CockersOnline Forum
Cocker Specific Discussion => Behaviour & Training => Topic started by: Top Barks on May 25, 2011, 08:53:03 AM
-
Aversives in Training
Terry's Tips > Aversives in Training
Legacy's classes stress reward-based, dog-friendly training techniques. We hesitate to incorporate aversives in our training because
AN AVERSIVE:
* IS AN INCOMPLETE PROGRAM. It only teaches the dog what NOT to do.
* CAN MAKE BEHAVIOR BASED IN FEAR OR ANGER WORSE. It adds yet another dimension of fright or arousal, compounding the problem.
* CAN CAUSE CONFUSION AND REDUCE TRUST. It's best to earn your dog's respect by consistent leadership and kind training, not by intimidation, force, or physical abuse.
* SUPPRESSES ACTION, NOT INTENT. For example, a dog punished for growling may stop the growling. If growling is inhibited, the next time the dog may skip the warning growl go right into action.
* MIGHT LEAD TO THE WRONG CONCLUSION. If your dog chases the family cat and you punishes her for doing so, does your dog think she’s bad for chasing the cat? She might think you’re angry at her for not running faster and catching the cat!
* NEEDS TO BE CONSISTENT. An aversive should be administered at the FIRST and at EVERY subsequent time the behavior us shown. This is rarely possible in real life! Since you’re apt to miss some of the time, your dog will learn to take his chances and play the lottery.
* MAY NOT GENERALIZE WELL. If you punish your dog for chewing the dining room table leg, she might think "Maybe the dining room chair is OK" or "Maybe the table in the living room is OK."
* MIGHT SHUT THE DOG DOWN. The proper term for this is LEARNED HELPLESSNESS. The dog decides that everything she does is wrong, so she does nothing. Such a dog isn’t learning anything -- except to endure punishment.
* COULD CAUSE THE DOG TO SUBSTITUTE. Many problem behaviors are repetitive actions such as barking, digging, chewing. Such behaviors produce calming chemicals in the dog’s body and therefore reward the dog for the repeated action -- much like rocking a baby settles the child. If you interrupt or stop one repetitive behavior, the dog might simply resort to a substitute behavior.
* REQUIRES PERFECT TIMING. ONCE. To be effective, an aversive needs to be delivered within a range of two seconds after the behavior. The aversive is not having the proper effect if you need to do it more than once or twice. After that, it constitutes abuse.
* NEEDS TO BE INTENSE. If the punishment isn’t strong enough to stop the behavior the first time, the owner typically escalates the punishment next time. The dog develops a "punishment callus". Eventually the level of punishment needed to work will have to be stronger than what you started with.
* MIGHT SEEM LIKE A REWARD. If the owner doesn’t choose the aversive properly, the dog might consider it a reward. Example: "Bad Dog! No!" Dogs like attention. The owner has spoken to him, looked at him, and perhaps got closer and touched him as well.
* MIGHT BECOME OWNER CONTINGENT: If the dog associates the punishment with the owner, the effect (if any) will not carry over to times when the owner is gone.
* SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR HUMAN SATISFACTION: The goal of an aversive is to quickly and permanently change the unwanted behavior. Is that happening or are the humans simply letting out their frustration onto the dog?
The fact is, most people that share their lives with dogs do not want to punish them, however they do want a mannerly dog. There are humane and effective alternatives to punishment.
The above information was taken from the experience of Terry Ryan. Facts and research taken from the works of: M. Breland-Bailey, R. Bailey, B. F. Skinner, K. Pryor, M. Sidman, M. Burch, B. Schwartz & others.
-
Great article thanks for sharing :D
-
Glad someone liked it ;) :005:
-
I completely agree with all those tips in the article. But I don't think you can only use positive reinforcement, you have to use some negative punishment other wise how does the dog learn whats right and wrong. I think the problem with using any aversive is knowing when its appropriate, how much, and timing.
Nice little article :shades:
-
Great article :D Thanks.
-
I completely agree with all those tips in the article. But I don't think you can only use positive reinforcement, you have to use some negative punishment other wise how does the dog learn whats right and wrong. I think the problem with using any aversive is knowing when its appropriate, how much, and timing.
Nice little article :shades:
Do dogs really know right from wrong?
-
A very interesting read, thanks! I showed it to my dad who, although is only ever super-kind to Juno, had suggested a couple of things to me which I wasn't happy with (ie tapping the nose, making a loud noise to interrupt a behaviour). Also showed him the aversives sticky and think I might have got through to him! (He is veeeery stubborn and old fashioned in his thinking ;) ). Thanks, Mark!
I observed a puppy class that we're joining in June last night and one of the owners said they had been shaking a rattling tin to stop their pup jumping up at the sofa. The trainer mentioned a lot of the reasons above as to why this isn't effective in the long run - she seems like a good'un! :D
-
I completely agree with all those tips in the article. But I don't think you can only use positive reinforcement, you have to use some negative punishment other wise how does the dog learn whats right and wrong. I think the problem with using any aversive is knowing when its appropriate, how much, and timing.
Nice little article :shades:
Do dogs really know right from wrong?
No they don't I just used that as a figure of speech. I'm no expert like yourself but learning so please correct me if what I've read/learned is incorrect. From what I've learned is that if you do use a aversive to discourage a behaviour you must provide an alternate behaviour.
From what I've observed in behaviours have been allowed to escalate there is no alternative but to use a aversive to change the behaviour but again you must provide an alternate behaviour.
Some very respected trainers I know of have had to use aversive, but they only have to use it once or twice to change that behaviour.
I know when I got my dog I was only ever positive and ignored bad behaviour. What a mistake if you only ever ignore the behaviour that's not acceptable how is the dog to know it's not acceptable.
-
I completely agree with all those tips in the article. But I don't think you can only use positive reinforcement, you have to use some negative punishment other wise how does the dog learn whats right and wrong. I think the problem with using any aversive is knowing when its appropriate, how much, and timing.
Nice little article :shades:
Are aversives positive punishment though? Not negative punishment.
-
I completely agree with all those tips in the article. But I don't think you can only use positive reinforcement, you have to use some negative punishment other wise how does the dog learn whats right and wrong. I think the problem with using any aversive is knowing when its appropriate, how much, and timing.
Nice little article :shades:
Are aversives positive punishment though? Not negative punishment.
Sorry yes they are. What I meant was is that you can't be just positive you have to use negative punishment e.g(turning your back on a dog jumping up).
I think if you have to use a aversive it 'has' to be used very carefully.
-
Dogs don't know right from wrong in human sense, but they understand that certain behaviors earn rewards and others don't. They learn this by first reinforcing those behaviors we want and punishing those we don't want. When I say punishing, I'm talking in terms of operant conditioning where an event occurs which decreases the likelihood of that behavior being performed again. Even if you're only denying a dog a treat, your attention, or praise, you're still technically punishing the dog. Some clicker trainers use verbal cues a no reward marker, which could just be a neutral cue to some dogs, but could as be viewed as a low to mild verbal punishment to those with softer or fearful temperaments. By definition of operant conditioning, all punishments are going to be aversive.
It's impossible to proof any sort of behavior without some form of punishment, though what I think the punishment/aversives this article is strictly referring to is coercive positive punishment and perhaps even negative reinforcement?
The article is okay in that it shows how easy it is to fudge up a dog if you don't know what you're doing, but I do have issue with how it seems as if they're claiming that it's possible to train dogs without any form of punishment, which is technically not true at all.
-
I can't agree with your last statement.
A dog learns that a certain behaviour pattern gets a positive response and/or treat from the owner/trainer and other behaviours illicit no response and/or treat.
My dog decides to bark at the lift. I know from accidental experience he looks to me to do something, anything about the noise, inbetween his barks. I do nothing. So he jumps up at the piano to try to grab something which gains my attention. By correcting myself, there is no longer stuff left there, so he can't steal it. Next port of call is the bathroom. Out he comes with a pack of Always, (sorry guys), and runs up and down infront of me. He gets no response. Pack of Always gets dropped on the floor, Tali sighs and lies down.
The reversal of the problem initially caused by the postie is going to take a long time. However, as long as he gets no response from me, he will, in time, realise not to bother to bark.
It may take Tali months or a few years to really lose this behaviour, but it will have been done with only positive reinforcement for good behaviour and no punishment.
Turning your back on a dog is a calming signal to help relax a stressed dog. Even walking away from a puppy who is biting is not punishing them. They just learn the games stops with certain behaviours, so they eventually stop doing them.
-
Dogs don't know right from wrong in human sense, but they understand that certain behaviors earn rewards and others don't. They learn this by first reinforcing those behaviors we want and punishing those we don't want. When I say punishing, I'm talking in terms of operant conditioning where an event occurs which decreases the likelihood of that behavior being performed again. Even if you're only denying a dog a treat, your attention, or praise, you're still technically punishing the dog. Some clicker trainers use verbal cues a no reward marker, which could just be a neutral cue to some dogs, but could as be viewed as a low to mild verbal punishment to those with softer or fearful temperaments. By definition of operant conditioning, all punishments are going to be aversive.
It's impossible to proof any sort of behavior without some form of punishment, though what I think the punishment/aversives this article is strictly referring to is coercive positive punishment and perhaps even negative reinforcement?
The article is okay in that it shows how easy it is to fudge up a dog if you don't know what you're doing, but I do have issue with how it seems as if they're claiming that it's possible to train dogs without any form of punishment, which is technically not true at all.
Exactly what I wanted to say thanks. Sorry I'm not good at long posts :lol2: The article IS good but I think like praia has said you can't train wholly positive. I do think that dog training has become a bit PC just as child care, you need to teach your dog manners without excessive force.
Sorry mel but turning your back on a dog jumping up at you is a negative punishmet your denying the dog attention. And if my dog had pinched a pack of always(NOT mine may I ad :005:) I would encourage him to bring it too me I wouldn't ignore it(if he started to rip up the always rather than drop it what would your next move be?). He's only doing whats natural to him and that's retrieving.
-
I do agree with a lot of what praia says but with reward based training the idea is set the dog up to be rewarded and not to fail in the first place.
yes we all with hold treats and ignore the dogs when attention seeking etc and for some dogs this may be more punishing than any sort of physical correction but i think the crux of this article is that aversion can be fudged up, even by people who claim to know what their doing.
it can also do a lot of damage to the dog /owner relationship.
I also think the article just points out the pit falls of using aversives, do you believe any of it not to be accurate? If so why?
I don't see where it says you can only train without any sort of punishment in the article?
Indeed there is plenty you can train without any form of punishment if you make the criteria for reward achievable and keep your rate of reinforcement high.
-
Just googled the article....this was missing off the bottom...hope it clarifies! ;)
In this article, the words punishment and aversive mean delivering a harsh "correction". No attempt is made at categorizing the examples into formal learning theory.
-
Thank you for that
-
I can't agree with your last statement.
A dog learns that a certain behaviour pattern gets a positive response and/or treat from the owner/trainer and other behaviours illicit no response and/or treat.
My dog decides to bark at the lift. I know from accidental experience he looks to me to do something, anything about the noise, inbetween his barks. I do nothing. So he jumps up at the piano to try to grab something which gains my attention. By correcting myself, there is no longer stuff left there, so he can't steal it. Next port of call is the bathroom. Out he comes with a pack of Always, (sorry guys), and runs up and down infront of me. He gets no response. Pack of Always gets dropped on the floor, Tali sighs and lies down.
The reversal of the problem initially caused by the postie is going to take a long time. However, as long as he gets no response from me, he will, in time, realise not to bother to bark.
It may take Tali months or a few years to really lose this behaviour, but it will have been done with only positive reinforcement for good behaviour and no punishment.
Turning your back on a dog is a calming signal to help relax a stressed dog. Even walking away from a puppy who is biting is not punishing them. They just learn the games stops with certain behaviours, so they eventually stop doing them.
Mel by walking away from a dog you are using negative punishment if you look at this from an operant perspective.
-
While training my dog poppy if I find I am using to much negative punishment (withholding a treat too many times) as she is not getting the behaviour correct then I am the one who's getting it wrong, not poppy. So I rethink my method of training, have I moved on too quickly? have I confused the cue? do i need to break the behaviour down? I try to train with just using positive reinforcement and if I can't then I believe I'm getting it wrong. Hope that makes sense.
-
I think the problem with using any aversive is knowing when its appropriate, how much, and timing.
But its the same with positive behaviour - you need timing for it to work - so I'd rather use positive than negative and get my timing right for the positive one than anything negative.
-
Mark, I'll answer you later. I did write one and my phone dropped the signal, but I'm on my way out now.
Penny, I agree with you.
-
Tallulah, in a nutshell, yes, if you are having to withhold treats (whatever semantic term you choose to call it :005: I wouldn't get too hung on the words) then it means the dog hasn't gotten it yet, so it's very probable that you moved on too quickly, or didn't "proof" the behaviour enough in the face of various distractions. And yes, you absolutely need to break a behaviour down into it's parts. I highly recommend the book "Don't Shoot the Dog" by Karen Pryor. Not a how-to manual per se, but will show you how to think a behaviour down into it's smallest parts
-
I think the problem with using any aversive is knowing when its appropriate, how much, and timing.
But its the same with positive behaviour - you need timing for it to work - so I'd rather use positive than negative and get my timing right for the positive one than anything negative.
Yes that's wright the odd ill timed reward won't do anywhere near as much damage as a ill timed punishment fudging up the dog. But I also said it's knowing when its appropriate and how much e.g you'd have to be very careful using a aversive on a timid /nervous dog( I wouldn't) and if your timing was out could do more damage than good.
On the other hand I have seen owners of boisterous dogs fight for control of the lead, the dog jumping up and mouthing and have a out of control dog.
As topbarks said and completely agree with "quote"Indeed there is plenty you can train without any form of punishment if you make the criteria for reward achievable and keep your rate of reinforcement high."
-
I only use treat-training and am constantly re-enforcing and praising Sweep's good behavious, whether out on walks or at home, keeping up a virtual running commentary of "pleased" communication with her which she absolutely revels in, when she is walking nicely she will keep looking at me so that I can heap even more "clever girls" on her head. However, I do think there are occasions and situations when positive encouragement, reward, or lack of acknowledgement or reward would just not suffice. I am talking about situations which involve danger of hurt or threat of danger of hurt to a person or another animal. We had a border collie and a cavalier king charles spaniel, the former lived to 12 and then died of a stroke and the latter lived to 10 and died of heart failure. For the first few years we had them the collie strove to completely dominate the cavi and, to a lesser extent, us. We did training classes, we did rewards etc., etc., but there were many occasions when it would just erupt, because of a dropped biscuit or sweet wrapper or over a toy and the collie would have the poor cavi literally by the throat and nothing we tried would stop him. Till the day I happened to be drying a pan lid when he did it and, in desperation I banged the lid against the pan - it made him jump, he momentarily let go of the cavi's throat and in that pause in his red mist I was then able to step in and difuse and distract. I only ever did that on 3 or 4 occasions and yet after that if a situation was about to erupt and he would not be distracted I only had to say "shall I get the pan" and he would back off. It never stopped him wanted to dominate the little dog but it did stop him actually killing it, but neither did it ever ruin our relationship or his trust or devotion. Probably because he wasn't harshly treated, he had no fear of being harshly treated, he trusted me and felt completely safe but he knew if he tried to savage the little dog there would be a big loud noise that he didn't like. If I ever had a dog again where the same sort of situations were a problem i wouldnt hesitate to use the same sort of technique. Surely it's only like having to step in if your child insists on sticking it's finger in the electric sockets - that would be too dangerous to ignore and you would need to take action.
-
On the other hand I have seen owners of boisterous dogs fight for control of the lead, the dog jumping up and mouthing and have a out of control dog.
I still don't think that suggests a need for aversives though - sometimes thinking out the box and training your dog in other ways allows them to focus on you more then you can gain control
Training doesn't necessarily have to be about the thing you're trying to manage/cure its as much about getting that bond between you and your dog - far too often some try to manage or deal with a situation when its got out of hand and no doubt thought whatever it was was curte in the beginning.
-
Turning your back on a dog is a calming signal to help relax a stressed dog. Even walking away from a puppy who is biting is not punishing them. They just learn the games stops with certain behaviors, so they eventually stop doing them.
As others have already stated, doing nothing/ignoring/walking away/turning your back is taking away your attention (negative punishment) so speaking strictly in terms of operant conditioning, you are punishing the dog, because you are doing something that will eventually decrease the likelihood of that behavior from occurring again.
Top Barks, what I was referring to was the statement, "The fact is, most people that share their lives with dogs do not want to punish them, however they do want a mannerly dog. There are humane and effective alternatives to punishment." When I read "alternatives to punishment," I understand it as meaning that one doesn't ever need to punish in any form in order to proof a behavior. However since Tallulah posted the following statement, "punishment and aversive mean delivering a harsh "correction". No attempt is made at categorizing the examples into formal learning theory," my issue with it is made void.
Of course you want the dog to succeed as much as possible when teaching a behavior, but dogs do fail when first learning a behavior or when they haven't been proofed to a higher level of obedience and all failure is met with some form of punishment. I have yet to see any form of training session, even with achievable rewards and high amounts of reinforcement, that does not punish the dog in some way (speaking in terms of operant conditioning), unless the dog learns the behavior on the first attempt and performs that behavior flawlessly every single time no matter the distance/distraction/duration, etc, which in reality would never happen.
I agree, aversives can seriously damage the trust between a dog and its owner, but any good trainer is going to know when it is appropriate to use an aversive and at what intensity the aversive needs to be given the situation and more importantly given the temperament and mental stability of the dog. The issue is mainly the fault of the trainer who doesn't understand what and when something is appropriate, not necessarily the method. There are pitfalls to any method of training, even reward based training, though the damage it can do to a dog is FAR less than that of methods that employ positive punishment. I do agree with all the reasons against using aversive tactics as listed in the article, but again, the majority of these consequences are dependent on the intensity of the aversive and most importantly on the temperament of the dog.
Some pitfalls that possibly apply to strictly positive reinforcement methods...
-Using positive reinforcement only teaches what a dog should do, it doesn't teach what not do. When a dog learns that there are no consequences for its actions it's more likely to be distracted by other reinforcers in the its environment, like other dogs, bunnies, etc, which is probably why so many dog owners have issues with teaching their dogs reliable recall no matter the distraction. 'So I get a head scratch and great food if I come back... so what? I can get that later when I do decide to come back, but in the meantime I'll chase this rabbit.' Realistically, for most dogs, satisfying prey drive is far more rewarding than satisfying their food or social drives no matter how much you jackpot the latter.
- Also requires perfect timing and consistency. With marker training you have to get the timing perfect or else you end up marking and reinforcing the wrong behaviors. I do marker training with my own dogs as it is the best way to teach behaviors, but have noticed that many people think clickers to be magic buttons.
-Some people end up conditioning the dog to focus more on the treat reward than the reward of a dog/owner relationship. So many times at obedience schools/trials you see dogs who only focus on the treat hidden in the hand or the pocket. Personally I hate dogs who walk at a heel with their heads held awkwardly, because they're focusing more on the treat than where they're walking. Who or what is the dog really working for?
As I've said before, most of the pitfalls of any training method is dependent on the competency of the trainer and the application of the method.
Tallulah, thank you for including that last bit that was left off this article as it was mainly the usage of terms in relation to operant conditioning that I have issues with. As for your pup, are you sure that you marked the correct behavior? Correcting the dog isn't going do help it any if the dog doesn't know what you want in the first place, because as the list correctly points out, aversives don't teach the dog what to do. Start from square one and reteach the exact behavior you want.
Elaine, completely agree with your comment that there are certain situations (of life/death/or certain bodily harm) that necessitate firm corrections.
-
Turning your back on a dog is a calming signal to help relax a stressed dog. Even walking away from a puppy who is biting is not punishing them. They just learn the games stops with certain behaviors, so they eventually stop doing them.
Tallulah, thank you for including that last bit that was left off this article as it was mainly the usage of terms in relation to operant conditioning that I have issues with. As for your pup, are you sure that you marked the correct behavior? Correcting the dog isn't going do help it any if the dog doesn't know what you want in the first place, because as the list correctly points out, aversives don't teach the dog what to do. Start from square one and reteach the exact behavior you want.
Yes I have been clicker training Poppy since she was 8 weeks old (now ten months) so I'm pretty good at marking the required behaviour I want at the right time. I was merely pointing out that if I'm doing a training session with her and I find I have to withold the reward (whether it's food, toy or affection) more than once then I may have moved on too quickly with the training of that particular behaviour. I do not need to start from square one but go back a couple of steps and go from there.
-
Praia: but negative punishment in terms of operant conditioning is not punishment, mearly penalising. Positive punishment is punishment with aversives, but in certain circumstances negative punishment can be an aversive in itself. In humans, the removal of a stimulus as a penalty for incorrect or undesirable behaviour can illicit an incorrect response. This can occur when an individual is stressed, scared, angry, etc. The act of the negative punishment can become an aversive in it's own right. Thus as I and many people experience, the walking away from a biting puppy actually can escalate the situation, which then becomes a learned behaviour. Owners attempting to get away from the puppy are met with more 'frenzied' nipping and hanging on, because the puppy knows you are going to walk off/turn your back, etc.
Tali now get's met with more extinctive behaviour. No response to stuff, so gives up. The learned behaviour slowly diminishes because he's getting neither a positive or negative response.
However, with the negative punishment theory it, to me, isn't as cut and dried for animals as it is for humans. If a child plays up at dinner time and the parent removes the dinner and the child goes hungry, that is a 'punishment' in the conventional sense of the word. The child will see this as removal of dinner and feeling hungry. 'I don't like feeling hungry, I won't do that again because I don't want to be punished.'
A puppy play bites you walk off or turn your back for a few seconds. The puppy is not 'punished' in the conventional sense, moreover the puppy learns that an action creates a reaction. Then within seconds the thought has passed the puppy by. It becomes a learned condition with repetitive behaviours. I do not disagree with walking out on a biting puppy or withdrawing the 'stimulus', as this does, over time, work.
IMHO, positive reinforcement, chaining and shaping are extremely important. Shaping because once a pre-empting of the desired behaviour exists, it means the dog has the behaviour ingrained ready for refinement. Chaining because by breaking behaviours down to their constituant parts they can be modified or altered to create a new and/or better behaviour.
Someone said in this thread that they praise constantly for good behaviour, was it Tallulah? I do this too. Constant praise for the good behaviour. Even if Tali is sitting doing nothing, I praise as he is not destroying anything and not showing any bad behaviours.
I have successfully kept 3 cocker spaniel puppies away from wires by tone of voice only. I know many other people have too. I use an uncommon key word to reinforce staying away. Nothing more than a word and positive reinforcement.
I can partially agree with, on very rare occasions, using something to distract a dog's fixation with something, however once the distraction has occured, positive praise and reward is vital so's not to create a fear of the sound. Again, this is down to timing. Some people prefer clicker, others are happy with commands.
So my arguement is that apart from teaching bite inhibition to a puppy which is the single greatest gift you can give your dog, where else does positive and negative punishment and use of aversives actually need to occur anywhere is dog training?
As Penny said, 'think out of the box'. Just because there are four main areas to operant conditioning, does this mean anything other than positive reinforcement need be used.
I'm extremely tired so please excuse any spelling mistakes.
-
Negative punishment is punishment as by definition, it is an event that decreases the frequency of the behavior. You can call it whatever you want to make yourself feel better. Extinction is a different matter.
I concur, positive reinforcement, shaping, and chaining behaviors are extremely important and I use all said methods when teaching my own dogs. Just because a person is open to using aversives/positive punishment in their training program does not mean that they are against positive reinforcement. All of the people I know who use positive punishment when proofing behaviors use positive reinforcement to first teach those behaviors.
"Just because there are four main areas to operant conditioning, does this mean anything other than positive reinforcement need be used." Of course not. I do use positive punishment, but I would never use negative reinforcement. However, I have a had time believing that it's possible to only use positive reinforcement 100% of the time without ever switching to another procedure.
"where else does positive and negative punishment and use of aversives actually need to occur anywhere is dog training?"
That's wonderful that you can maintain control of 3 soft-tempered dogs with just the tone of your voice. For most Cocker Spaniels with the correct temperament that is all you need to maintain control. However, I firmly believe that the use of aversives is completely dependent on the temperament of the dog and the situation. Keeping three soft-tempered dogs from low distraction wires is nothing.
The tone of my voice would never be enough for my high drive/hard-tempered Jack Russell Terrier when proofing certain behaviors to a higher level. The tone of my voice would have meant nothing when I was proofing his behavior around our nervy free-roaming pet rabbit when he was accustomed to killing vermin in our garden and chasing wild rabbits. In this situation and given the temperament and specific drives of this particular dog, I believe the use of aversives was necessary unless I wanted to risk the life of my other pet or condemn her to a cramped life in your typical too small hutch.
Not all dogs are the same. Not all situations are black and white. I think it's ignorant to think that only one method could ever apply to everyone and everything. I think it's the ideal to not use aversives when training, but in the real world, in real-life situations that require extremely high levels of obedience in high distraction environments with dogs with specific drives and particular temperaments, I do believe that some sort of punishment/aversives (even of the positive punishment sort) will always have their place in dog training.
-
I think it's ignorant to think that only one method could ever apply to everyone and everything.
Differences of opinion are inevitable on this sort of thread but please can we keep things polite so the discussion can continue in a reasonable, friendly manner.
Thanks
-
I do believe that some sort of punishment/aversives (even of the positive punishment sort) will always have their place in dog training.
The trouble is some use this as an excuse to use aversives like prong and electric collars, beating, or alpha rolls and so on to dominate the dog as they don't understand the difference even in well thought out arguments you might get on here.
-
It is possible to train without any aversives at all, to quite a high standard, more than most pet dog owners would be happy with.
However, there are some disadvantages to ‘positive-only’ training, the key example being the length of time it takes to achieve the same goal using some form of correction. There is an interesting guy in the USA that has trained his lab for the shooting field with absolutely no aversives whatever. He is a professor of ethics, and very very dedicated. Another member of the positive gundogs email group has achieved a senior hunt test field title (American title) on his standard poodle without any aversives, and that is quite an achievement because USA tests require advanced control and handling of the dog on water. However, the trainer in question took several years to reach a goal that most retriever trainers achieve in around 18 months!
The fact that training without aversives is possible of course, does not mean that it is necessarily desirable. I have trained a few skills without aversives, but for me, the usefulness of an occasional mild correction, outweighs the length of time it takes to effectively ‘proof’ a behaviour without any corrections at all.
There is no doubt though that more and more people are interested in training without aversives and this is such a good thing because it encourages the rest of us to be more positive overall.:)
Pippa