how to stop stealing

[Cob-Web]

If your dog is as good as you say then when can we expect to see you in the obedience ring at Crufts? 

I have never suggested that my dog is super obedient.  Could you give me an instance of where I have stated that? 

To be fair, you did say that Charley understands "every word you say" and "knows what you expect of him".  This implies a level of control/management over your dog that I would not begin to aspire to; my skills and knowledge of training are certainly not developed enough to expect this of my dog and I would end up frustrated and disappointed.

I would not tolerate a destructive, untrustworthy dog, and I certainly would not find it amusing if I returned to my car or home to find it ravaged by my dog.  That is what training and obedience is about, not performing tricks for the edification of others.

What would you do if you came home to damage caused by Charley, or he uncharacteristically snapped at a person or animal?  Would you consider him to have failed you? Or would you seek to determine how you failed him?
As for "tricks" - I teach them all the time - not for self-edification, but in order to mentally stimulate my dog; which you have agreed is required in order to keep a dog healthy and happy 

[Top Barks]

If your dog is as good as you say then when can we expect to see you in the obedience ring at Crufts? 

I have never suggested that my dog is super obedient.  Could you give me an instance of where I have stated that?  Indeed, I have stated very clearly in other posts about behaviour that my dog would never earn top marks in obedience trials where dogs are exhibited to perform a variety of tricks.  I have never trained him to fetch my slippers, roll over, sit up nicely, etc.  Those commands are not a part of his repertoire.  Charley is well behaved and well adjusted.  He does not bite, snarl or snap at people, and is accepting of other animals.  You can see a picture that I posted of him with a semi-feral cat in France that "adopted" us.  He is not destructive and does not steal.  I can remove anything from him without saying anything to him and he will accept this without demur.  He is totally trustworthy.  This is how I have brought up my dog.  He is not a superdog: the same can be achieved by anyone willing to invest time and effort.

The original post was about a dog that was stealing, not about obedience trials.   In a quote from Proverbs: "Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old he will not depart from it."  The same can be said of a dog: substitute puppy for child.  I would not tolerate a destructive, untrustworthy dog, and I certainly would not find it amusing if I returned to my car or home to find it ravaged by my dog.  That is what training and obedience is about, not performing tricks for the edification of others

Where is the ambiguity?  It may exist in your mind but not in mine, nor are any of my commands ambiguous to my dog.

We have already gone over the use of words, ad nauseam, so why bring it up again?  I have previously stated that you can use any word you like just so long as your dog uses the appropriate action for that word.

Your reference to Skinner and operant conditioning is another approach to the study of habit formation.  When you teach a dog a trick, such as playing dead, it is quite difficult to specify the unconditional stimuli that could produce such behaviour before conditioning.  However, that is for discussion elsewhere and is hardly appropriate to this forum.

Thankyou for your reply Robbie but you do not seem to have answered or argued against any of the points I raised.
I took that your dog understood your every word to mean it was highly trained and if this is not the case then I am sorry for the confusion.
you should take pride in the fact he is well behaved and adjusted however you achieve it.
Charley sounds a real credit to you.

In response to other remarks I am glad there is no ambiguity in the cues you give your dog but you must accept this might not be the case for all owners.
I was not directing my comments at you personally.
Everyone has their own ways of dealing with things and I feel it is my duty as a professional dog trainer with a good understanding of learning theory to put across the point of view I have on this forum,  which is also what you have done.

If you are implying I teach my dogs tricks to impress  you are sadly mistaken, I teach all manner of things to my dogs to improve the control and relationship I have with them and you know what IT WORKS
Nothing like figuring out how to get a dog to perform a behaviour and making happen to improve you as a trainer and to improve your dogs response and focus on you.  When by the way did I mention anything about teaching  dogs tricks had anything to do with stopping a dog ravaging your car? I mentioned the slipper fetching because I wanted to use it as an example of a dog associating a behaviour with a word.
I agree with you that dogs need to learn boundaries  but it seems we disagree on the way you should do it but hey ho if we agreed on everything life would be dull wouldn't it.

 Also, not sure what you mean by this or why you feel the need to say it? 
your reference to Skinner and operant conditioning is another approach to the study of habit formation.  When you teach a dog a trick, such as playing dead, it is quite difficult to specify the unconditional stimuli that could produce such behaviour before conditioning.  However, that is for discussion elsewhere and is hardly appropriate to this forum.
Firstly I know all too well what is meant by the term operant conditioning so save the description which ain't the best anyway.
 secondly are you sure you don't  mean an unconditioned stimulus? I am not sure what an unconditional one is? I have never come across one In my studies so may be you could enlighten me with your obvious wisdom some more.

I also disagree with your statement in relation to your example! The unconditioned stimulus in this case might be the hand movement which lures the dog into an initial position so you can reinforce it.
Only when you reinforce the hand signal with a primary reinforcer such as food or secondary conditioned reinforcer such as a clicker does the unconditioned stimulus begin to become a conditioned and the behaviour then becomes a conditioned response after an indeterminable number of repetitions but I am sure you knew that already. To argue that the stimulus was hard to identify in this case would suggest a lack of knowledge of learning theory, not that I am implying this is the case concerning your self.
If this is not the appropriate place then feel free to start a new thread so you can enlighten me further, I look forward to it. Why is debating how dogs learn not an appropriate subject for a behaviour thread on a dog forum???

Mark

PS One thing I will agree to agree with you on is that Charlie is indeed a stunning boy who looks very similar to my old goldie Ollie.

[Robbie34]

What would you do if you came home to damage caused by Charley, or he uncharacteristically snapped at a person or animal?  Would you consider him to have failed you? Or would you seek to determine how you failed him?

I know my dog well enough to know that he would not do any of the above so it is a ridiculous supposition.

Charley has plenty of mental stimulation without resorting to the teaching of tricks.   We play games and he is exposed to a whole variety of new experiences.  It is not necessary to teach a dog tricks to achieve that.  As a puppy I ensured that he was well socialised by meeting a variety of other dogs and animals, where it was safe to do so.  Inevitably, Cocker Spaniel puppies attract attention and I was more than happy to allow strangers to pet and cuddle him.  My next door neighbour had her little grandson staying with her - he was about two years of age when Charley was about four or five months.  The two used to play together chasing each other around the garden, and each morning that Dylan was there Charley wanted to play.  This happened almost daily for about three months.  His best friend was a kitten of one of my neighbours, and the two of them used to play together until the kitten grew up and ignored Charley.

Charley is also a well travelled dog.  We spend three to four months a year in France where they have a more civilised attitude to dogs.  Consequently, we eat out frequently and he is welcomed at restaurants.  We also stay in hotels on our return home with Charley sleeping in the bedroom.

Thus, Charley has been exposed to new and varied experiences for the whole of his life.

[Cob-Web]

What would you do if you came home to damage caused by Charley, or he uncharacteristically snapped at a person or animal?  Would you consider him to have failed you? Or would you seek to determine how you failed him?

I know my dog well enough to know that he would not do any of the above so it is a ridiculous supposition.

Chewing, snapping, growling and biting are all natural behaviours for dogs, it is certainly not ridiculous to expect a dog to behave like a dog - but more ridiculous (imo) to expect a dog to never behave like a dog, as you are bound to end up disappointed   

You may well have managed to suppress Charley's natural behaviours on a day-to-day basis, but if he becomes stressed in some way (through fear, pain, or illness for instance) then you should expect these behaviours to happen - all dogs have triggers..........

You sound really interested in dog training and behaviour - there is an excellent book that really did open my eyes to the way in which dogs learn and the reasons why they behave the way they do - it is called "The Culture Clash" by Pamela Dennison - and I would be really interested to hear what you think of it 

[Robbie34]

to specify the unconditional stimuli

Sorry, that was a typing error and should have been unconditioned stimuli (plural).  

I don't have the time, or inclination, to refute or challenge line by line.  However,

Punishment is anything that decreases the frequency or likelyhood (sic) of a behaviour occurring again

I don't know from where you dredged that up, but it is not a definition with which I would agree.  The OED defines punish as: cause to suffer for offence; chastise; inflict penalty for (offence). Digging out one of my old textbooks, Introduction to Psychology Hilgard and Atkinson, Punishment is defined as:  A negative incentive, capable of producing pain or annoyance.  Indeed, I wouldn't agree that punishment would, in every case, decrease the frequency or likelihood of a behaviour occurring again.  How many prisoners follow the straight and narrow following incarceration?  To suggest that saying no is a punishment is, frankly,
nonsense.

To argue that the stimulus was hard to identify in this case would suggest a lack of knowledge of learning theory, not that I am implying this is the case concerning your self.

I find that a rather arrogant assumption.  Do you know anything about the various theories of learning?  Learning is one of those subjects which probably arouses the most disagreement amongst psychologists.  There are numerous postulations, but no one theory which can satisfactorily explain exactly how learning takes place.  Some learning is classified as conditioned response.  Have you heard of the Hull-Spence Theory of learning?   Hull recognised two sets of components in any learned performance:
(1) habit strength, a result of associative learning under reinforcement;
(2) nonassociative components, of which drive is the most important.

I could go on, but as stated previously, this is not the place to enter into a discussion about learning and cognitive theories.  Incidentally, what studies are you undertaking?   I hold a postgraduate qualification from the University of Liverpool, and part of the course was psychology and social psychology, with an emphasis on learning.  I don't profess to be an expert, but I have studied at postgraduate level, albeit back in the dark ages.

[Cazzie]

Gosh this is all beyond me now   

[Colin]

This has been an interesting discussion but can I remind everyone of the forum rules re treating other members with respect - words such as 'ridiculous' and 'arrogant' are not acceptable, or indeed necessary to get one's views across. Thanks.

[Robbie34]

Chewing, snapping, growling and biting are all natural behaviours for dogs, it is certainly not ridiculous to expect a dog to behave like a dog - but more ridiculous (imo) to expect a dog to never behave like a dog, as you are bound to end up disappointed  

Perhaps they are, but only in the right context.  None of my dogs have been repressed, nor have their natural instincts been suppressed. To suggest otherwise is ludicrous.  Charley would not be the happy go lucky little fellow that he is if his natural instincts had been suppressed.  He has been allowed to develop naturally, and his behaviour channeled in the right direction.

I'm not particularly interested in dog training and behaviour, except where it relates to the upbringing of my dog.  It really isn't rocket science, as I've previously stated, to raise a well behaved and good natured dog.  Charley enjoys life and is an ideal companion for me.  That's what matters.

This is getting rather tedious and degenerating into getting one over on others.  I have no wish to keep repeating myself as I have done in numerous posts.  I'm happy to offer an opinion but no desire to prolong an argument.  I have far more interesting things to do.

[PennyB]

it is called "The Culture Clash" by Pamela Dennison - and I would be really interested to hear what you think of it 

Its by Jean Donaldson

[Cazzie]

it is called "The Culture Clash" by Pamela Dennison - and I would be really interested to hear what you think of it 

Its by Jean Donaldson

I knew there was another book I meant to get in London 

[Cob-Web]

it is called "The Culture Clash" by Pamela Dennison - and I would be really interested to hear what you think of it 

Its by Jean Donaldson

Your right - it is. I think I can be forgiven for getting a little confused, however  None the less, it seems that Robbie is not that interested in reading it, anyway   


On a more general level I would urge caution before applying human psychology to dogs (I am assuming that the qualifications Robbie refers to are in Human Psychology?) Although it has obviously worked incredibly well for Robbie and his three dogs, it is not something that I would ever recommend to anyone on a forum as I do not believe it should be applied except by similarly experienced professionals who know exactly what they are doing. 

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and I did it once when I knew no better; and the end result was a very stressed and confused dog, and heartache for my family    I (obviously) failed Sheba - and I would hate anyone to go through what we had to because they are led to believe that dog training is easy

It really isn't rocket science, as I've previously stated, to raise a well behaved and good natured dog. 

[Robbie34]

Most of the theories of learning have been developed using animals.  Pavlov with his dogs; Skinner with pigeons and  rats and his "Skinner box"; others using chimpanzees. There was also an American psychologist and his psychologist wife - they were mostly Americans - who developed a large scale business teaching animals elaborate tricks. They used relatively simple techniques and trained thousands of animals, of various species, for television shows and commercials.  Apparently, there was a popular show using a pig called "Priscilla the Fastidious Pig."

When I was doing postgraduare studies at university my lecturer was drawn to Skinner and his experiments using the ubiquitous pigeon.  Such theories were then related to the human condition.  We did not study human psychology as such.

[Top Barks]

Most of the theories of learning have been developed using animals.  Pavlov with his dogs; Skinner with pigeons and  rats and his "Skinner box"; others using chimpanzees. There was also an American psychologist and his psychologist wife - they were mostly Americans - who developed a large scale business teaching animals elaborate tricks. They used relatively simple techniques and trained thousands of animals, of various species, for television shows and commercials.  Apparently, there was a popular show using a pig called "Priscilla the Fastidious Pig."

When I was doing postgraduare studies at university my lecturer was drawn to Skinner and his experiments using the ubiquitous pigeon.  Such theories were then related to the human condition.  We did not study human psychology as such.

I take it you are referring to marion and keller Breland Robbie?

I am almost tired myself of this conversation now but seeing you find the need to insult me personally i will respond once again.
You asked  If I knew anything about the various theories of learning and to that I will respond by asking you what do you think I know?
If I have not convinced you as to my level of knowledge by my comments thus far then I am more than willing to debate the issue some more.
With regard to my studies I am in the final year of a degree in CANINE behaviour and training accredited by the university of Hull.

Going back again to the definition of punishment I am afraid you are looking at things not from a behavioural point of view.
Some punisher's do not work hence your comment about the prisoners not carrying on the straight and narrow after release.   your definition is A negative incentive, capable of producing pain or annoyance
Well tell me what is this negative incentive, pain and annoyance designed to do if not decrease the frequency of behaviour occurring again. Punishment Does not always work so actions we may describe as punishment are not technically punishment unless they decrease the frequency/ likehood of a behaviour occurring again
The same can be said of squirting a water pistol at a dog for performing an undesirable behaviour, the water pistol may suppress the behaviour for a while so technically is a punisher but the dog learns that the motivation to continue with the undesirable behaviour is greater than the punishment so learns to ignore the punishment to achieve its goal.
Punishment often does not work so we up the level of the punisher which takes me back to the original post and is why setting a dog up to fail is a BAD idea! where do you go if setting the dog up does not work?
I know lets put an E collar on it that'll do the trick

Here is a definition of punishment from Mary R Burch Ph.D & Jon S Bailey Ph.D and is taken from their award winning book How Dogs learn (1999 p.57) Punishment is one of the basic principles of operant conditioning
and a punisher is defined as a consequence,that if presented immediately after a behaviour has occurred will make that behaviour less likely to happen in the future.

Here's another one for you from Stehen R Lindsay M.A and his book the Applied Handbook of Applied Dog Behaviour and Training volume 1 (2000 p.281)
Punishment suppresses  or lowers the future possibility/ frequency of the behaviour it follows.

An alternative definition of punishment might be stated in the terms of prediction and control.
According to this interpretation punishment is defined as occurring whenever a behaviour fails to anticipate and control a significant event adequately.
Punishment in this case is not done to a dog but rather the behaviour itself does or fails to do - that is it fails to appropriate an important resource or escape and avoid an aversive situation.

I'm so glad you have dusted off your old books but I have the odd one too and relavant to the subject of Dog behaviour at that.

Anyway this arrogant mere dog trainer is tired and off to bed but no doubt you will reply with more wise words so we can keep this little debate going.
Mark
 

[Robbie34]

I'm not prepared to rise to the bait.  This is not the place to indulge in a discussion of esoteric learning theories, and it is now beginning to degenerate  into a point scoring exercise.  At least one member has commented that it is now beyond her.

You should know my stance as a result of the foregoing discussion and I have no wish to prolong this.

[winewood]

OMG My apologies, to everyone, I had no idea the answers would get out of control. It was a question to help me stop my dog from stealing and eating everything she finds I might stick to my idea of keeping her active during the day, teaching her a new trick each week, and get stuck into my gundog training.