,


You left out one detail, sometimes it has no effect.



leashedForLife said:


> the pup gets an opportunity to play again. lather, rinse, repeat  *most pups *are moderating their bites within 5 time-out, less than 10-minutes in many cases;


What about the ones that don't respond? You've just admitted that they exist.



leashedForLife said:


> removing the chance to play or interact is painless


What this really means is that * you *think that it's painless. Your opinion is NOT the one that's controlling. It's ONLY the dog's opinion that matters.



leashedForLife said:


> * there is no such thing as *purely positive - * we can bias training very strongly in favor of rewards, but because everything in life & the world around us is not under our personal control, no dog's life is one unending string of joyful experiences. Into each life, a little rain must fall.


I agree but many think that we're wrong.



leashedForLife said:


> when the dog in play bites too hard - they end the game, or freeze with a hard-look at their playmate, or air-snap, or yelp & turn away, or... *ending the game* or *halting play for a moment* is positive [added] punishment [reduce the unwanted behavior]


*This is an example of P NOT +P as you allege. *You've REMOVING (hence the minus) the handler's attention from the situation. That will tend to make the biting NOT repeat. (hence the P).



leashedForLife said:


> dominance & pack-theory are as superfluous as teats on a bull; we can breed, rear, train, work, compete & play with our dogs, live with them for their entire lives, and never need to refer to either one, not even in conversation - let alone supposedly 'use this' as a training concept.


This is true until and unless one comes across either a truly dominant dog (and there are very few of them in the world) or you come across, what is much more common, a dog that is dominant in just one phase of his life. These are much more common.



leashedForLife said:


> please see David Mech's UTube video explaining the demise of all things 'Alpha' in wolves, which of course was the original source of this misbegotten concept; *family*, often multigenerational, is a much better description of the wild-wolf social unit than Jack London's hoary old concept of the PACK, with males fighting other males to determine their status in the group, females fighting females, and occasionally males & females fighting - IF THEY FIGHT SO MUCH, wolves waste energy & get hurt; no predator can afford that, as they must be able to hunt & take down prey to survive. Crippling another healthy adult in one's own family would be suicidal, as such injuries are unlikely to leave the other combatant unhurt, & hurt means hungry. hurt too badly or recover too slow, & hurt becomes starved - and then dead.


The only part of this that really been discounted is that part that discusses violence. As you say, real combat is very rare.



leashedForLife said:


> almost all conflicts are handled by *ritualistic signals of aggro & deference or appeasement *


*

It's not just "conflicts" that are handled by displays of dominance and aggression it's EVERY interaction between dogs and between dogs and their owners.*


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

RobD-BCactive said:


> No P- is not punishment in the discipline correctional or zapping with electric current sense.


Negative punishment is removing something from the situation that will tend to make a behavior not repeat. It makes no different what tool is used.



RobD-BCactive said:


> If you read about the Learning Theory quadrant, then you'll understand the difference between learning theory "punish a behaviour by witholding" and the common Enlish language term used for nasty things intended to deter a behaviour.


The problem that you're having is that you keep mixing up the _"common English language term"_ with the terms as they're used in Operant Conditioning. You can't do that and still expect to make sense or be understood. Since we're talking about training animals here, it would be best if we kept to the scientific terms, unless of course the idea is to confuse the readers?!



RobD-BCactive said:


> Yes, indeed your attempt to punish the unwanted behaviour backfired and caused the excited puppy to do it more, punishment reinforcing unwanted behaviour. A puppy nipping, wants to play, so a really good toy and teaching desirable games was the correct reward for desirable behaviour.


This works with SOME, but not all, dogs. Many will play with the _"really good toy"_ and then, when the opportunity arises, will go right back to biting. PUNISHMENT is the ONLY thing that says to a dog, "Don't do that again." The BEST way to get a puppy to stop biting is the same as with anything else. Reinforce what you want repeated AND punish what you don't want repeated. Training that uses only one side or the other is not as efficient. The communication to the dog of what you want, just isn't there.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

RobD-BCactive said:


> Eg) Is my dog doing this because he is afraid, an electric current may pass through him.
> Or is my dog doing this, because he wants to work for me as I'm a good employer?


It's not an "either  or" situation. If BOTH methods are used, as most of us do, the results are much better. Trying to use only one or only the other lacks clarity in the communication.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

leashedForLife said:


> think of the quadrants as maths -
> *positive* = add.
> *negative* = deduct.
> 
> ...


Quite the clarification for someone who just a few posts back, got it wrong.



leashedForLife said:


> children and pets are especially prone to being IGNORED when they are good, and SCOLDED when 'bad' - leaving them less & less willing to do anything that is not on the clearly-rewarding list of 'good' actions, or even afraid to do anything that is not cued - they stop offering behavior for fear of being 'wrong' or 'bad'.


Fact is that this works for MANY, if not most children. But as I've been saying with the dogs, it does not work on them all.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

Earlier Martin Herlan wrote,


> Through no fault of their own these purely positive activists do not have the mental capacity to think outside of the box





leashedForLife said:


> a) those pathetic, deluded creatures - they're retarded & have such a limited skill-set.
> and it's not their fault... so sad.


WOW! Pretty amazing the way that you turned Martin's _"... [they] do not have the mental capacity to think outside of the box"_ into him calling these folks _"pathetic, deluded [and] retarded."_



leashedForLife said:


> b) purely-positive is a myth, and as a highly-biased reward-based trainer for approx 30-years, i think i can speak with some experience to this issue.


Yes we know. But it hasn't stopped some from claiming that they don't use punishment.



leashedForLife said:


> c) activists? have U been picketed, lately? been the target of a petition with thousands of signatures? how have U been targeted by 'activists'?


Are those the only _"activists"_ that you're aware of? Pretty narrow thinking. I think that many here, the ones with the completely closed minds (that's not everyone, a few have learned a few things about Ecollars and several have converted to using the tool) are activists. One doesnt need to picket to be an activist.



leashedForLife said:


> d) 'outside the box' refers to exploring alternatives. pack-theory & dominance are older than Konrad Lorenz' hypotheses about jackals as the ancestors of some breeds.


It makes no difference how old an idea is. If it's outside the box of some − then it's outside their box.



leashedForLife said:


> e) *dominant dog*: referring to any dog as consistently dominant is a misuse of the term.


I'll disagree. I've seen a couple of genetically dominant dogs.



leashedForLife said:


> dominance is defined as conflict over resources


That's but one definition. It seems to be the only one that you'll admit to.



leashedForLife said:


> INTRA- not INTERspecies


It can be both.



leashedForLife said:


> it is not about status


Sometimes it is.



leashedForLife said:


> it is not INTER species


Sometimes it is.



leashedForLife said:


> it is not one individual 'over' all or most other dogs


Sometimes it is.



leashedForLife said:


> it is not a character-trait, a personality disorder


No, it's a genetic trait.



leashedForLife said:


> it's not permanent


Sometimes it is.



leashedForLife said:


> dogs are very context sensitive


SOME dogs, in this context, are very context sensitive. Some are not.



leashedForLife said:


> that's why a Chihuahua on their own front-lawn can see off a Great Dane who's away from home.


SOME Chihuahuas will chase away SOME Great Danes. Some will serve as a tidbit for the Great Dane.



leashedForLife said:


> f) i've worked with *severely aggressive* dogs, including those with bite histories. i still have yet to use coercion, aversive tools [headcollars are happily-conditioned for an average of 7-days], intimidation, flooding, or other confrontational methods.


One person's _*"severely aggressive"*_ dog is another's marshmallow. Got any video?



leashedForLife said:


> i have also worked with profoundly-fearful dogs: semi-feral, under-socialized, neglected, former puppy-mill breeders. the aggro dogs don't 'need' aversives any more than a globally-fearful dog does, IME & IM professional Opinion.


Ditto.



leashedForLife said:


> according to a survey of veterinary-behaviorists, over 85% of k9-aggression is rooted in fears. yet i commonly see aggression used to justify harsh handling & highly-aversive tools. Why?


Because where you live some people don't know what they're doing? Sorry but I don't see any connection to this discussion. Have you seen any of us using _"harsh handling?"_ There's no such thing as a _"highly aversive tool."_ Tools are just inanimate objects. There is, of course, situations where tools are used in a "highly aversive manner." Is that what you meant?


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

leashedForLife said:


> rather than by patronizing comments, i would be more impressed if U could use pos-R / neg-P and pos-P / neg-R correctly in sentences


One would hope for the same from you. But just a few posts back you said that removing handler attention from a situation to make the act of biting decrease (or stop) was +P. It's not, it's P. Oops. Pot meet kettle. lol



leashedForLife said:


> if U actually used the terms accurately, then i'd believe that U'd read the articles, & gotten something worthwhile from them - if U don't want to read both, i recommend the in-depth version by Bartlett.


Perhaps Arlow isn't conversant with the terms. Perhaps he merely made a mistake. But you keep telling us of your vast experience and you've been caught in an error. At least I hope it was an error?!


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

RobD-BCactive said:


> You've shown you don't understand them, by your snippy responses. It's almost like you pose questions, but don't actually want to hear an answer.


_"Snippy answers"_ aren't indictive that someone doesn't understand a concept. As to _"pos[ing] questions but [not] actually want[ing to] hear an answer"_ ... I've posed several questions to you (and others) but rarely get answers. Instead some of you avoid and evade the questions.



RobD-BCactive said:


> It should be obvious, that certain posters who frequently refer to Skinner or sound very authoriative and advocate punishment & correction, have *not understood* the implications of the learning theory. Yet they attack Professional Dog Trainers methods (some who have even won Crufts Obedience competition) as unworkable, despite the evidence that unqualified normal dog owner can do to.


I don't know who you're referring to but I have yet to see anyone call the so−called "kinder gentler methods" methods _"unworkable."_ Who has applied this term?



RobD-BCactive said:


> They cannot have it both ways, either the ppl who are successful with their dogs are experts and know what they're talking about, or they are inexperienced amateurs, which implies either that the criticism levelled is based on knowledge, or rewards based tools and methods are usable by ordinary ppl to turn out good pets. Of course the correct answer, is that both are true, and those distorting the Learning Theory are wrong.


Can you give us an example of someone who's _"distorted the Learning Theory?"_ Other than leashedForLife that is.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

RobD-BCactive said:


> You *still* have not understood the point. It is not about correction, whether a behaviour is interrupted!
> 
> Learning, is about the future; very often "Ah-Ah" or "No!" do not P+, the handler is constantly having to repeat the correction. Using a better strategy, there's no need to repetitively stop a behaviour, because it becomes less and less fluent, and finally extinguised because it's unrewarding.


Punishment does not have to STOP a behavior completely it only has to tend to make it not repeat. Depending on the behavior it may take MANY repetitions or either reinforcement or punishment before the behavior is learned or stopped.

So, as Arlow says _" 'Ah-ah...' or a sharp glance.
'Ah-Ah...' & raised eyebrows that will stop the dog in her or his tracks."_ if it tends to make a behavior not repeat, it's punishment.



RobD-BCactive said:


> So in learning theory terms, your question is absolutely meaningless.


Nah you just don't like what the answer will show.



RobD-BCactive said:


> P - means a behaviour is less likely to occur in future
> R - means a behaviour is more likely to occur in future


Yes we know. Perhaps you could tell leashedForLife?!



RobD-BCactive said:


> So when Lou Castle wrote how frequent "the opportunities are to punish" with a remote shock collar, he was actually admitting his failure with the method he advocates.


Can you show me somewhere that I've used the phrase you surrounded with quotation marks just above, attributing it to me _"the opportunities are to punish."_ As training progresses there's less and less opportunity to correct and so less and less punishment. One of the last police dogs I trained didn't need a correction on the street for the last two years of his career. He obeyed every command from his handler, no matter how far he was away and no matter what distractions were present.



RobD-BCactive said:


> This is backed by Scientific paper disparaged by shock collar advocates, where "dogs that perform worse, received more corrections". In other words, the higher performing dogs were not the ones subject to correction, but ones set up by handler to succeed and rewarded for it.


What _"Scientific paper"_ was this? Citation please.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

Earlier Arlow wrote,


> Is this an example of positive punishment?
> "Ah-ah..." or a sharp glance.
> 'Ah-Ah...' & raised eyebrows that will stop the dog in her or his tracks
> 
> I say yes.





leashedForLife said:


> it could be - the sharp-glance is most likely to be perceived as pos-P, as dogs use such glances themselves, in precisely that way. *pos-P adds something which STOPS the prior behavior.* [Emphasis Original]


This is NOT true. +P is NOT _"something which STOPS the prior behavior."_ It only _tends _to stop it or (another way to say it) is that _it reduces the frequency _of it. If it STOPPED the behavior as you say, it would only need to be done once. It's virtually unheard of for one punishment to stop all instances of a behavior. The identical comment can be made about reinforcement BTW.



leashedForLife said:


> if it stops the prior behavior, it is an effective punisher - if the behavior is repeated anyway, it is ineffective & a waste of time, at best;


Nonsense and completely untrue! _"If it *[TENDS] * to stop the prior behavior, it is an effective punisher."_ Most punishers (and reinforcers as well) need to be repeated many times before the dog makes the appropriate association and stops (or learns) the behavior. This is why ALL the literature on punishment (and reinforcement too) says that they _"tend to make a behavior not repeat (or repeat)" _or that they _"reduce the frequency"_ or words to that effect. Can you show us somewhere that it says that "it stops" a behavior?"



leashedForLife said:


> if it is ineffective & aversive, it can be nagging or actual abuse, if we continue to use that same ineffective punisher over & over.


If the (so called) punisher does not stop the behavior over a considerable period of time it may be ineffective. I don't think it rises to the level of abuse until and unless the person doing it intends to abuse the dog. Abuse just doesnt happen. It has to be intended.



leashedForLife said:


> equally, dogs who have been conditioned to 'Ah-ah...' as a *no-reward marker* will stop the behavior,
> but their motivation is quite different - a verbal interruptor that predicts an escalation to higher-level punishment
> stops behavior as the dog wants to avoid the escalation, but a dog who responds to a No-Reward Marker
> is simply saving time & energy --- s/he's been told, _this won't earn the prize,_ so the dog cuts their losses
> & tries something else.


If an NRM tends to make a behavior not repeat, by definition it's punishment. You can call it whatever you like but that does not change the fact that it's +P.


----------



## ClaireandDaisy (Jul 4, 2010)

People who use cruel methods (force, coercion or pain) do so much damage, long-term. 
Yes, any fool can cow a dumb animal into doing what they want. Anyone with a lack of kindness or sensitivity that is. And use pseudo-science and jargon to justify it.
Because when the bully has walked away, the mental damage to the animal remains, for months or years. 
And this is counted as a success by the ignorant, because they have bullied or terrified a small animal into obeying them. 
Thankfully, the vast majority on here are better than that. :thumbup1:


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

Lou Castle said:


> Can you give us an example of someone who's _"distorted the Learning Theory?"_


Already have, just read your own statements that I've picked up on, and Sleepybones's posts.

It's been clearly explained anything R+ for a behaviour, is P- for alternative behaviours (R+ & P- are mathmatical add/subtract from each other (like zero sum game)), you will not IMO believe a repeated explanation due to motivated reasoning. Selective amnesia fits rather well.


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

> *LouC to RobD*
> Yes, and? What is the dog like when he's 100 yards from you?


I think at 100 yards he should easily be highly responsive, RobD has a BC, they are geneticaly predisposed to be highly biddable, probably the most biddable dogs on the planet, all you have to do with a BC is show it what you want of it & they go head over heels to sponteaneously do it for you.

Don't get me wrong, they are a nice little dog, but, when it comes to needing OB, apart from the odd one, they don't need any OB they're only to willing to oblidge at any range.

BC's or dogs with BC in them are almost always 2 of the top 3 winners in these simulated, routine hobby OB competitions, not because BC's have better trainers then others, but, because they are a naturaly OB dog.

I wish more people would be as sensible as RobD and have one instead of dogs which do need OB training and are at many areas of risk if they dont have effective OB training.

.


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

> People who use cruel methods (force, coercion or pain) do so much damage, long-term.


Hmmm, an intersting concept, lets have a look at the real life (ever heard of that?) reality of offlead dogs learned behaviours. Special note, for anyone who preferes to avoid reallty don't click the you tube link!

Dogs learned behaviour to physical aversives.
YouTube - ‪E-Collar Trained. Dogs Learned Responses To Aversive Stimuli‬‏

.


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

SleepyBones said:


> I think at 100 yards he should easily be highly responsive, RobD has a BC, they are geneticaly predisposed to be highly biddable, probably the most biddable dogs on the planet, all you have to do with a BC is show it what you want of it & they go head over heels to sponteaneously do it for you


This is why Border Collie Rescues are always full and feature big warnings about the breed.

Being nice works for me with other breeds to, and other ppl's dogs 
For example GR, Shi-Tzu, Airedale, Terrier mixes

Quite often the dogs subjected to forceful handling & corrections, actually shrink & avoid their owners, which is very humiliating. Perhaps that's part of the appeal of the remote shock collar, you evade the dogs judgement on you?

I've personally seen "stubborn" dogs like Bulldogs do great with rewards based training, and you can catch on Victorial Stillwell's in the USA show an older Bulldog responding to Clicker training, that had been burnt as a puppy by a shock collar trainer.


----------



## CarolineH (Aug 4, 2009)

SleepyBones said:


> I think at 100 yards he should easily be highly responsive, RobD has a BC, they are geneticaly predisposed to be highly biddable, probably the most biddable dogs on the planet, all you have to do with a BC is show it what you want of it & they go head over heels to sponteaneously do it for you.


Oh wow! You know as much about the Border Collie as you do about the Kennel Club and what activities it registers, promotes and oversees!:frown2:



SleepyBones said:


> Special note, for anyone who preferes to avoid reallty don't click the you tube link!
> 
> Dogs learned behaviour to physical aversives.
> _Link removed to avoid spamming it even more_
> ...


There goes that video AGAIN!!!! :skep:


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

> Oh wow! You know as much about the Border Collie


I know the 1950's pubertal Teddy Boys knew, they are a great beginers dog, from what we read about teddy boys it seems the good behaviour did not transfer to them.

Teddy Boy tricks training.
YouTube - ‪The &#39;Positive&#39; &#39;Modern&#39; Training, Commercial Con Trick Exposed, Historical Images Blows The Myth‬‏

.


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

> and what activities it registers, promotes and oversees!


That's one of the many reasons its so controversial with its prolific diseased stock, trying to distract peoples attention from state of its registered stock here

*RSPCA slams Crufts coverage for "misleading the public" *
_Strong words from RSPCA Chief Exec Mark Watts this morning in an Open Letter to the Kennel Club. Here in full:_

http://pedigreedogsexposed.blogspot.com/2011/03/rspca-slams-crufts-coverage-for.html

*Video Docmentry, UK's Pedigree Dogs Exposed*
Note - you have to sign to say your 18 or over to watch this series.

http://www.youtube.com/verify_age?next_url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbvv0vBf7t8
.


----------



## CarolineH (Aug 4, 2009)

SleepyBones said:


> I know the 1950's pubertal Teddy Boys knew, they are a great beginers dog, from what we read about teddy boys it seems the good behaviour did not transfer to them.
> 
> Teddy Boy tricks training.
> YouTube - ‪The 'Positive' 'Modern' Training, Commercial Con Trick Exposed, Historical Images Blows The Myth‬‏
> ...


That video tells us nothing and proves even less? What point was there to that or did you just want to show that you could find other links apart from the other one that you keep endlessly shoving at us? Quote from that link - 'This video shows the fall out damage and long term effects of APDT UK training methods.' How exactly? Also, the APDT UK did not invent reward for response methodology! It has been around a long time and is used successfully by many professional dog trainers, zookeepers et all! Or didn't you know that either petal? 

Trying to deflect attention away from your preferred, harsher, corrective methods by trying desperately to denounce kind, humane forms of training just isn't working.............. we can see right through you.


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

> I've personally seen "stubborn" dogs like Bulldogs do great with rewards based training


,

Heres one being rehabbed with e-collar & toy training, the collar is in use as a reinforcer all the time and soon enough, probably 3 or 4 weeks including other OB actions, this dog will be recalling from severe distractions at 100 meters.

YouTube - ‪Koulee's e-collar demo‬‏

.


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

> That video tells us nothing and proves even less? What point was there to that


Simples as anyone can see, the 1950's photo is 'positive training' as its now called, the 50's photo shows how the begger dog of maybe 150 years ago was trained, yes thats it 'modern training' methods circ thousands if years old, its just been given a commercial title for whats old time treat training and glossed up as new so it can be commercialy marketed.
.


----------



## lemmsy (May 12, 2008)

SleepyBones said:


> Hmmm, an intersting concept, lets have a look at the real life (ever heard of that?) reality of offlead dogs learned behaviours. Special note, for anyone who preferes to avoid reallty don't click the you tube link!
> 
> Dogs learned behaviour to physical aversives.
> YouTube - ‪E-Collar Trained. Dogs Learned Responses To Aversive Stimuli‬‏
> ...


YouTube - ‪APDT UK Training Damage, No1 -‬‏

OMG. The bloke in that video really hasn't a clue! If you watch the one with the Lab, above, (a supposedly damaged APDT trained dog), he first describes the dog as biddable and when the dog pulls slightly to sniff the ground he says "WOW! That's a strong dog! You don't give treats to a dog like that! He'll just laugh at you."

He says that every time the dog wants to go somewhere he has to be punished? He fails to explain why. Or justify.

Apparently the owner did some positive training with it as a puppy and then went to an APDT trainer who "told the owners to give it frankfuters."

also according to him...

"The owners were told to give it treats when it does something good, but it doesn't do anything good!"

Is that how he understands the APDT's use positive reinforcement and negative punishment or indeed learning theory. These sweeping statements indicate a total lack of understanding. Why is someone with such a lack of understanding claiming to understand dogs and further train them with aversives (at worst) or indeed otherwise?

Ye Gods!

One to avoid for sure.


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

lemmsy said:


> He says that every time the dog wants to go somewhere he has to be punished? He fails to explain why


A consequence of looking for opportunities to correct, rather than building on success and nurturing it. Not a good way to foster a relationship IMO.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

Earlier I wrote,


> Can you give us an example of someone who's "distorted the Learning Theory?"





RobD-BCactive said:


> Already have, just read your own statements that I've picked up on, and Sleepybones's posts.


You saying that I've done this means nothing unless you will be specific. So far you've not done so. It's just your opinion and since I've taught this subject matter before hundreds of people, some of them PhD's on the topic, I'll have to disagree with it. Sleepybones can answer for himself.



RobD-BCactive said:


> It's been clearly explained anything R+ for a behaviour, is P- for alternative behaviours (R+ & P- are mathmatical add/subtract from each other (like zero sum game)), you will not IMO believe a repeated explanation due to motivated reasoning. Selective amnesia fits rather well.


I understand this perfectly. It's an abstract reflection that has nothing to do with our discussion. It's nothing but a philosophical consideration.

This is redundant and boring so here's some video of another dog being abused with an Ecollar. HERE'S SOMETHING to spice up the conversation.

Are you ever going to answer the many questions that you've avoided and evaded?


----------



## arlow (Apr 20, 2011)

leashedForLife said:


> ah - my mistake, i'm sorry. i took it for sarcasm, as there's been a lot of it going around.


Understandable given our history. No harm no foul.



> it wasn't directed at anyone - there'd been so much confusion, i thought it was time for review.


That's one reason why I liked it. There's been a lot of imprecise use of the terms and misunderstanding. I thought this would prove helpful in at least getting everyone to agree to terminology, but I see from subsequent posts that's not the case.

Here are some areas where I believe misuse of terms has led to misunderstanding. People use "punishment" when they mean *positive* punishment. They also use it to mean excessively harsh treatment of the dog. Or coercion. Or discipline. So when someone says they're "against punishment" they really mean they're against *positive* punishment, or excessively harsh treatment, etc.

BTW, I would argue that your misuse of terms led to our current little spat. When you used the example of "ah ah" or a "sharp look" I was on it like white on rice. I pointed out that this was an example of an applied aversive in punishment which is +P.

Your response was that you never said you use zero punishment. True, but you did say you use zero *positive* punishment and never but never use applied aversives. It wasn't just a casual mention. It was repeated and strident, as I've quoted further up the thread.



> it could be - the sharp-glance is most likely to be perceived as pos-P, as dogs use such glances themselves,


Here is another example of imprecise language. I would say the sharp glance is perceived as aversive. Aversive does not equal punishment. It's a feature of punishment, but not the thing in itself. The aversive could be used to punish, but it could also be used to reinforce a behaviour or simply as an interrupter or attention getter. This misunderstanding has led people to believe that anyone who advocates aversives in training is necessarily a big fan of punishment, particular positive punishment. Not true.

My last example of misunderstanding gets to the heart of the debate over methodologies in general and ecollars in particular. *Aversive does not equal pain. * You put it well, it's something the dog will work to avoid. It could be just a sharp look, a novel sound, an itch, a feather tickling a nose or, in Lou's example, a sunbeam. All pain is aversive, but all aversives are not painful. I've seen so many times the argument that the ecollar is painful because "after all if wasn't painful it wouldn't work". But the sharp look works. Is it painful or just mildly uncomfortable? The fact of aversion is not proof of pain.


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

Lou Castle said:


> I understand this perfectly. It's an abstract reflection that has nothing to do with our discussion. It's nothing but a philosophical consideration


As I already explained in http://www.petforums.co.uk/dog-training-behaviour/166942-mmmmmmmmmmmmmm-13.html#post2507956 and is very clear, your statements have not been consistent with the implications of the Learning Theory Quadrant. You just need to read your own posts properly. If you need yet more explanation see An Introduction to Reinforcement | Stale Cheerios

If you claim to be an expert, so why all the dissembly and intellectual dishonesty? If you are, then you know very well, there's no need to punish anything, reinforcing something else suffices 

You cannot expect everyone to waste time on drivel, like "you must punish", when that very quadrant you claim to understand shows, that R+ a behaviour implicitly diminishes alternative behaviours; therefore disciplinary corrections are uncessary. [ note: Operant Conditioning includes "extinction" which means an unreinforced alternate behaviour naturally diminishes without it being punished ]

You have had it clearly pointed out that P- is not "Punishment" in English sense, and similarly nor is P+ interchangeable with "Punishment". Any failure to understand this on your part looks like mental incapacity, after all the explanations given.

You have also in your many posts, made it clear that you see a benefit, to "plenty of opportunities for correction", considering this involves threat or actual passing of electrical current through your target pet dog, I can't see very many pet owners being enthusiastic about your methods once they clearly understhamd them, as they involve passing electrical current through their pets via 2 "prong" electrodes.


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

> RobD
> You cannot expect everyone to waste time on drivel, like "you must punish", when that very quadrant you claim to understand shows, >>>>that R+ a behaviour implicitly diminishes alternative behaviours; therefore disciplinary corrections are uncessary


SleepyBones repeats himself yet again, +R CANNOT *come first* in any operant behaviour



> RobD If you need yet more explanation see An introduction to reinforcement


In the very page upon which you rely she says in the section 1. Positive Reinforcement

QUOTE your ref >>>During positive reinforcement, something *follows* the behavior and increases the rate of the behavior,

Even your own ref conradicts you, therefor, you've even used your ref to refute yourself. Whats wrong with you?

.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

RobD-BCactive said:


> As I already explained in http://www.petforums.co.uk/dog-training-behaviour/166942-mmmmmmmmmmmmmm-13.html#post2507956 and is very clear, your statements have not been consistent with the implications of the Learning Theory Quadrant. You just need to read your own posts properly.


You making this (well, trying to) much more complicated than it is. If something is added to a situation it's called Positive(+). If something is removed it's called Negative (-). If something tends to make a behavior repeat it's reinforcement. If it tends to make a behavior not repeat it's punishment. Putting these two concepts together gives us four options. I'll not discuss extinction at this moment.

+P  where something is added to the situation that will tend to make a behavior not repeat. Example: a dog sticks his head into the garbage and you press the button on an Ecollar.

-P  where something is removed from the situation that will tend to make a behavior not repeat. Example: A dog jumps up on the owner who immediately turns his back on the dog.

+R  Where something is added to the situation that will tend to make a behavior repeat. Example: the dog is given a treat right after he sits.

-R  Where something is removed from the situation that will tend to make a behavior repeat. Example. The stim from an Ecollar is turned or when the dog starts to move towards the handler when he's teaching the recall.

Notice that ALL of those things come AFTER the behavior, NOT before it.

You referred me back to this post where you had written,


> A *P- *is for example entering a park with dog on line, then recalling it and after releasing to play with and interact with friendly safe dog. *You diminish by preventing the behaviour of dashing off to see the other dog, * by not permitting "free running" but using the "distraction" as a reward. [Emphasis Added]


And I responded,


> Not allowing a dog to do something is not P. It's not part of OC at all ...


What you describe as _"P-"_ is NOT PART OF OC. It comes *before *the act of "free running." OC comes *AFTER *a behavior. This is the danger, as I've said, of trying to combine common language with the scientific language of OC. I'm sure that you've confused a few, you're confused yourself.



RobD-BCactive said:


> If you need yet more explanation see An Introduction to Reinforcement | Stale Cheerios


From the website that you've just directed me to, (NOTE: she's only talking about reinforcement here but the statements also apply to punishment).


> *Reinforcement is defined as anything that follows a behavior and increases the rate of that behavior. * If the rate of the behavior doesnt increase over time, reinforcement is not taking place. (Ive talked in the past about finding good reinforcers.) Also, * something must follow a behavior to be reinforcement. * (So giving instructions before a behavior is not reinforcement because it comes before the behavior.) [Emphasis Added]





RobD-BCactive said:


> If you claim to be an expert


Something I've never done. As with all your previous attempts to mischaracterize things that I've said, show us the post where I've made such a statement.



RobD-BCactive said:


> so why all the dissembly and intellectual dishonesty?


Show us where I've disassembled something or been intellectually dishonest.



RobD-BCactive said:


> If you are, then you know very well, there's no need to punish anything, reinforcing something else suffices


Reinforcing a dog for sitting, (for example, by giving him a treat when he does) DOES NOT PUNISH him for jumping up. It prevents it but does not punish it. As your referenced website clearly says *it comes before the jumping up * and is therefore not punishment.



RobD-BCactive said:


> You cannot expect everyone to waste time on drivel, like "you must punish", when that very quadrant you claim to understand shows, that R+ a behaviour implicitly diminishes alternative behaviours; therefore disciplinary corrections are uncessary.


I don't think that I've used the phrase _"you must punish."_ Can you show it to us?

With SOME dogs reinforcing the sit (in the above example) will diminish the jumping up, but with many, it will not. Teaching a contrary behavior does not punish the undesired one. AGAIN, per your referred website, it comes BEFORE the behavior and is therefore not punishment.



RobD-BCactive said:


> You have had it clearly pointed out that P- is not "Punishment" in English sense,


You can't successfully mix the jargon of dog training and plain English. Not if you want anyone to understand, that is.



RobD-BCactive said:


> and similarly nor is P+ interchangeable with "Punishment". Any failure to understand this on your part looks like mental incapacity, after all the explanations given.


Im the one who keeps saying not to mix plain English with dog training jargon. I'm not the one who is failing to understand. You posted a website that proved my point and knocked yours into the dirt.



RobD-BCactive said:


> You have also in your many posts, made it clear that you see a benefit, to "plenty of opportunities for correction", considering this involves threat or actual passing of electrical current through your target pet dog, I can't see very many pet owners being enthusiastic about your methods once they clearly understhamd them, as they involve passing electrical current through their pets via 2 "prong" electrodes.


ROFL. Oddly not one of the 3,000+ owners of the dogs that I've put Ecollars on have ever felt this way. Perhaps because they felt the stim for themselves? I doubt that you have ever done so at the level that you can first perceive. They've either read the articles, heard the talk, or both. THEY understand what modern Ecollar training with modern Ecollars is about. You do not. Rather you hang onto your antiquated ideas and theories of what you imagine it to be.

The sales of Ecollars just about everywhere, including in the UK, is growing, disputing your opinion. And several members of this forum have started using Ecollars. This last bit from you is another wonderfully emotional argument; but it's not logical.

There are some good explanations on that site. And she understands the huge difference between _escape _and _avoidance. _ (Some here have used the terms interchangeably, and they're not).



> Escape Response (negative reinforcement): Every afternoon when she gets home from work, Jennys mom nags and yells at her to do her homework. As soon as Jenny starts her homework, her mom stops nagging. She learns she can terminate her moms nagging by doing her homework.
> 
> Avoidance Response (negative reinforcement): Jenny finishes her homework every afternoon before her mother gets home from work. She can completely prevent or avoid the aversive stimulus of her mothers yelling by starting the behavior before her mom has a chance to start delivering the negative reinforcer of nagging.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

RobD-BCactive said:


> Learning is about the future... often "Ah-Ah" or "No!" do not [punish effectively,
> as] the handler [must] constantly... repeat the correction.


yes - an *effective* punisher results in rapid & significant reduction of the prior behavior.

EXAMPLE: i see a puppy squat on wall-to-wall. 
i clap my hands sharply, startling the pup, who stands & turns to see where that sound came from.

for a young pup, it's an effective *interruptor - * the startle reflex pops the puppy up, in case there's 
something dangerous to flee - ya can't run very well while voiding. 
but for most normal pups, it's not an effective *punisher:* the pup under 12-WO is unlikely to *stop* 
voiding on carpet after 1 or 2 or 5 loud cracks of my palms clapping. 
so this is MANAGEMENT - not training. Young pups need oversight & scheduling - not punishment. 
there is a learning curve plus muscular toning of the sphincter which must occur over time.

[OTOH such a startle can effect a soft-pup quite badly, but again not by effectively getting the pup 
NOT to void on carpet - rather the pup will find hidden places to squat, like under the tablecloth covered 
dining table, or behind the sofa between it & the wall, or ___ .]


RobD-BCactive said:


> [if we use] a better strategy, there's no need to repetitively stop a behaviour,
> because [the unwanted behavior] becomes less and less fluent, and finally extinguished because it's unrewarding.


:thumbup: 
if we manage a pup so s/he cannot jump on the friendly stranger [step on the leash to limit length], 
*and* reward a preferred alternative - the incompatible *sit*, as the pup cannot both jump-up *&* sit - 
soon the jump-up fades to nonexistence. 


RobD-BCactive said:


> [there is a] Scientific paper disparaged by shock collar advocates, where "dogs that perform
> worse, received more corrections". IOW, the higher performing dogs were not the ones subject to correction,
> but [were those dogs] set up by [their] handler to succeed and rewarded for it.


dogs who are being corrected repeatedly become anxious - for obvious reasons - and make more errors. 
this is not helpful, IMO & IME - a student who is relaxed, interested & engaged learns easily, why make it 
any more difficult than it must be? Learning new behavior carries its own stress, i prefer to minimize.


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

> yes - an effective punisher results in rapid & significant reduction of the prior behavior.


Partialy accurate, it's not neccesarily either "rapid" or "slow" it can be either and still be "an effective" negative or positive punisher.

The way either punishment works is that _'the behaviour'_ does not change, the animal is still prone to behave in a punishable way by doing something else e.g. a child gets a reprimand for smoking in the school playground, so he _avoids_ smoking in the playground and smokes in the school toilet instead.

Thats whats meant by punishment 'suppresses a behaviour' but does not stop a behaviour.

The negative reinforcer is not a punisher, its a reinforcer & shapes and/or generates behaviours not suppresses behaviours.
.


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

leashedForLife said:


> dogs who are being corrected repeatedly become anxious - for obvious reasons - and make more errors.
> this is not helpful, IMO & IME - a student who is relaxed, interested & engaged learns easily, why make it
> any more difficult than it must be? Learning new behavior carries its own stress, i prefer to minimize.


Of course and it's all so obvious, but that small stress can actually be fun, if you do something like Clicker training. It's just awful the looks I get, when I am loaded with *Liver cake, the poor dogs!*


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

Earlier RobD-BCactive wrote,


> Learning is about the future... often "Ah-Ah" or "No!" do not [punish effectively, as] the handler [must] constantly... repeat the correction.





leashedForLife said:


> yes - an *effective* punisher results in rapid & significant reduction of the prior behavior.
> 
> EXAMPLE: i see a puppy squat on wall-to-wall. i clap my hands sharply, startling the pup, who stands & turns to see where that sound came from.
> 
> for a young pup, it's an effective *interruptor - * the startle reflex pops the puppy up, in case there's something dangerous to flee - ya can't run very well while voiding. but for most normal pups, it's not an effective *punisher:* the pup under 12-WO is unlikely to *stop* voiding on carpet after 1 or 2 or 5 loud cracks of my palms clapping. so this is MANAGEMENT - not training.


If it tends to make the behavior not repeat, it's punishment. If, in the long run, it does not maintain this tendency, it's ineffective punishment.



leashedForLife said:


> Young pups need oversight & scheduling - not punishment.


Dogs of all ages may benefit from all of these things. They learn that the carpet is not the right place to void when the owner punishes the behavior.



leashedForLife said:


> [OTOH such a startle can effect a soft-pup quite badly, but again not by effectively getting the pup NOT to void on carpet - rather the pup will find hidden places to squat, like under the tablecloth covered dining table, or behind the sofa between it & the wall, or ___ .]


This sort of thing happens if the puppy makes the association between the presence of the owner who is making the noise and his voiding  poor training. If it's done properly, the dog does not make this association and therefore thinks that the environment provided the loud noise, much like proper Ecollar training.

Earlier RobD-BCactive wrote,


> [if we use] a better strategy, there's no need to repetitively stop a behaviour, because [the unwanted behavior] becomes less and less fluent, and finally extinguished because it's unrewarding.





leashedForLife said:


> if we manage a pup so s/he cannot jump on the friendly stranger [step on the leash to limit length], *and* reward a preferred alternative - the incompatible *sit*, as the pup cannot both jump-up *&* sit - soon the jump-up fades to nonexistence.


Teaching the incompatible behavior does not make the jumping up (in this case) unrewarding. Dogs jump up, probably because they want the face to face contact that it affords. This allows a submissive dog to life the corners of the mouth of the dominant animal. This act of submission is self−rewarding. It doesnt become unrewarding just because something else is taught.

Going by this theory a dog that's trained to recall would stop looking for food on the kitchen floor because an incompatible behavior was taught. But we all know that this does not happen.



leashedForLife said:


> dogs who are being corrected repeatedly become anxious - for obvious reasons - and make more errors.


If an effective punishment is used dogs get corrected less and less because they perform the behavior less often. The very definition of an effective punisher.



leashedForLife said:


> this is not helpful


It's also not true. lol



leashedForLife said:


> a student who is relaxed, interested & engaged learns easily, why make it any more difficult than it must be?


_"Relaxed"_ is not always a good state for a dog being trained. HERE'S SOME VIDEO OF a dog that's _"interested & engaged."_



leashedForLife said:


> Learning new behavior carries its own stress, i prefer to minimize.


Me too. That's why I use Ecollars.


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

> but that small stress can actually be fun, if you do something like Clicker training


Yes the dogs can have fun just te same as they can with e-collars and toys, below is a collar training class of about 8 or 9 using toys and collars, these are around 3 weeks into OB training and already offlead with very close quarters distractions, another week & they will be offlead outside with all that and other dogs as distractions and at ever increasing distances & strange places with unpredictable stimuli occurences.

The e-collars are in use throughout this video as well as toys, adding toys to the negative reinforcer of the collar makes the reinforcers (reward) double positive reinforcers.

YouTube - ‪Remote Collar Training Basic Dog Obedience‬‏

.


----------



## arlow (Apr 20, 2011)

Earlier I wrote:


> Is this an example of positive punishment?
> "Ah-ah..." or a sharp glance.
> 'Ah-Ah...' & raised eyebrows that will stop the dog in her or his tracks
> 
> I say yes.


To which Lou responded:


Lou Castle said:


> This is NOT true. +P is NOT _"something which STOPS the prior behavior."_ It only _tends _to stop it or (another way to say it) is that _it reduces the frequency _of it. If it STOPPED the behavior as you say, it would only need to be done once.


I disagree. It _MAY_ not be true but it also may be true. For example, my dog is on a sit/stay. He starts to break the stay. I say "ah ah" . It stops him in his tracks _and_ it decreases the likelihood that the prior behavior (breaking the stay) will repeat. I didn't say anything about one use stopping the behavior for all time.

This example was first introduced by LFL and she had referred to it as an example of punishment she uses and teaches. So whether she is actually using it as +P, we don't have enough information to know. But clearly she thinks she is which I find interesting in light of her many claims to the contrary. Again, this is not to pick on her but to make the point that punishment need not be harsh to be effective


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

Lou Castle said:


> Reinforcing a dog for sitting, (for example, by giving him a treat when he does) DOES NOT PUNISH him for jumping up. It prevents it but does not punish it. As your referenced website clearly says *it comes before the jumping up * and is therefore not punishment


Just plain and simply wrong, unimaginative and limitted!

Sitting can P+ the future unvinvited jump up; because the dog ;ater chooses to sit, instead of jumping up & being told "Off!", when it wants to jump up. The sequence of obeying a "Sit!", and then rewarded by the desired "Up!" has positively reinforced the sit so much, the dog is manipulated into auto-sitting, when it wants to jump up.

You added the "Sit!" cue followed by invited "Up!", and as it effectively diminishes the future uninvited jump up, replacing it with an auto-sit, it is therefore P+ for the behaviour "uninvited jumping up on greeting"; once and only when you have observed the auto-sitting.

Of course any action R-ng or P-ing happens before the later test, it is self evident from the definition of the terms.

Learning happens, because of past events effecting future ones. When you test, any R or P occured in the past. If you could not affect future events then no learning would be possible.


----------



## LuvMyDog_Worldwide (Apr 1, 2011)

leashedForLife said:


> i clap my hands sharply, startling the pup


An aversive action. Startling the puppy is also positive punishment.

While you have the puppys attention it would be an idea to take it somewhere that it can continue 'voiding' and reward the behavior.

I've noticed you don't ever associate aversives with subsequent reinforcement and reward, they tend to be followed by nothing.

regards,

Austin


----------



## Colette (Jan 2, 2010)

> Teaching a contrary behavior does not punish the undesired one.


Actually it does - that is precisely why it is done.

Very simple really:

The dog performs behaviour X in order to gain a specific outcome.
If behaviour X results in the desired outcome, that behaviour will be reinforced.

If behaviour X does not result in the desired outcome it will not be reinforced, and thus will eventually be subject to extinction. However, the desire to gain the outcome will remain.

The owner teaches the dog an an acceptable alternative behaviour - behaviour Y.
The dog perform behaviour Y and gains the desired outcome.

Thus behaviour Y is reinforced.

Behaviour X ceases, for two reasons. 1) It is not reinforced (does not achieve the desired outcome). 2) It is incompatible with behaviour Y (which does gain the desired outcome).

So, for jumping up...

The usual purpose of jumping up is for attention and, as Lou states, face contact.
If jumping up results in NO attention, and NO face contact, it will not be reinforced.
If, in conjunction with the P- described above, the dog is then taught to sit, and rewarded for doing so with attention and face contact, the dog will quickly learn to sit in order to get the result it wants.

The dog still gets the attention and face contact it desires, thus fulfilling this "desire" and preventing frustration. The owner gets a polite sit rather than muddy paws on their good suit. Its a win win situation.

If you rely solely on the P- aspect, or instead rely on P+, you still have a dog that desires attention and face contact but does not know how to get it. In this case, the intensity of punishment may need to be increased (to outweigh the potential reinforcer). Or, you may punish one unwanted behaviour, but elicit another - for example, the dog punished for jumping up may bark for attention instead.

Teaching an alternative behaviour gives the dog a very clear way to get what he wants, so not only do you stop the first unwanted behaviour, you also prevent others from developing.

One important point I must add - it is important to know WHY the dog does what it does. For example, barking may be in order to scare off a potential threat, to get attention, because it is self-rewarding, or various other reasons.
Wherever possible, work out what the dog is trying to achieve and make that the reward for the desired behaviour.

Where this is not possible (the desired outcome itself is not acceptable) then othr methods may be emplyed - usually by reducing the dogs motivation, and thus changing the desired outcome.

The obvious example of this is fear related behaviours. If you want to stop the dog from lunging at strangers, you would work on systematic desensitisation to reduce his reactivity levels and overcome his fear. Once the dog no longer sees strangers as a threat, the desire to scare them off will fade, and the behaviour will automatically be reduced.

In short - two clear ways to stop unwanted behaviours. Either teach an alternative behaviour to get the desired outcome, or change the desired outcome.

In neither case do you need to apply P+ and / or aversives.


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

LuvMyDog_Worldwide said:


> An aversive action. Startling the puppy is also positive punishment.
> 
> While you have the puppys attention it would be an idea to take it somewhere that it can continue 'voiding' and reward the behavior


Quite right and lFL advies supervision and relief outside for house training, avoiding punishment.

It was an example of the drawbacks of using aversive techniques, whilst it may simply startle and interrupt some pups, in the "soft" pups the consequences are very counter productive.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

Earlier Arlow wrote,


> Is this an example of positive punishment?
> "Ah-ah..." or a sharp glance.
> 'Ah-Ah...' & raised eyebrows that will stop the dog in her or his tracks
> 
> I say yes.


And then l4l responded,


> it could be - the sharp-glance is most likely to be perceived as pos-P, as dogs use such glances themselves, in precisely that way. *pos-P adds something which STOPS the prior behavior. *[Emphasis Original]


I then responded to l4l,


> This is NOT true. +P is NOT _"something which STOPS the prior behavior."_ It only _tends _to stop it or (another way to say it) is that _it reduces the frequency _of it. If it STOPPED the behavior as you say, it would only need to be done once. It's virtually unheard of for one punishment to stop all instances of a behavior. The identical comment can be made about reinforcement BTW.





arlow said:


> I disagree.


I see the reason for your disagreement. I read your statement that the _" 'Ah-Ah...' & raised eyebrows that will stop the dog in her or his tracks"_ as meaning that it stopped the dog for the moment, _"in her ... tracks."_

And I read l4l's statement that _ *pos-P adds something which STOPS the prior behavior." *_ as meaning that it stopped the behavior permanently.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

Earlier I wrote,


> Reinforcing a dog for sitting, (for example, by giving him a treat when he does) DOES NOT PUNISH him for jumping up. It prevents it but does not punish it. As your referenced website clearly says *it comes before the jumping up * and is therefore not punishment.





RobD-BCactive said:


> Just plain and simply wrong, unimaginative and limitted!


Sorry RobD but you are the one that is wrong here. OC is by definition something that is done *AFTER * behavior. Sitting may reduce the jumping up but it does not, BY DEFINITION, punish it. AGAIN you're trying to mix the jargon of dog training with common uses of the words. The very website you linked to show this when it says,


> *Reinforcement is defined as anything  that follows a behavior and increases the rate of that behavior. * If the rate of the behavior doesnt increase over time, reinforcement is not taking place. (Ive talked in the past about finding good reinforcers.) Also, * something must follow a behavior to be reinforcement. * (So giving instructions before a behavior is not reinforcement because it comes before the behavior.) [Emphasis Added]





RobD-BCactive said:


> Sitting can P+ the future unvinvited jump up; because the dog ;ater chooses to sit, instead of jumping up & being told "Off!" when it wants to jump up.


This may indeed occur. But that does not mean that the _"uninvited jump up"_ has been punished. It's been prevented or diminished. They are not the same thing.



RobD-BCactive said:


> The sequence of obeying a "Sit!", and then rewarded by the desired "Up!" has positively reinforced the sit so much, the dog is manipulated into auto-sitting, when it wants to jump up.


As has been shown a couple of times now, reinforcing the sit DOES NOT punish the jumping up. In OC the punishment or reinforcement come AFTER the behavior. This is not something that's up for debate. I invite you to look at the definitions of the terms used in OC and show us anyplace that discusses reinforcement or punishment coming BEFORE a behavior. Let us know when you find such a definition.



RobD-BCactive said:


> You added the "Sit!" cue followed by invited "Up!", and as it effectively diminishes the future uninvited jump up, replacing it with an auto-sit, it is therefore P+ for the behaviour "uninvited jumping up on greeting"; once and only when you have observed the auto-sitting.


Nope, still got it wrong. In order for the punishment to be part of OC it must come AFTER the behavior. No way around this really.



RobD-BCactive said:


> Of course any action R-ng or P-ing happens before the later test, it is self evident from the definition of the terms.


If you reinforce a sit it may or may not diminish jumping up. But diminishment is not the same a punishing a behavior under the definitions of OC. In the following citations the emphases are mine.

FROM THIS SITE


> Conditioning in which an operant response is brought under stimulus control by virtue of presenting reinforcement *contingent upon the occurrence *of the operant response


FROM THIS SITE.


> the core tools of operant conditioning, are either positive *(delivered following a response), *or negative * (withdrawn following a response). *This creates a total of four basic consequences, with the addition of a fifth procedure known as extinction (i.e. no change in consequences following a response).


FROM THIS SITE


> To be clear, while positive reinforcement is the strengthening of behavior by the application of some event (e.g., praise *after some behavior is performed), *negative reinforcement is the strengthening of behavior by the removal or avoidance of some aversive event (e.g., opening and raising an umbrella over your head on a rainy day is reinforced by the cessation of rain falling on you).


FROM THIS SITE. 


> operant conditioning − a form of learning used in behavior therapy in which the person undergoing therapy is rewarded for the correct response and punished for the incorrect response. ... operant conditioning − learning in which a particular response is elicited by a stimulus because that response produces desirable consequences (reward).


Note that in ALL OF THESE DEFINITIONS the reinforcement or the punishment comes *  AFTER * the behavior, not before it.



RobD-BCactive said:


> Learning happens, because of past events effecting future ones. When you test, any R or P occured in the past. If you could not affect future events then no learning would be possible.


True, but this has nothing to do with the accepted definitions of the terms used in OC.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

Colette said:


> Actually it does - that is precisely why it is done.


Someone else who is trying to mix up the jargon of science, in this case, OC, with the terms as they're commonly used. Such an attempt is doomed to failure.



Colette said:


> Very simple really:
> 
> The dog performs behaviour X in order to gain a specific outcome.
> If behaviour X results in the desired outcome, that behaviour will be reinforced.


Notice that in this example, the _"outcome"_ comes after the behavior.



Colette said:


> If behaviour X does not result in the desired outcome it will not be reinforced, and thus will eventually be subject to extinction. However, the desire to gain the outcome will remain.


Notice that AGAIN, in this example, the _"outcome"_ comes after the behavior.



Colette said:


> The owner teaches the dog an an acceptable alternative behaviour - behaviour Y.
> The dog perform behaviour Y and gains the desired outcome.
> 
> Thus behaviour Y is reinforced.
> ...


AGAIN just because a behavior is diminished does not mean that it is punished. AGAIN in OC the response (P or R) comes AFTER the behavior.



Colette said:


> So, for jumping up...
> 
> The usual purpose of jumping up is for attention and, as Lou states, face contact.
> If jumping up results in NO attention, and NO face contact, it will not be reinforced.
> ...


Definitely a win win but STILL NOT PUNISHMENT under the terms of OC.



Colette said:


> If you rely solely on the P- aspect, or instead rely on P+, you still have a dog that desires attention and face contact but does not know how to get it.


Only if you don't show the dog how to do this. I've mentioned elsewhere that when I punish the jumping up I teach the dog to put his front legs on my arm and then allow the face to face contact, thereby satisfying that need.



Colette said:


> Teaching an alternative behaviour gives the dog a very clear way to get what he wants, so not only do you stop the first unwanted behaviour, you also prevent others from developing.


I agree. But since we are discussing OC saying that the jumping up is punished by teaching the sit is improper. In OC the P and R come AFTER the behavior.



Colette said:


> In short - two clear ways to stop unwanted behaviours. Either teach an alternative behaviour to get the desired outcome, or change the desired outcome.


This works sometimes with some dogs. But it does not change the fact that teaching the alternate behavior DOES NOT punish the undesired behavior.



Colette said:


> In neither case do you need to apply P+ and / or aversives.


I'll disagree but let's get this detail settled before moving on.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

:thumbdown:

endless argument, even with highly-reputable refutation. 
have a nice life, guys. 

ta, 
- t


----------



## Colette (Jan 2, 2010)

Lou - fair point. In OC terms, punishment comes after the behaviour, so you are indeed correct that teaching an alternative behaviour does not "punish" the unwanted behaviour.

But it DOES diminish / prevent / stop the unwanted behaviour - so what is the big deal?

Owners want to stop unwanted behaviours - most don't care too much about the technical terminolgy involved, so long as they get the results they want.

I can stop a dog from jumping up AND teach him a suitable alternative, without using punishment. So why on earth would I choose to punish him unnecessarily?

*Politely raises hand*

*Grandad* I have one question....

What exactly was the purpose of this thread?

Unless there was a page I've missed somewhere you have given no explanation for why you posted this link, your personal views on it, or what you hoped to achieve starting this thread.

Could you please fill me in?

Thanks


----------



## arlow (Apr 20, 2011)

LeashedforLife wrote:


> when the dog in play bites too hard - they end the game, or freeze with a hard-look at their playmate, or air-snap, or yelp & turn away, or... ending the game or halting play for a moment is positive [added] punishment [reduce the unwanted behavior]


To which Lou responded:


Lou Castle said:


> *This is an example of P NOT +P as you allege. *You've REMOVING (hence the minus) the handler's attention from the situation. That will tend to make the biting NOT repeat. (hence the P)..


But Lou, in that thread on aversives (since removed) LFL got it right. In fact, she used pretty much the same example as a definition of -P



> neg-P: negative = Deduct; punish = decrease the prior behavior.
> the dog jumps-up, i leave the room; the dog grabs my sleeve while playing tug, the game stops.


And this gets to Colette's question about spending time on defining terms. How can we have a meaningful discussion if people are using a term to mean one thing one time and then the exact opposite another?


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

leashedForLife said:


> endless argument, even with highly-reputable refutation.


Having _"highly refutable refutation"_ is often a good thing. That is unless they get a key point wrong. You seem to be one of the highest regarded trainers on this list. BUT EVEN YOU can make a mistake. You did, and you got caught.

You wrote,


> when the dog in play bites too hard - they end the game, or freeze with a hard-look at their playmate, or air-snap, or yelp & turn away, or... *ending the game* or *halting play for a moment* is positive [added] punishment [reduce the unwanted behavior]


You're wrong, Ending the game ... is NOT positive punishment. It's negative punishment. The handler's attention is *removed *from the situation, making it *negative, *NOT positive. Again, not something that is open for discussion. You're just plain ol' wrong. The failure of l4l and RobD to admit it is a disservice to every pet owner on this forum.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

Colette said:


> Lou - fair point. In OC terms, punishment comes after the behaviour, so you are indeed correct that teaching an alternative behaviour does not "punish" the unwanted behaviour.


Thank you. Now if only RobD would make the same admission instead of maintaining that he got it right. l4l should make the same admission about her description of something that was clearly P as +P.



Colette said:


> But it DOES diminish / prevent / stop the unwanted behaviour - so what is the big deal?


The big deal is that we were discussing this under the terms of OC. RobD wants everyone to believe that he knows and understands the concepts but he made the statement that reinforcing one behavior punishes all others. He's wrong but won't admit it.

And one more thing. Your statement is not accurate. It would be if you had said *for many dogs * _"... it DOES diminish / prevent / stop the unwanted behaviour."_ I know from personal experience and the experience of many of my clients that it does not stop this behavior for all dogs.



Colette said:


> Owners want to stop unwanted behaviours - most don't care too much about the technical terminolgy involved, so long as they get the results they want.


I agree. I didn't start the discussion of about OC, I think that l4l did. But once it started a couple of people jumped in. I realize that most of the people reading this are probably pet owners who don't need to know the details of it, but if we're going to discuss it, it should be done with accuracy. RobD's and l4l's statements were simply wrong. I corrected and he escalated into the part of the discussion that we're in now. He could end it, by simply admitting his error, but he has not. l4l has not responded at all. I believe she has me on ignore, and here's one of the problems with that. Her error goes uncorrected. I hope she doesn't say it again and confuse people. I hope that she doesnt think that she got it right. That would show a huge misunderstanding of a very basic concept.



Colette said:


> I can stop a dog from jumping up AND teach him a suitable alternative, without using punishment. So why on earth would I choose to punish him unnecessarily?


I'll disagree. If you will tell us in−detail exactly how you stop jumping up I'll show you where the punishment is.


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

Sorry but LC's stubborness in face of reason, is stupid and silly - Simple Obvious Mathematical Proof (2 mins work)

We have endured statement like "punishment is required to cease behaviours" when Operant Conditioning included "extinction" as rightly pointed out. A denial that R+ works and can extinguish undesirable behaviours without punishment.

So now LC & SB were wrong because punishment (P+ or P-) are not required, ironically by LC pointing out stricter definitions for Operant Conditioning which then include 'extinction'. They cannot have it both ways.

The repeated statement about simultaneous diminishment of alternatives and reinforcement is right, it's just a small semantic change.

As someone pointed out, apart from theorists it is totally moot whether, a desired behaviour is reinforced, and alternative behaviours become less likely due to extinction, or whether a P- action in fact occurs to "set up to succeed"; the effect is the same.

Further dissembly, sophistry and obfuscation, IMO ought be referred to the moderators, surely a forum is meant for informatin sharing, not be a soapbox platform for circulation of disinformation that has animal welfare implicatins.

As lFL said "have a nice life, guys" but do tell me where & when, if you plan to work in Wales 

Examining Operant conditioning - Wikipedia giving more precise definitions, shows the role of extinction, meaning no punishment is required of unreinforced behaviours. I do thank him for his review, and thus improvement of my "Simple Proof", it is by accepting and responding to criticism that one learns and accepting information and ideas from all sources, evaluating them is part of being objective.


----------



## CarolineH (Aug 4, 2009)

Have to agree Rob. The constant nitpicking by LC doesn't exactly add anything constructive to any of the threads and is indeed, rather tedious.


----------



## grandad (Apr 14, 2011)

CarolineH said:


> Have to agree Rob. The constant nitpicking by LC doesn't exactly add anything constructive to any of the threads and is indeed, rather tedious.


I disagree, I'm finding it quite constructive. I'm starting to beleive that the arguments put forward by peeps about R+ aren't really evidencial and they are in fact getting some stuff incorrect and by association misintepreting their knowledge to other people, which I find disturbing for a forum that has posters seeking advice and people giving back that advice.
I am quite agreeable to people sharing their life experiences and their knowledge toward a particular problem if qualified to do so. But what this thread has shown is rhe different interpretions on varying language, training style, thought processes and the theory applied to dog training. There has laso been some admissions regarding the use of aversives, even in a mild form.
If the people who supposedly know are confused then how does that translate to the doggy owner and their subsequent attempts at trying to solve an issue with their dog. Are they doing it correctly 9 as people would have them believe) or are they making matters worse?


----------



## Colette (Jan 2, 2010)

Lou:



> I'll disagree. If you will tell us in−detail exactly how you stop jumping up I'll show you where the punishment is.


Clearly I am missing something - we've just been through this.

Teaching an alternative, incompatible behaviour will reduce and then stop the unwanted behaviour. In this case, teaching the dog to sit to greet, in order to get the desired outcome of attention and face contact, will stop jumping up "in many dogs" (happy now?).

YOU were the one that pointed out that the jumping up is not "punished" by this method, because punishment must by definition occur after the behaviour.

In many cases, teaching a sound sit-to-greet will eliminate jumping up. When this is not the case, I have already stated I would use P- as well (in conjunction with teaching the alternative, not as a stand-alone method) in the form of removing attention / face contact when the dog jumps up.

Indeed I missed a word out in my previous post. It should have read "why would I choose to positively punish unnecessarily?"
The point I was trying to make was that it is not necessary to use applied positive punishment, i.e. adding an aversive. I do not need to give a collar correction of any description, push the dog, treat on his toes, knee him in the ribs, yell or aply any other aversive consequence - save the removal of the desired reward.

Removal of reward is all the punishment that is necessary, and even then not in every case as many dogs will cease jumping up when taught to sit instead.

Grandad:

That's a lovely one sided viewpoint you've reached there...

Indeed there have been cases where some R+ advocates have used the wrong terminology (which may well have been genuine typing error as opposed to lack of understanding). There have also been cases of the finer points of certain definitions not necessarily being realised / adhered to - such as in OC terms punishment and reward occur after the behaviour. (as in my latest discussion with Lou).

That said, I have seen plenty of evidence of P+ / R- folk getting their facts wrong too - the very trainer this thread is about for a start. A great many P+ / R- trainers advocate dominance / pack theory - which came into existence as a result of one study carried out on wolves (not dogs!) and which has since been disproven, even refuted by the original person respsonsible for it.

How many times do certain trainers mention all the usual nonsense about a strict linear hierarchy led by an alpha? 
You get all the usual crap like "pack leaders always eat first". Nope - this is true of neither domestic dogs nor wolves. "Pack leaders always walk in front". Not true for either.... can you imagine how a wolf pack would hunt succesfully if they had to remain in line!! "Pack leader always has the highest resting position" Simply laughable. etc etc ad infinitum.
These are easily disputed by watching any documentary on wolves, or any domestic dogs, whether dingle dogs in families or groups of dogs. Yet the theory is still pushed as being "fact".

Then when it comes to training methods, you get the usual assertions that training with R+ only works on some dogs / some breed / for some exercises. This includes claims like you need to use harsh tactics on "hard" dopgs, or those with particular behaviour problems, or for high level training and work. The very idea is ludicrous - are these people seriously suggesting that this basic, fundamental method of learning that applies to every species capable of learning doesn't work in these cases? That these dogs somehow defy learning theory that has enabled the training, and in natural terms, the survival of every animal species?

As for why it matters - I do see your point, but realistically, most dog owners - including those asking advice here on the forum - simply want to know how to teach desired behaviours and stop unwanted behaviours, with minimal risks and causing minimal harm in the process.

So my describing teaching an incompatible behaviour as punishing the unwanted behaviour (incorrectly I admit), is somewhat beside the point for the average dog owner. The behaviour is not punished in the technical definition of the word but the result is the same - the dog ceases to jump up.

You jump to the conclusion that because some of the finer points of the technical terminology have been misapplied, the folk in question may have it all wrong. That they may be unable to give sound advice? etc.

Yet trainers like those in the link you posted to start this thread are not simply getting their technical definitions slightly out, they are supplying false information on a massive scale. They use grossly inaccurate theories in order to support methods that are morally questionable. Hell, if you are going to advocate relying heavily on pain and fear to train dogs you should at least have a sound basis for doing so - and they don't. They fall back on theories debunked decades ago, which have no evidence to back them up, and in spite of extensive evidence to the contrary.

And please, any chance you could answer my question about the purpose of this thread?


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

@Collette, I had considered CarolineH a touch harsh on grandad, for starting this thread. But following the rational explanations made it's clear grandad knows his mind, so will discount incovenient evidence..

Cold hard Mathematics is ignored, instead of retractions and admission of error, we have an attempt to deflect attention.


grandad said:


> the people who supposedly know are confused then how does that translate to the doggy owner and their subsequent attempts at trying to solve an issue with their dog


Again the KC, Parliament, Guide Dogs for the Blind, Behavioural Research, Zoos training difficult & dangerous animals, top performers in dog sports.

LC & SB's key arguments of last week are mathematically refuted, proving tripod's past explanation of learning theory

Rational ppl would draw the obvious conclusion, that someone has been consistently telling the truth and know what they are talking about due to study and practice, and that those "denialists" are not objective.

Even the tactic, to portray reward based trainers as isolated was predicted. A clear case of motivated reasoning and lack of objectivity.

Once again, LC & SB do not understand the implications of the learning theory quadrant and are misleading ppl deliberately by sticking to the distortions, in the face of rational explanation - A Simple Proof of the simultaneous action of a reward both positively-reinforcing one behaviour & therefore neagatively-punishing alternatives is linked above.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

RobD-BCactive said:


> Sorry but LC's stubborness in face of reason, is stupid and silly - Simple Obvious Mathematical Proof (2 mins work)


It's this bit of fantasy that is _"stupid and silly."_ It's flawed on it's face.



RobD-BCactive said:


> Further dissembly, sophistry and obfuscation, IMO ought be referred to the moderators, surely a forum is meant for informatin sharing, not be a soapbox platform for circulation of disinformation that has animal welfare implicatins.


I agree but I don't think that the moderators should ban you. Diminishing a behavior is NOT THE SAME as punishing it.



RobD-BCactive said:


> As lFL said "have a nice life, guys" but do tell me where & when, if you plan to work in Wales


I've not been to Wales but I have been to the UK. It was back in 2002, in Manchester at Huddersfield University. I judged a SAR seminar and put on an Ecollar workshop. I taught a woman to recall using the distraction of a 100£ note with an Ecollar. It was a great trip. Beautiful country with a rich history.

Upcoming seminars are announced on my website.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

CarolineH said:


> Have to agree Rob. The constant nitpicking by LC doesn't exactly add anything constructive to any of the threads and is indeed, rather tedious.


I'd call it "pedantic" rather than nitpicking. Lol. But when discussing scientific terms *precision is necessary. *


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

grandad said:


> I disagree, I'm finding it quite constructive. I'm starting to beleive that the arguments put forward by peeps about R+ aren't really evidencial and they are in fact getting some stuff incorrect and by association misintepreting their knowledge to other people, which I find disturbing for a forum that has posters seeking advice and people giving back that advice.


Thanks grandad. You are correct. RobD just refreshed a discussion that was a couple of months old and brought it to my attention. That discussion was specifically about OC and has MUCH misinformation on the topic that was put forth by people who have misinterpreted it.



grandad said:


> I am quite agreeable to people sharing their life experiences and their knowledge toward a particular problem if qualified to do so. But what this thread has shown is rhe different interpretions on varying language, training style, thought processes and the theory applied to dog training. There has laso been some admissions regarding the use of aversives, even in a mild form.


It's tragic when people want their opponents in discussions banned from a forum. It limits learning. It's also a symptom of a far greater problem than just the misunderstandings we're seeing in this discussion of OC. It's tantamount to book burning!



grandad said:


> If the people who supposedly know are confused then how does that translate to the doggy owner and their subsequent attempts at trying to solve an issue with their dog. Are they doing it correctly 9 as people would have them believe) or are they making matters worse?


It's probably not a huge issue. One doesn't have to know anything about OC to train a dog. In fact if one has the right book, one doesn't have to know anything about training a dog (with limits of course) to do so. One simply goes from step 1 to step 2, etc. Good instructions will tell what to do if issues arise.

That's the intent behind the articles on "how to train your dog" that I've written.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

Colette said:


> Teaching an alternative, incompatible behaviour will reduce and then stop the unwanted behaviour. In this case, teaching the dog to sit to greet, in order to get the desired outcome of attention and face contact, will stop jumping up "in many dogs" (happy now?).


Almost. Teaching this MAY _"reduce and then stop the unwanted behavior."_ Now I'm ecstatic! lol.



Colette said:


> In many cases, teaching a sound sit-to-greet will eliminate jumping up. When this is not the case, I have already stated I would use P- as well (in conjunction with teaching the alternative, not as a stand-alone method) in the form of removing attention / face contact when the dog jumps up.
> 
> Indeed I missed a word out in my previous post. It should have read "why would I choose to positively punish unnecessarily?"


I agree you left out this word. Doing so made it look as if you thought you could teach something without using punishment. Since this is impossible I wrote


> I'll disagree. If you will tell us in−detail exactly how you stop jumping up I'll show you where the punishment is.


Now that you've added that word. I'm ecstatic again. lol



Colette said:


> The point I was trying to make was that it is not necessary to use applied positive punishment, i.e. adding an aversive. I do not need to give a collar correction of any description, push the dog, treat on his toes, knee him in the ribs, yell or aply any other aversive consequence - save the removal of the desired reward.


OK. Except that all the things that you mention can be done lightly, with minimal discomfort applied to the dog and that will clearly communicate that jumping up is NOT a good thing. If you do this IN ADDITION to teaching the incompatible behavior it will be clearer to the dog. The _"collar correction"_ can be a very light one. The _"push"_ can be very gentle. The _"toes"_ can just be touched. The _"knee"_ can be a gentle push that put him off balance. The _"yell"_ can be a soft "ah−ah." I see no need to make any of them harsh as you have described, applying them softly will have the desired effect.



Colette said:


> Removal of reward is all the punishment that is necessary, and even then not in every case as many dogs will cease jumping up when taught to sit instead.





Colette said:


> Grandad:
> 
> That's a lovely one sided viewpoint you've reached there...


I hardly think that it's _"one sided."_ I think it shows an open mind. Anyone engaging in a discussion of the science of OC who says that teaching one behavior "punishes" another is wrong. Diminishment is not punishment.



Colette said:


> Indeed there have been cases where some R+ advocates have used the wrong terminology (which may well have been genuine typing error as opposed to lack of understanding).


While there may have been some typos saying that "teaching a sit punishes jumping up" is not such an error. Quite a few years ago I wrote an article and it was pointed out to me that I'd used the word "negative" when I should have said "positive." I immediately admitted my error and changed the article. RobD could do that but he won't. He's gotten his ego involved and won't admit his error. Instead he keeps talking about _"implications."_ BTW earlier l4l wrote _"ending the game or halting play for a moment is positive punishment ..."_ It's not, it's P. So it's not just RobD.



Colette said:


> There have also been cases of the finer points of certain definitions not necessarily being realised / adhered to - such as in OC terms punishment and reward occur after the behaviour. (as in my latest discussion with Lou).


Discussing science calls for precision.



Colette said:


> That said, I have seen plenty of evidence of P+ / R- folk getting their facts wrong too 


No idea what _"P+ / R- folk"_ means. I use all four quadrants of OC and you do too.



Colette said:


> the very trainer this thread is about for a start. A great many P+ / R- trainers advocate dominance / pack theory - which came into existence as a result of one study carried out on wolves (not dogs!) and which has since been disproven, even refuted by the original person respsonsible for it.


I don't think that pack theory _ "came into existence ... of one study carried out on wolves."_ My development of it came from thousands of hours of watching interactions between dogs. When I got started in dogs I went to the zoo, sat in front of the enclosures with wild canids in them and watched and taped them. Then I watched the tapes over and over. In every one of those interactions dominance and submission are being communicated back and forth dozens of times long before the dogs have come together. They start as soon as the dogs lay eye on each other.

Some of what came from that study is nonsense but there are some valid points too. What has been soundly dismissed is that physical combat is how dogs (or wolves) establish their hierarchy. It's much more subtle than that and true combat is rarely necessary.



Colette said:


> How many times do certain trainers mention all the usual nonsense about a strict linear hierarchy led by an alpha?


I don't know. I know that I've not made such an assertion here. Who has made such a statement?



Colette said:


> You get all the usual crap like "pack leaders always eat first". Nope - this is true of neither domestic dogs nor wolves. "Pack leaders always walk in front". Not true for either.... can you imagine how a wolf pack would hunt succesfully if they had to remain in line!! "Pack leader always has the highest resting position" Simply laughable. etc etc ad infinitum.


Who has said these things?



Colette said:


> These are easily disputed by watching any documentary on wolves, or any domestic dogs, whether dingle dogs in families or groups of dogs. Yet the theory is still pushed as being "fact".


I think you're mistaken.



Colette said:


> Then when it comes to training methods, you get the usual assertions that training with R+ only works on some dogs / some breed / for some exercises. This includes claims like you need to use harsh tactics on "hard" dopgs, or those with particular behaviour problems, or for high level training and work. The very idea is ludicrous - are these people seriously suggesting that this basic, fundamental method of learning that applies to every species capable of learning doesn't work in these cases? That these dogs somehow defy learning theory that has enabled the training, and in natural terms, the survival of every animal species?


I think you're misstating what's been said. I've said that these methods don't work on all dogs for all things but I've not mentioned breeds at all. I've not seen any mention made of "hard dogs." In previous discussion I've mentioned that sometimes the problem is that the owner is simply not capable of properly applying the method correctly, but that's not what you're speaking of.



Colette said:


> As for why it matters - I do see your point, but realistically, most dog owners - including those asking advice here on the forum - simply want to know how to teach desired behaviours and stop unwanted behaviours, with minimal risks and causing minimal harm in the process.


I agree, but this discussion has turned to the science of OC. There, it's improper to say that teaching or reinforcing one behavior punishes another.



Colette said:


> So my describing teaching an incompatible behaviour as punishing the unwanted behaviour (incorrectly I admit), is somewhat beside the point for the average dog owner. The behaviour is not punished in the technical definition of the word but the result is the same - the dog ceases to jump up.


If we were not engaging in a discussion of the science of OC I might not have contradicted such a statement. But it's clear that WE ARE discussing the science of OC. IN fact a couple of people have diagrammed the four quadrants, including giving the technical definitions of punishment and reinforcement, and describing what positive and negative mean in this context. And in such a scientific discussion it's improper to say that reinforcing one behavior punishes another.

If one were to say "Reinforcing the sit has the effect of stopping the jumping behavior" I'd be fine with it. But it's wrong to say that "it punishes jumping." OC is hard enough for the average pet owner (whatever that means) to understand without people using the terms improperly.



Colette said:


> You jump to the conclusion that because some of the finer points of the technical terminology have been misapplied, the folk in question may have it all wrong. That they may be unable to give sound advice? etc.


They're sure not giving sound advice about OC!



Colette said:


> Yet trainers like those in the link you posted to start this thread are not simply getting their technical definitions slightly out, they are supplying false information on a massive scale.


Trying to stuff trainers into one box because they use the same tools is a mistake. We're all different. Using the guilt−by−association argument is logically flawed.



Colette said:


> They use grossly inaccurate theories in order to support methods that are morally questionable. Hell, if you are going to advocate relying heavily on pain and fear to train dogs you should at least have a sound basis for doing so - and they don't.


I haven't seen anyone _"relying heavily on pain and fear to train dogs."_ Can you show us an example of this?



Colette said:


> They fall back on theories debunked decades ago, which have no evidence to back them up, and in spite of extensive evidence to the contrary.


I also haven't seen this. Can you show us?


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

RobD-BCactive said:


> @Collette, I had considered CarolineH a touch harsh on grandad, for starting this thread. But following the rational explanations made it's clear grandad knows his mind, so will discount incovenient evidence..


Didn't you say that you were leaving the thread or did I misunderstand? What else could it mean when you wrote, _"As lFL said "have a nice life, guys" but do tell me where & when, if you plan to work in Wales"_

It seems that grandad has already discounted the statement you made that reinforcing the sit punishes jumping up. That's not only _"inconvenient"_ it's not true in a discussion about OC.



RobD-BCactive said:


> Cold hard Mathematics is ignored, instead of retractions and admission of error, we have an attempt to deflect attention.


Are you referring to your heavily flawed _"proof"_ as _"[c]old Hard Mathematics?"_



RobD-BCactive said:


> LC & SB's key arguments of last week are mathematically refuted, proving tripod's past explanation of learning theory


I think you are. ROFL. You math is even more flawed that your argument about reinforcing one behavior punishing another.



RobD-BCactive said:


> Rational ppl would draw the obvious conclusion, that someone has been consistently telling the truth and know what they are talking about due to study and practice, and that those "denialists" are not objective.


The facts are still simple. In OC ALL of the quadrants and extinction come AFTER the behavior, making your statement that reinforcing a sit punishes jumping up OBVIOUSLY WRONG. YOU are the _"denialist."_



RobD-BCactive said:


> Even the tactic, to portray reward based trainers as isolated was predicted. A clear case of motivated reasoning and lack of objectivity.


Who tried _"to portray reward based trainers as isolated?"_ Can you show us those statements?



RobD-BCactive said:


> Once again, LC & SB do not understand the implications of the learning theory quadrant and are misleading ppl deliberately by sticking to the distortions, in the face of rational explanation


Nope sorry, Still you. Your imprecise writing has brought you to this point.



RobD-BCactive said:


> A Simple Proof of the simultaneous action of a reward both positively-reinforcing one behaviour & therefore neagatively-punishing alternatives is linked above.


It's as flawed as your statement that in OC reinforcing one behavior punishes another.


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

I acknowledge an error according to precise definition of Operant Conditioning, but it is one of semantics depending on detailed definitions only, as noted increasing & diminishing behaviors is a more useful concept in practice.

I note your sides falsehoods :

1) Rewards based training doesn't work by Skinner's Learning Theory
2) Rewards based training cannot extinguish undesirable behaviour
3) Rewards based training relies on punishment

Have not been acknowledged, as a courtesy, I'll provide links to the precisions of definition. However what strikes me, is the overall thrust of argument is unaffected.



RobD-BCactive said:


> What strikes me in your broken up posts, if your failure to understand the implications of the learning theory quadrant.
> 
> You show you do not understand that :
> 
> ...





RobD-BCactive said:


> You cannot expect everyone to waste time on drivel, like "you must punish", when that very quadrant you claim to understand shows, that R+ a behaviour implicitly diminishes alternative behaviours; therefore disciplinary corrections are uncessary. [ note: Operant Conditioning includes "extinction" which means an unreinforced alternate behaviour naturally diminishes without it being punished ]
> 
> You have had it clearly pointed out that P- is not "Punishment" in English sense, and similarly nor is P+ interchangeable with "Punishment".





RobD-BCactive said:


> Sorry but LC's stubborness in face of reason, is stupid and silly - Simple Mathematical Proof (5 mins work)
> 
> We have endured statement like "punishment is required to cease behaviours" when Operant Conditioning included "extinction" as rightly pointed out. A denial that R+ works and can extinguish undesirable behaviours without punishment.
> 
> ...


I fully expect Lou to go on arguing black is white, in minute pedantic detail, and Sleepy to claim "everything's a scam" but it doesn't change the fundamental truth.

*Rewards based training works, it can extinguish undesirable behaviour like puppy nipping without punishment, though P- (withdrawing something to set up for success) may speed the process.* It results in well behaved, happy and very obedient calm dogs, which make ideal & devoted pets giving their owners much pleasure.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

RobD-BCactive said:


> I acknowledge an error according to precise definition of Operant Conditioning, but it is one of semantics depending on detailed definitions only, as noted increasing & diminishing behaviors is a more useful concept in practice.


Thanks RobD, even though your admission that you made an error is qualified, I'll take it.



RobD-BCactive said:


> I note your sides falsehoods :


I don't have a side. You are trying the guilt−by−association argument but it's a logical fallacy. There are a few of us who use the same tools but that hardly means that we all share the same opinions about dog training in general.



RobD-BCactive said:


> 1) Rewards based training doesn't work by Skinner's Learning Theory
> 2) Rewards based training cannot extinguish undesirable behaviour
> 3) Rewards based training relies on punishment


I have said that I don't accept your definition of the term "rewards based training." I think it's a marketing term. Like everyone, you use all four phases of OC. I probably use +R just as often as any of you folks do.

Please show me some place that I've said any of these things. In fact you conveniently overlook the fact that repeatedly I use the same methods that most of you folks favor. I just realize that they're not good for some things and some dogs.



RobD-BCactive said:


> However what strikes me, is the overall thrust of argument is unaffected.


I'll disagree. For quite some time we've been discussing Operant Conditioning. You made a statement about that science that you have now admitted was wrong. I've already said that it makes no difference to the training but IT DOES make a difference to those who want to understand the science. And in another thread that was SPECIFICALLY about the science of OC you made the same (incorrect) statement.



RobD-BCactive said:


> I fully expect Lou to go on arguing black is white, in minute pedantic detail, and Sleepy to claim "everything's a scam"


I've never argued that _"black is white"_ and this is a complete mischaracterization of our discussion. You've already admitted that you were technically wrong and in a technical discussion that's vital.



RobD-BCactive said:


> but it doesn't change the fundamental truth.*Rewards based training works, it can extinguish undesirable behaviour like puppy nipping without punishment, though P- (withdrawing something to set up for success) may speed the process.* It results in well behaved, happy and very obedient calm dogs, which make ideal & devoted pets giving their owners much pleasure.


I don't accept your use of the term _"rewards based training."_ I'd say that my work is rewards based but I doubt that you'd agree, based on the tools that I choose. I prefer to say, _"your methods."_ so with that amendment we have you saying. _"your methods work"_

Fact is they do not work on every dog for all things. And even if they did, not every owner is capable of applying them properly.



RobD-BCactive said:


> it can extinguish undesirable behaviour like puppy nipping without punishment


Tell us in detail how you stop a puppy from nipping and I'll show you where the punishment. Some punishment, in some form is always in the mix. Remember how many times you've written that if one behavior is reinforced, another is punished? It's not accurate in the terms of OC but it is accurate in the general terms of training, as I've said several times now.



RobD-BCactive said:


> though P- (withdrawing something to set up for success) may speed the process.[/b] It results in well behaved, happy and very obedient calm dogs, which make ideal & devoted pets giving their owners much pleasure.


When you balance the training the results are always better. My results are the same, "well behaved, happy and very obedience calm dogs which make idea & devoted pets giving their owners much pleasure."


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

Lou Castle said:


> There are a few of us who use the same tools but that hardly means that we all share the same opinions about dog training in general.


Rather hollow to those who remember the general flow and claims in what you have posted! Who you came here to bolster, and what you have failed to denounce despite "strict protocols on your website".

Simply :

Disown the falsehoods, rather than use weasel words.

Disown Adam Palmers "shock collar for every puppy philosophy, for the most mundane of behaviours".

Recant your errors and retract those posts that were meant to intimidate.

Point out the errors in those other shock collar posters, rather than acting partisan.

Choosing the puppy nipping example is a rather obvious & shabby trap, as the real aim is bite inhibition at first and soft mouthing via a yelp, to regulate the bite strength which you will claim is "punisher", but actually doesn't deter gentle mouthing only overly hard nipping. You do not want to stop it, and you can simply redirect that play onto desired toys and witness extinction. The worst thing to do, is actually effectively punish the nipping!


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

Earlier I wrote,


> There are a few of us who use the same tools but that hardly means that we all share the same opinions about dog training in general.





RobD-BCactive said:


> Rather hollow to those who remember the general flow and claims in what you have posted!


No idea what you're talking about.



RobD-BCactive said:


> Who you came here to bolster


I came here because there was an interesting Ecollar discussion going on, not to "bolster" anyone. I do it lots. Often there is no one defending Ecollars and I'll show up and do the same sort of thing that I've done here, dispel myths that are being posted and correct errors and generally educate those who need it or those who are interested. Your opinion that I came here to bolster someone is just an assumption on your part. And a wrong one at that.



RobD-BCactive said:


> and what you have failed to denounce despite "strict protocols on your website".


I don't require that other Ecollars trainers (or trainers of any kind) agree with me. There are many ways to train a dog, some more effective than others. As to _"denounce[ing]"_ l4l has been flat out wrong in a couple of discussions, including this one. I didn't notice you _"denouncing"_ her. Pot, kettle, black.



RobD-BCactive said:


> Simply :
> 
> Disown the falsehoods, rather than use weasel words.


Again, no idea what you're talking about. If you're referring to something specific, please provide the posts and a link so that the entire post can be found.



RobD-BCactive said:


> Disown Adam Palmers "shock collar for every puppy philosophy, for the most mundane of behaviours".


I don't recall reading this and since some of you folks like to quote out of context, and you've not referred me to the posts I have no intention of disowning anything.



RobD-BCactive said:


> Recant your errors and retract those posts that were meant to intimidate.


Again, show us the posts where I erred. I've never meant to intimidate and so there's nothing there to recant.



RobD-BCactive said:


> Point out the errors in those other shock collar posters, rather than acting partisan.


Show me those errors and I might. But remember that l4l has made several errors in this thread which is still going on and neither you nor anyone else has _"Point[ed] them out."_ AGAIN pot, kettle, black. Wondering why the standard is different for me?



RobD-BCactive said:


> Choosing the puppy nipping example is a rather obvious & shabby trap


YOU are the one who claimed _"it can extinguish undesirable behaviour like puppy nipping without punishment"_ How did I set a _"trap?"_



RobD-BCactive said:


> as the real aim is bite inhibition at first and soft mouthing *via a yelp, *to regulate the bite strength which you will claim is "punisher" [Emphasis Added]


There ya go. I didn't even need to show where the +P was, you did it for me. I wonder, did you figure it out after my challenge to show me how you trained this or did you know it all along? If the latter, why bother even making the claim. Why do you keep making this claim only to have it shot down?



RobD-BCactive said:


> but actually doesn't deter gentle mouthing only overly hard nipping.


Remember that we're talking about OC here and since you've added the _"yelp"_ to the situation that's "+". Since it tends to make the _"overly hard nipping"_ stop it's punishment. Clearly you've used +P (positive punishment) in this training.



RobD-BCactive said:


> The worst thing to do, is actually effectively punish the nipping!


Despite this claim (which I don't agree with) that's EXACTLY what you've done.


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

Lou Castle said:


> Often there is no one defending Ecollars and I'll show up and do the same sort of thing that I've done here, dispel myths that are being posted and correct errors and generally educate those who need it or those who are interested. Your opinion that I came here to bolster someone is just an assumption on your part


You came to "defend" Shock Collars, in a discussion where Adam Palmer had made errors about what counter conditioning was, posted video clips of puppies being shocked and had made ludicrious statements like "Agility is trained in a low distraction environment". Adam Palmer had lost whatever credibility he had.

You did that by simply going on offensive, counter attacking in detail almost every rational post, burying the previous discussion in such an inflammatory and persisten way, the whole thread was withdrawn by the moderators, despite it having many hours of rebuttal resources and information.

What you *did not do* was review the differences between your approach and that of the previous shock advocate. On other hand, some here, try to seek the truth and do point out or query things, that may not be 100% solid by like minded posters, as they're sharing information, rather than obfuscating and disinforming.

In effect you were bolstering that person's position in the argument, and not to admit that's the effect of defending shock collars is splitting hairs. Again that's just dissembling by finesse. There's posts where you show implausible amnesia, you really don't remember the first thread you posted in here, despite coming here as you say for the very purpose to fight Shock collars corner, not many people will belive you!

When informed about the criminal nature of the tools you advocate in part of our country, you say something along the lines "Wales is too unimportant to be worth considering", simply discounting the place. This is extremely offensive, especially to those who actually live their or have relations there; so you tacitly support and advocate criminal acts by promoting shock collars to casual readers who likely "I just want to stop him X", without any regard to precautions despite noting them on your website.

You were informed of that, and chose to ignore it. So effectively you just came in as an anti-anti-shock collar rather than engaging in honest rational debate of a measured kind.

This is very bad for a forum and the intimdatory nature, where you threaten to keep promoting shock collars is an attempt to silence the voice of majority opinion. Is *ought not be allowed by the moderators*. Furthermore the constant intteruption and hijacking of threads by shock collar advocates, effectively stymies, rational discussion of topics by the positive focussed dog trainers, professional trainers & behaviourists, so we learn much less and the aggressive "defense" poisons the whole forum.

The "Rewards based" term is used in parliamentary reports, as the best "working" description of a kind that Dunbar calls "Positive training" but permits practices Dunbar likely would not advise, so is more inclusive. "Balanced training" used by you, however seems to have little but marketing behind it at present, so I find it hypocritical and petty to use one and disrespect the other; some would have impression it's because you like correcting and punishing (backed by your "good thing about Ecollar there's no shortage of opportunities to correct" statement.

[ Bite inhibition - yelp doesn't stop the nipping by adminstering "punishment" to deter, it teaches gentler very controlled mouth/nipping by the withdrawal of play for short interval by the pup in an alarmed response to the signal. Distraction onto appropriate target and management of the pup's excitement is what actually leads to cessation of nipping behaviour, by first diminishing and then eradication via extinction not punishment in the preffered rewards based scenario (and that does work).

If you choose to define the behaviours differently you can make a case for P- or P+, which just shows the worthlessness of the constant harping on about Skinner's Learning Theory and need for punishment which has been engaged in.]


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

RobD-BCactive said:


> You came to "defend" Shock Collars


Yes I know. You said I came here to bolster Adam Palmer. As I said, _"Your opinion that I came here to bolster someone is just an assumption on your part. And a wrong one at that."_



RobD-BCactive said:


> in a discussion where Adam Palmer had made errors about what counter conditioning was, posted video clips of puppies being shocked and had made ludicrious statements like "Agility is trained in a low distraction environment". Adam Palmer had lost whatever credibility he had.


So what?!. I'm not Adam's daddy. I'm not responsible for what he says any more than you are. If you have a problem with something that he said, talk to him about it. If Adam posted videos you should be able to find them. If you can't it's not my problem. You could find the thread if you wanted to, such information is cached on the Net even though the mods have deleted it. Don't blame me for your inabilities. BTW Agility IS often trained in a low distraction environment as are many things. _"It's hardly a ludicrous statement."_



RobD-BCactive said:


> You did that by simply going on offensive, counter attacking in detail almost every rational post, burying the previous discussion in such an inflammatory and persisten way, the whole thread was withdrawn by the moderators, despite it having many hours of rebuttal resources and information.


You can try to blame the withdrawal of a thread on me all you like but I wasn't alone in any of them. YOU folks are the ones who start the rudeness, the name calling, and the rest of the misbehavior. When you get it back you folks cry "foul." In any case I still have no idea what thread you're talking about.



RobD-BCactive said:


> What you *did not do* was review the differences between your approach and that of the previous shock advocate.


Im sorry that you don't like the way that I write, but that's just too bad. In the same way that I'm not Adam's daddy, you're not mine. In any case, I've posted two articles that describe in detail how I do a couple of things. When you refute l4l's error about OC you might have some room to talk. Until then this sort of talk is an excellent example of the double standard that the antis often have.



RobD-BCactive said:


> On other hand, some here, try to seek the truth and do point out or query things, that may not be 100% solid by like minded posters, as they're sharing information, rather than obfuscating and disinforming.


Many do not. They've already made their minds up about something that they know little about and aren't willing to listen to anyone else the topic unless they agree with them. Some continue to post rudeness and emotive arguments that are devoid of logic. Those folks are NOT interested in sharing information. And THEY ARE obfuscating and misinforming. I've not seen you make any comments against them all the while you're saying that I should be doing so against Adam. How's that double standard working for you?



RobD-BCactive said:


> In effect you were bolstering that person's position in the argument


Thanks for sharing your opinion. I'll disagree.



RobD-BCactive said:


> and not to admit that's the effect of defending shock collars is splitting hairs.


The hairs are split. LOL



RobD-BCactive said:


> Again that's just dissembling by finesse.


You're just looking to find some way back from the error you made in talking about OC. You admitted the error and I let it go. You should let this go. You're not making any sense and I still have no idea what thread or posts you're talking about.



RobD-BCactive said:


> you really don't remember the first thread you posted in here


That's right. I'm on dozens of forums writing hundreds of post every week. I don't remember in detail the content of every one of them.



RobD-BCactive said:


> despite coming here as you say for the very purpose to fight Shock collars corner


This discussion is virtually a cut and paste of previous arguments with anti Ecollar people. You folks have nothing new to say, no new studies to discuss, and spout the same rudeness over and over no matter what forum it's on, no matter who is involved. The only thing that's really new is the venue.



RobD-BCactive said:


> not many people will belive you!


Somehow I'll live. But I think that you're wrong. I write many, many posts and to think that I'd remember the details of everyone of them is just dumb.



RobD-BCactive said:


> When informed about the criminal nature of the tools you advocate in part of our country, you say something along the lines "Wales is too unimportant to be worth considering", simply discounting the place.


Show us the posts. I don't think I've said anything of the kind. I KNOW that I've written this in response to such statements


> A couple of reasons. [for them being banned] One is that they know nothing of modern use of modern versions of the tool. Second, in both cases people with commercial interests saw that their livelihoods would be negatively impacted by the increase in Ecollar sales and use and pressed the legislators in Wales and the UK KC to rule against them. As is often the case in politics, it's a matter of "follow the money."
> 
> I saw a video shot by the antis in Wales where they were having the legislators feel the stim, allegedly at the lowest level. Only problem was this was a lie. In the video it could be clearly seen that the collar was set on a much higher level than "the lowest level."


Perhaps someone has dismissed Wales as "too unimportant ..." but it wasn't me.



RobD-BCactive said:


> This is extremely offensive, especially to those who actually live their or have relations there


Still wasn't me.



RobD-BCactive said:


> so you tacitly support and advocate criminal acts by promoting shock collars to casual readers who likely "I just want to stop him X", without any regard to precautions despite noting them on your website.


Whatever are you talking about? I haven't endorsed criminal acts in reality or tacitly.



RobD-BCactive said:


> You were informed of that, and chose to ignore it. So effectively you just came in as an anti-anti-shock collar rather than engaging in honest rational debate of a measured kind.


The debate wasn't honest or rational before I got here. Rather the antis put out myths and misconceptions and used emotional, rather than logical, arguments.



RobD-BCactive said:


> This is very bad for a forum and the intimdatory nature, where you threaten to keep promoting shock collars is an attempt to silence the voice of majority opinion.


You're not making much sense. The forum reports that there are nearly 79,000 members. Do you really think that one person can silence them? Fact is as long as you folks keep bringing up Ecollars and posting the same old tired arguments against them, and the mods allow me to, I'll set the record straight. It seems that YOU are trying to silence ME! Do you go to the library and burn books that you don't agree with too?



RobD-BCactive said:


> Is *ought not be allowed by the moderators*. Furthermore the constant intteruption and hijacking of threads by shock collar advocates,


Overwhelmingly we don't come into discussions about other things UNTIL AND UNLESS the antis start up with their usual nonsense. Often there's no reason for them to start, they just take gratuitous cheap shots at the tool and method. After that occurs, it's reasonable for us to correct that misinformation.



RobD-BCactive said:


> effectively stymies, rational discussion of topics by the positive focussed dog trainers, professional trainers & behaviourists, so we learn much less and the aggressive "defense" poisons the whole forum.


A couple of posters have already said that they disagree with this opinion. They welcome the opinions that are not from the status quo, as it should be. They've learned that the antis don't have all the answers that they think they do. Might I suggest that if you don't like the way that the moderators run this forum that you start your own where you can silence any opinion that you don't like. Godwin's law is very close now.



RobD-BCactive said:


> The "Rewards based" term is used in parliamentary reports, as the best "working" description of a kind that Dunbar calls "Positive training" but permits practices Dunbar likely would not advise, so is more inclusive. "Balanced training" used by you, however seems to have little but marketing behind it at present


ROFL. If ANYTHING the term "rewards based training" is the marketing claim. It means nothing and is intended to deceive, since you folks still use punishment of many kinds. It's an obvious attempt to get people to believe that you use nothing but rewards. My term, "balanced training" clearly says what we do. We acknowledge that we use both reinforcement and punishment, rather than the obvious attempt to conceal that your term is all about.



RobD-BCactive said:


> so I find it hypocritical and petty to use one and disrespect the other


I find it _"hypocritical and petty"_ that you make this statement, praising your term and denigrating mine.



RobD-BCactive said:


> some would have impression it's because you like correcting and punishing (backed by your "good thing about Ecollar there's no shortage of opportunities to correct" statement.


You've made this allegation before and been asked to show the post wherein I said it. You've not done so. And so we have no reason to believe that I ever said it. Perhaps someone else did or perhaps you've taken it so far out of context that I can't even recognize it. You seem to like to do that. Repeating this nonsense without a link to the post doesnt mean that I said it. It's just another accusation without support.



RobD-BCactive said:


> [ Bite inhibition - yelp doesn't stop the nipping by adminstering "punishment" to deter


Yes, it does. It's added to the situation and it tends to make the nipping stop. That's +P, positive punishment. How many times do we have to go into this?



RobD-BCactive said:


> it teaches gentler very controlled mouth/nipping by the withdrawal of play for short interval by the pup in an alarmed response to the signal.


No it doesn't. What DOES teach this is to reintroduce the play and allow the puppy to nip at gentle levels. As soon as he nips too hard "the yelp" is repeated (+P) and/or the play is withdrawn, (-P). As this is repeated the puppy learns that gentle mouthing is OK but harder biting is not.



RobD-BCactive said:


> Distraction onto appropriate target and management of the pup's excitement is what actually leads to cessation of nipping behaviour, by first diminishing and then eradication via extinction not punishment in the preffered rewards based scenario (and that does work).


It may but it's doubtful. _"Distracting onto [an] appropriate target"_ merely gives the dog SOMETHING NEW to chew on. It doesn't stop him from chewing on the first object. The BEST way to stop this is with balanced training. Punish the puppy for chewing on the wrong object, then substitute the object he should be chewing and praise.



RobD-BCactive said:


> If you choose to define the behaviours differently you can make a case for P- or P+, which just shows the worthlessness of the constant harping on about Skinner's Learning Theory and need for punishment which has been engaged in.]


It's hardly worthless but even if it was I didn't start it. Grandad did with the very first post in the thread. This is just sour grapes because you got caught in an error and even though you've admitted it, you can't let it go.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Lou Castle said:


> Pick a thread and I'd bet that I can show you that it the anti−Ecollar folks
> who have started the personal attacks.


hmmm - didn't U say: 


Lou Castle said:


> We simply make our suggestions and bow out...


 it took U a total of *61 posts* in this one thread - out of *208* replies, 
to 'make suggestions & bow out'? That's more than 1 in 3 posts.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

L4l AGAIN quotes me from another thread,


> We simply make our suggestions and bow out...


The problem is the same as the last time she played the identical game (with the identical quotation) earlier today in another thread. She SOMEHOW manages to quote me out of context. I guess she thinks it makes her appear clever when actually it makes her look dreadful. It's only one step away from lying.

The FULL quotation is this,


> Had you merely promoted this book WITHOUT the repeated attacks on methods used by others, you'd not have attracted this attention. But you seem to be incapable of writing ANYTHING without such attacks. Some may have noticed that *when we give advice * we don't tear down the methods of others. * We simply make our suggestions and bow out, only returning if the usual attacks are presented. * [Emphasis Added]


In this discussion it's obvious that I'm not *giving advice *to someone who has asked for it. It should be just as clear that since the *usual attacks [have been] presented * that I'll return to put the lie to them. Here, as in most threads involving l4l, I'm shooting down nonsense that she (and others) have posted, correcting their numerous errors and misconceptions and putting the lie to many of their statements. Obviously this is not the situation I was discussing when I talking about "bowing out."

When someone asks for help with a training problem, the most common one is that their dog won't recall, I have written MANY TIMES (not on this forum  it just hasn't come up here yet)


> I suggest that you try ALL the other methods suggested here first. If they don't work or take an inordinate amount of time then try my method of teaching the recall. You can read about it here.


Much of the time folks like you will immediately start the usual attacks on the Ecollar. This draws the same responses from me that they always have. But if you folks leave that advice alone, as I've said, _"I bow out."_ But it would appear that you are incapable of doing so!



leashedForLife said:


> it took U a total of *61 posts* in this one thread - out of *208* replies, to 'make suggestions & bow out'? That's more than 1 in 3 posts.


As long as you're talking nonsense about Ecollars, punishment or anything else I feel strongly about I'll be here correcting you for as long as the moderators permit it. And it doesn't seem that they're in any kind of hurry to shut these discussion down.

As to the number of posts I've written that seems to be so important to you ... [SARCASM] I'm deeply sorry that I have too much spare time on my hands. Deepest, deepest apologies and I mean that sincerely. [/SARCASM] I think that if someone spouts nonsense at the rate that some of you folks do, or posts misinformation as often as YOU do that it should be corrected. Don't you think that folks should hear both side of a discussion? Or would you prefer that ONLY YOU have a voice here? Do you realize that I've asked you and a few others about a dozen questions in this discussion that you folks have not answered? Oops, here are a few more that you won't respond to.

Wondering if l4l is going to write a similar post for every thread that I've been involved in? I was hoping for something more challenging than another cut and paste. It's entertaining having l4l count up my posts so she can write silly statements like this one and embarrass herself YET AGAIN. While not as entertaining to me as correcting her numerous errors based on the ignorance of Ecollars and other topics on dog training, it will do that that comes around again.


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

> Had you merely promoted this book WITHOUT the repeated attacks on methods used by others, you'd not have attracted this attention. But you seem to be incapable of writing ANYTHING without such attacks. Some may have noticed that when we give advice we don't tear down the methods of others. We simply make our suggestions and bow out, only returning if the usual attacks are presented


That sounds like an admission of a coordinated strategy by a group to me, given the regular posts on this forum and burying of threads and thought out posts. That effectively supresses the opinions of others. Furthermore it is not true that there has not been promotion of an extreme defamatory viewpoint in many threads, not featuring "attacks on shock collars".

What you do not understand is that it is your opinion, that others who looked into this have very different opinions. Furthermore many ppl have different values from your own, which is reason why legislation was enacted.

Contrary to your stated opinion, I have disagreed with lFL, tripod and others in discussions in threads, and at times also played role of "Devil's Advocate" to some extent. The difference is that such discussion remained civil.

Furthermore, where apparent factual errors are noticed, IME corrections have been swift, or ambiguous wording, or over simplification, all dealt with without rancour and personal abuse.

OTOH by never pointing out errors or things you disagree with, by other shock collar advocates, you implicitly condone, the provocative inflammotory, defamatory and fallacious statements by so called group; who's behaviour amounts in opinion of very many long standing forum regulars amount to harassment. Everybody who reads the forum knows that you'll hammer on any small error, at great length and dissect in great detail every post made by someone who disagrees with passing electric current through pet puppies & dogs.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

RobD-BCactive said:


> That sounds like an admission of a coordinated strategy by a group to me, given the regular posts on this forum and burying of threads and thought out posts.


Ever heard a song by The Buffalo Springfield called "For What it's Worth?"



RobD-BCactive said:


> That effectively supresses the opinions of others.


Tripe. Expressing a differing opinion HARDLY _"suppresses the opinions of others."_



RobD-BCactive said:


> Furthermore it is not true that there has not been promotion of an extreme defamatory viewpoint in many threads, not featuring "attacks on shock collars".


Looks as if I have "a differing opinion." Oops did I just suppress your opinion? lol



RobD-BCactive said:


> What you do not understand is that it is your opinion, that others who looked into this have very different opinions.


More tripe. Of course I realize that others have different opinions. But you're wrong. FEW have _"looked into this"_ at least not with any depth. MOST have formed their opinion based on a rather complete LACK of knowledge of how modern versions of this tool can be used with modern methods. REPEATEDLY you folks, and l4l in particular, cite studies or comments done, sometimes DECADES ago, LONG before modern version of these tools existed or were in use.



RobD-BCactive said:


> Furthermore many ppl have different values from your own, which is reason why legislation was enacted.


I doubt that we have values that are very different. We all despise animal abuse and cruelty. The difference is that you folks, most of whom have never seen proper Ecollar use, IMAGINE that ALL use of the tool is abusive. It's quite odd but NEVER has anyone who has actually seen me work a dog with an Ecollar has ever made such a claim. It happens quite often during a seminar when I'm working a dog in front of many people that someone will ask, "When are you going to start using the collar?" In fact, I'd been using the collar since the first few seconds that I'd been working the dog. But the effects (in reality, not in your imagination) are so difficult (often impossible) to detect, even by skilled observers, that they can't tell that I've been pressing the button from the start.



RobD-BCactive said:


> Contrary to your stated opinion, I have disagreed with lFL, tripod and others in discussions in threads, and at times also played role of "Devil's Advocate" to some extent. The difference is that such discussion remained civil.


I've yet to see such disagreement. In fact when I showed that l4l had gotten a phase of OC completely wrong (citing something as positive when it was in fact negative, you were strangely mute on the subject. Ditto for l4l.



RobD-BCactive said:


> Furthermore, where apparent factual errors are noticed, IME corrections have been swift, or ambiguous wording, or over simplification, all dealt with without rancour and personal abuse.


MORE TRIPE. BOTH you and l4l have not commented on the case just mentioned. And when YOU were caught out it took DAYS and NUMEROUS exchanges before you'd admit it. I did not see ANYONE else talk about your error. L4l certainly did not. OTOH, as soon as I'm shown to be in error (as occurred in another discussion) I admit it immediately.



RobD-BCactive said:


> OTOH by never pointing out errors or things you disagree with, by other shock collar advocates, you implicitly condone, the provocative inflammotory, defamatory and fallacious statements by so called group;


Im hearing the Buffalo Springfield again.



RobD-BCactive said:


> who's behaviour amounts in opinion of very many long standing forum regulars amount to harassment.


"Into your life it will creep"



RobD-BCactive said:


> Everybody who reads the forum knows that you'll hammer on any small error, at great length and dissect in great detail every post made by someone who disagrees with passing electric current through pet puppies & dogs.


Yes, I often do that. It's because you folks come across as so self−righteous and have had the soapbox to yourselves for so long that it's important for the folks to learn that you have feet of clay like the rest of us.

And I do love the consistent reference you make to _"passing electric current through pet puppies & dogs."_ For all practical purposes, the Ecurrent from an Ecollar runs between the two contact points which are only 1 1/4" apart on most brands, smaller on some. It's another of your typical scare tactics. I enjoy showing people how you try to twist the facts to your own ends. Two of the converts to Ecollars from here have told me that it's specifically YOUR continuous disingenuousness that "pushed them to cross the line." Keep it up RobD, you're making new devotees regularly.

BTW, you've made this same *off−topic *point REPEATEDLY in just this one thread. And you've done it before in other threads. Do you ever get tired of arguing about arguing rather than staying on topic?


----------



## forestgump (Jul 23, 2011)

Maybe its all about the Trainer and Not about the Dog!!


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

> RobDactive
> Probably to the common person yes.


Yea well, we humbles bumble along best we can trying to acheive your...er....well I suppose 'greatness' is the word:001_tt1:

Bumbeling along
Multiple Recalls From Chases, Different Species An Emergency & An Aggressive Incident. - YouTube

.


----------



## springerpete (Jun 24, 2010)

Hell Grandad, whatever happened to good old common sense?????????????


----------

