We got a Corgi about 6 months ago (for the kids). The dogs really well behaved but just a few days ago noticed the "food aggression" when the kids tried taking food away from it. Bit one of my kids and I promptly went the "dominate" route.
Took the dog from the back of the neck and held it to the floor for a minute till it calmed down and gave up. And I can tell you that that little dog did give up easily, tried snapping at me, and kept growling. Came as a total surprise when she's usually so submissive and easygoing.
Can see how this would be way more effective.
+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
Yes, you are 100% correct.
Here is a good example of how NOT to deal with it:
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
skeptoid (Old Spike)
You're such a tool.
+1
+2
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
Please indulge us with your interpretation on what is going on and where the narrator is actually wrong (or where CM is acting appropriately). Try to use appropriate terminology. Thank you.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
stokkebye (sounds retarded)
Oh kiss my ass with this soyboy shit. THat dog was NOT "in fear for its life", dogs in fear of their life fucking run! If that dog was smacked by its OWNER and THEN ceaser did this shit, then yeah maybe the dog would be afraid. This dog has never been smacked and doesnt realize that humans can smack them. Why do think dogs who were raised with cats dont fuck with cats, cuz they know those little bastards can smack them and have little razers on their paws! They're not in fear of their lives from cats, their in fear of getting smacked. This dog doesnt think humans can hurt BECUASE the owner is a puss and never smacked that fucking dog! SO when ceaser smacked her the dog was like "fuck you buddy, my food, I'll bite your ass" which is oppisite of "im afraid of you so Im goign to bite your ass".
+1
+2
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
And here we go again, another proof that "sounds" is surperfluous (so you also get it: unnecessary, redundant) in your subtitle......
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
stokkebye (sounds retarded)
Nice, for a dog with that problem already there. But what causes it?
I see a dog that thinks its in charge and the boss of humans, which is a problem from its rearing.
+1
+2
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
"I see a dog that thinks its in charge and the boss of humans, which is a problem from its rearing."
Common misconception, mostly uttered by "trainers" and their followers that still believe in the "dominance theory" derived from wolves, which has been debunked over 40 years ago.
If they would think that it wouldn't be so easy and painless to eradicate.
+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
stokkebye (sounds retarded)
I dont know man, I've never seen a dog act like that with a strong dominant dude, just sayin! I always see that behavior with woman dog owners or pussy ass dudes and of course assholes who abuse their dogs, of course you have those that have adopted dogs with that pre-existing condition, in that case THIS method would be the way to go.
+1
+3
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
Look at the video in my reply above, "strong dominant dude" with TONS of experience fucks shit up completely.
You've just never seen a problematic dog.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Bobbob (Site Administrator)
I watched the full main video above, Daft, out of deference to your expertise. I am not the biggest fan of what is termed 'modern' dog trainnig. In this video, all I see is an example of how you can temporarily change an animal's behaviour as long as there is another reward / nutritive source of greater or equal value readily available; but wihout the struggle. Our friend keeps his left fist clenched for the whole video as he dispenses treats (tiny bits of meat) from it. I learned during a university animal behaviour course that for most animals in the wild, it's about obtaining their meal with the least amount of effort. At 6:40 we see a nice example of the dog actually conditioning the trainer as he brings a toss that is too far away closer to that left hand, where the real treats are. This is just a game for the pup and the behaviour won't be repeated beyond a couple of instances where there is no reward. Let's just agree that you don't believe in the dominance/hierarchy relationship, whereas I don't have that problem. The old way is the best.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
phytonadione (Short Spike)
My mother-in-law was visiting us for a couple months and within the first week had inadvertently trained our dachshund to take her slippers. She woke up one morning to be greeted by our dog waiting for her by the stairs. He was so excited to have a visitor, he grabbed one of her slippers and started to run around. She made the mistake of chasing him instead of calling him over and seemingly made a game out of it. She then proceeded to give him a treat as a sort of blackmail to get the slippers back. From that day till the day she left, he would wait for her to come up the stairs, take her slippers just as she approached and would not give them back until a treat was provided. He ended up training her.
Positive reinforcement 90% of the time and negative reinforcement 10%. I find that to be the best balance for both dogs and children. And just like my dogs, if any of my children were unwilling to share (with other siblings or friends), I would intervene and take the object away and only return it when they understood the importance of sharing. With dogs (and their short memory and limited cognition), you just need to take it away for a short duration. And obviously (for both dogs and kids) the younger the lessons are taught, the easier it is to teach and with a longer lasting positive impact. Though if you are adopting (I guess both dogs and kids), you better be prepared to get bit a couple times correcting their behavior.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Bobbob (Site Administrator)
Indeed, pets and children often make the best trainers ;-)
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
phytonadione (Short Spike)
Did you mispell trainees?
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Bobbob (Site Administrator)
erm..no.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
stokkebye (sounds retarded)
My girlfriend and mother of our child takes Daftcunt approach with our kid AND our dog, she tries to get our kid to do things with rewards and threatens to take them away if she doesnt listen, my kid pushes her buttons and knows when to put on the water works and knows when her mom is bluffing. And it fails horribly, with both the kid and the dog. When she puts her to bed my kid always gets back up and it becomes a night of vague threats and future rewards to get her back in bed, like "your not going to grandmas house tomorrow or youre not going skiing tomorrow if you dont go back to bed". It is a failure on her part. And she has been working with kids as an elementary teacher for 20 yrs. I did my time "training" my daughter that I dont bluff and I dont fuck around, if I tell her she is in time out till she stops, I will sit there with her for hours, Ive only had to do that twice when she was very young and now all I have to do is threaten to do it and she knows I will do it. Just like my dog, I spent the first years of their life correcting bad behaviors and not letting up. A prime example of recent was when I was teaching my kid boxing and she was not listening and punching wrong and I yelled and drilled her like a drill instructor till she punched the bag correctly and my GF came out shocked and tried telling me I cant do that and that not the way to teach her, I was being mean, etc... Till I said this, "do you you want her to break her fucking wrist punching the bag or would you rather me insist she listen to me and punch the bag correctly?". Its been a month and me and my daughter are still training and I only had to be that way only once, now she listens to me the first time I tell her to do something. I am a big jolly fun dad when its playtime but I can and will become a scary bear when I need to be. If she spills her milks by accident, I dont care, but I will make her clean it up, but if she throws one her toys because shes mad at something, or something like that, on purpose, I will be upset. She knows she can make mistakes but bed behaviors will and do have consequences. Its weird because my GF will get upset at her mistakes and "not want to deal with it" when it comes to our kids bad behaviors.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Bobbob (Site Administrator)
And bonus, she will seek your approval because it has value and is harder won. Just be careful she doesn't like the bad-boys too when she's older. ;-) I foresee a future where you're constantly breaking out the Remington gun-cleaning kit and giving ol'Bessie a polish whenever the young suitors come calling heheh.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
"My girlfriend and mother of our child takes Daftcunt approach..."
No, they don't.
Using positive reinforcement is not "spoiling" or "bribing" but creating or shaping behaviour. If they are not successful with it they are simply reinforcing the wrong behaviour.
Creating behaviour with positive reinforcement is actually more reliable than changing it with punishment, however the trainer needs to think harder about how to achieve it.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
"In this video, all I see is an example of how you can temporarily change an animal's behaviour as long as there is another reward / nutritive source of greater or equal value readily available; but wihout the struggle."
Yes. This is true initially, during training whilst behaviour establishes itself, you fase out the higher value reward, though, after a while you can remove anything from the dog without the input of any "treat".
"Our friend keeps his left fist clenched for the whole video as he dispenses treats (tiny bits of meat) from it. I learned during a university animal behaviour course that for most animals in the wild, it's about obtaining their meal with the least amount of effort."
In effect this is what is used to change the behaviour here.
"At 6:40 we see a nice example of the dog actually conditioning the trainer as he brings a toss that is too far away closer to that left hand, where the real treats are."
No, this is incorrect. The trainer raised the level of difficulty too high too quickly for the dog (tossing the treat too far) so he had to offer it closer to get the initial success.
"This is just a game for the pup"
essentially yes
"and the behaviour won't be repeated beyond a couple of instances where there is no reward."
incorrect. The behaviour will be changed reliably as there is no suppression of behaviour due to punishment involved. The dog simply learns (is conditioned) that it is no problem if the handler takes away this important possession from him (reardless of whether this is food or a toy or whatever).
"Let's just agree that you don't believe in the dominance/hierarchy relationship, whereas I don't have that problem. The old way is the best."
The dominance theory in wolves (this is what you base your statements on) has long been debunked, it was first published and by the same scientist that created it. The remnants somehow only survived when dealing with dogs, although dogs are not wolves, not even "wild" but domesticated to such an extent that most live in our homes, many even sleep in our beds.
Punishment based training works, we have done this almost excliusively with our dogs for centuries, however it has plenty pitfalls (for examle as mentioned above) that have a very high likelyhood to backfire.
We have to decide based on our own personal ethics whether we want to punish the dog when there are more reliable, non aversive methods available to us.
Rewarding is not "spoiling". Also the reward must be fased out during the training process. You can actually see Zak doing this when you pay attention.
He is also setting the dog up to succeed rather than setting up to fail and then "correcting" (=punishing)
As there is no mental stress added by punishing or confronting the dog (as is done in the CM video) the dog rather happily complies, hence even when the bone is then filled with peanut butter we can see a continuous progress.
Lastly: Understanding how dogs (or any other mammal for that matter) learns is fundamental to what we have seen in the main video and missing completely in the CM video. It takes quite some effort to grasp this. On the surface these "dominance" arguments make sense, however, having the patience and looking deeper into it you will find that they don't, hence they are not used anymore other than with punishment based dog training actually. This takes effort, though, and many are not eager to do that, especially when it is in contrary to their bias. I learned the hard way too, as I also started out as a punishment "trainer".
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Bobbob (Site Administrator)
Actual published source, please. Cause for now, the hierarchical approach has worked fine and turned out some really good hunting dogs (we're talking grouse and rabbit. I have kept them out of hunting wild/killer boar). Again, by hierarchy I'm referring to the master-pet relationship. Not sure why the yotz in this last video, above, is joking about getting down on all fours and sniffing eachother's butts. Probably a British thing. Thanks.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
The video is by Dr. David L. Mech, his statements are of course not disputed by the scientific community. I doubt you will find a paper "debunking" the original study as it probably will have been retracted and replaced by other(s).
I did not say the punishment approach doesn't work at all (I actually started out as a trainer using aversive methods like CM). It doesn't with certain behavioural issues, that is why many dogs still get euthanised rather than professionally treated.
The handler / trainer has to decide based on their own personal ethics whether to educate their dog with aversive methods when it is actually completely unnecessary (and may even be counterproductive). A recent scientific study actually gives evidence that positive reinforcement methods work better than aversive methods.
Your argument is similar to that of many in the "dog agility commnity" years back, that laughed about trainers using the clicker for training their dogs, until these started winning competitions, these days most, if not all use the clicker.
The "butt sniffing" is a sarcastic remark towards those (like CM and his afficionados) that seem to think they are "simulating" certain dog behaviour (like a bite) when hitting, kicking or otherwise punishing the dog.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
stokkebye (sounds retarded)
I agree, if the dog has issues BEFORE you adopted the dog, you have no idea what its history is and smacking a dog thats been starved or beaten will only make it worse. Im talking about owners who raised their dogs, spoiled them and never trained them, and their dogs are little bastards that do whatever the fuck they want. I remember a couple episodes of ceasers that came across dogs with unknown issues and were probably abused and he did not do this with them, he even said it wouldnt work. He took them to his ranch and let them roam with other dogs to learn from them on how to behave ofr a few weeks, one time he said the dog would not be able to go back to his adopted family and he kept it to stay with his pack on the ranch.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
It doesn't matter why the dog gives the unwanted behaviuour. There is NEVER a need to punish them in the educational process. With some you can, with others you don't. Why one would choose to apply aversive methods when there is no need (and, again, there never is, when we are talking about "educating", NOT "managing") is beyond me.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
stokkebye (sounds retarded)
Do you ever say "NO" to your dogs? DO they know what "NO" means? DO they stop immediatly when you say it? Or do they test you to see if you will be giving them treats becuase they know how the game is played? Just tonight, my daughter put her stuffed animal down on the floor and in the excitment of everyone being in her room for bed time he investigated this thing making noises on the ground and tried to lick it/nibble at it to see how it tasted and my GF said "no" in her usual playful meaningless way and he thought it was a game she was playing and he tried to lick it more till I said "no" and he stopped immediatly and left it alone. Now I wonder, since my GF takes the same approach as you do, how effective your "no" would be and how you'd have stopped it, or would you have taken the "toy" away and put the dog in "time out"?
+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
"Do you ever say "NO" to your dogs?"
Never!
"DO they know what "NO" means?"
No!
If I need their attention I call the individual's name or tell muiltiple dogs to "look", when they are extremely excited (i.e. when they cannot respond to conversational volume any more) I whistle or shout "hey".
If I want them to leave things (food, bone, toy, people, etc.) alone I tell them "lass' es" (then "nimm es" when I decide they can eat or play with it), if I want them to drop something I say "aus".
If I need to control them otherwise I will call them and ask them to sit or lie down.
As the behaviours "attention", "dropping", "taking it" and "leaving it" were conditioned (trained) using non aversive methods there is no need to raise my voice or speak sternly (what the other twat calls "naster voice", I believe).
These behaviours have been well established so they don't expect anything in return but I still praise them (by saying "ja fein"). During training we fase out the reward so the dog doesn't "bribe" the handler to get them to do stuff.
If I need to create general behaviour like for example leaving alone whatever the kid plays with or holds in their hand, I start an association process of compatible behaviour with the situation (or person or thing etc.).
"Now I wonder, since my GF takes the same approach as you do..."
Well she doesn't now, does she.
The problem with saying "no" is that you don't give the dog information about what you actually want of them.
Either you have to condition certain behaviour to be repeated with a certain noise (like saying "leave it") you are making by reinforcing it or you have to condition the noise (like shouting "no") as a warning before the punisher so the dog freezes in fear of the consequences and supresses the behaviour.
I do the former as my ethices don't permit me to punish the dog as part of the educational process, you do the latter, probably anything you say in a stern fashion in a similar situation would have the same effect on your dog:
Stopping anything in fear of the consequences.
If you don't want to introduce that many "commands" (like "taking it" and "leaving it") you can simply associate the dog to look at you when you say their name call them away from the object of desire ("come") and then make them lie down away from it.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Bobbob (Site Administrator)
Daft, let me respond to your 5 stanzas reply to me, above:
a. David Lynch's PhD thesis and subsequent work have done nothing to debunk pack theory and hierarchical relationships, which is all I've talked about. Pack = submission to a hierarchy; whether as alpha, beta or omega. You write 'I doubt you will find a paper debunking the original study as it probably will have been retracted and replaced by other(s).' This statement is silly since the original paper as you would call it is ages old wisdom (25,000 years' worth since man started domesticating the wolf). Also, don't just throw around citations and show some respect for Lynch's work; he found a way to insinuate/integrate himself into a wolf pack after all - and confirmed rank order is not determined by having the alpha dole out rewards/treats, but rather by agression and negative reinforcement, which he observed first-hand. Your candy-gum-drop-eutopian-dog-park style sounds lovely, but in the real world, and I'm assuming with dogs bigger than a plush toy, Lynch recognized that had he wanted to play a role other than simple observer in the pack, he too would have had to defend his rank, with agression. This is part of the reason the experiment ended.
b. More of Daftcunt backpeddling, not worth my time.
c. Holy shit.. this is your scientific study (reference yours)?!? "Positive Reinforcement is More Effective at Training Dogs than an Electronic Collar, Study Shows" with a Corgi running on the cover of 'Companion Animal Psychology' or whatever the f#@k? LOLOLOLOLS... dude. I am sorry. Sniff. Please do better. Sincerely, another member of the scientific community. 'Personal ethics of the trainer' that you harp on about take a back seat to training effectiveness when you're trying to break the dog's natural inclination or instinct - and this includes having the dog be subservient to a human master during times of uncertainty or stress. Negative reinforcement does just fine.
d. Daftcunt passing summary judgement: 'Your argument is similar to that of many in the "dog agility commnity" years back, that laughed about trainers using the clicker for training their dogs, until these started winning competitions, these days most, if not all use the clicker.' You're wrong, again. We're not all looking to hit a clicker and have a corgi or whatever jump onto a see-saw or fetch our slippers for laughs. Most of us, for practical reasons, are interested in a dog that comes to heel when called, and as per our original discussion as I recall, yields to authority and opens its maw and drops whatever wild pheasant/garbage/chocolate/your kid, whenever you command it to.
e. Regarding butt-sniffing. Seriously? Well.. thanks professor. We're glad you're here to expain this to us, haha. Do you sarcasm, much?
Please and Thank you, always.
+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
"a" / "b" science has moved on, many dog "trainers" haven't. "Pack theory" is debunked believe it or not. Punishment based training does work (to a certain extent, not with all dogs), I NEVER denied that. If you want to use it although you don't have to it it is YOUR choice.
"hierarchical" is only sweet talking "punishment based". "Omegas / Alfas" don't exist in dogs, it is not how dominance in dogs work. You may also refer to a book by another scientist (so it is probably not intersting to you): James O'Heare Dominance theory in dogs.
"c" "lol snif" dafuck? do you have something to say? apparently not. What is wrong with the study? Please point out the flaws.
"'Personal ethics of the trainer' that you harp on about take a back seat to training effectiveness when you're trying to break the dog's natural inclination or instinct - and this includes having the dog be subservient to a human master during times of uncertainty or stress."
You would have an argument if these methods were more effective, they are not.
"Negative reinforcement does just fine" I believe you mean positive punishment (hmmm, science denier, wrong application of terms, are you a "sock" of the biastoid?)*
"d" You are proving my point again. Science has moved on and proven other ways are more efficient but the "traditionals" keep on beating their dogs into submission and try to shrug everything else of with what they think are snide remarks.
It would be funny if the dogs wouldn't be suffering from the likes of you.
* To clarify what we are talking about:
Positive punishment: something is “added” to the mix that makes the behavior less likely to continue or reoccur (i.e., an unpleasant consequence is introduced to the subject to discourage their behavior).
Positive reinforcement: something is added to the mix that makes the behavior more likely to continue or reoccur (i.e., a pleasant consequence is introduced to the subject to encourage their behavior).
Negative punishment: something is “taken away” from the mix that makes the behavior less likely to continue or reoccur (i.e., something pleasant is removed from the subject to discourage their behavior).
Negative reinforcement: something is taken away from the mix that makes the behavior more likely to continue or reoccur (i.e., something unpleasant is removed from the subject to encourage their behavior).
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Bobbob (Site Administrator)
And you've just proven my point. Zap collars go for 30$US with beep, vibration and yes, shock settings. I suspect you could have greatly benefited had the technology been there when you were younger (and yes, there's a double meaning there).
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
Keep on torturing your dogs if you like but please stop sweet talking this rubbish.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Bobbob (Site Administrator)
Thanks for the parting shot but I've made it clear I'm against abusing or hurting the animal in any way. And I think all we've learned here is that on average you hold puppers in higher regard than you do your fellow man. Henceforth you shall be known as Darth.. Snuggles. Sweet talking? Seriously, you're the one giving your dogs diabetes.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
"...you hold puppers in higher regard than you do your fellow man."
Only if it comes to twats like you or cockintheeye, skeptoid sock.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Bobbob (Site Administrator)
Reading his replies to you, you got it stuck in more places than your eye bud.
+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
stokkebye (sounds retarded)
+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
I think it's just in their genes to protect their food like their ancestors had to do. Some have it more than others.
My parents German Shepard is quite the opposite, you can take food from him all day long, and it won't bother him a bit. Never had to train him for it. OTOH, that dogs a pussy :D Even scared of our Corgi but they're slowly coming along.
+1
+2
-1
Vote comment up/down
Dagambit (Long Spike)
Backdraft, I can only give your comment ONE of the +1's how do we fix this issue?
1. Common sense DNA answer
2. You have a corgi (mine recently past away after 11 years of ownership, I fucking loved that dog)
3. Showing an example that all dogs have individual personalities. Like people...
Comments
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
Good timing with this.
We got a Corgi about 6 months ago (for the kids). The dogs really well behaved but just a few days ago noticed the "food aggression" when the kids tried taking food away from it. Bit one of my kids and I promptly went the "dominate" route.
Took the dog from the back of the neck and held it to the floor for a minute till it calmed down and gave up. And I can tell you that that little dog did give up easily, tried snapping at me, and kept growling. Came as a total surprise when she's usually so submissive and easygoing.
Can see how this would be way more effective.
(Old Spike)
Yes, you are 100% correct.
Here is a good example of how NOT to deal with it:
(Old Spike)
You're such a tool.
(Old Spike)
Please indulge us with your interpretation on what is going on and where the narrator is actually wrong (or where CM is acting appropriately). Try to use appropriate terminology. Thank you.
(sounds retarded)
Oh kiss my ass with this soyboy shit. THat dog was NOT "in fear for its life", dogs in fear of their life fucking run! If that dog was smacked by its OWNER and THEN ceaser did this shit, then yeah maybe the dog would be afraid. This dog has never been smacked and doesnt realize that humans can smack them. Why do think dogs who were raised with cats dont fuck with cats, cuz they know those little bastards can smack them and have little razers on their paws! They're not in fear of their lives from cats, their in fear of getting smacked. This dog doesnt think humans can hurt BECUASE the owner is a puss and never smacked that fucking dog! SO when ceaser smacked her the dog was like "fuck you buddy, my food, I'll bite your ass" which is oppisite of "im afraid of you so Im goign to bite your ass".
(Old Spike)
And here we go again, another proof that "sounds" is surperfluous (so you also get it: unnecessary, redundant) in your subtitle......
(sounds retarded)
Nice, for a dog with that problem already there. But what causes it?
I see a dog that thinks its in charge and the boss of humans, which is a problem from its rearing.
(Old Spike)
"I see a dog that thinks its in charge and the boss of humans, which is a problem from its rearing."
Common misconception, mostly uttered by "trainers" and their followers that still believe in the "dominance theory" derived from wolves, which has been debunked over 40 years ago.
If they would think that it wouldn't be so easy and painless to eradicate.
(sounds retarded)
I dont know man, I've never seen a dog act like that with a strong dominant dude, just sayin! I always see that behavior with woman dog owners or pussy ass dudes and of course assholes who abuse their dogs, of course you have those that have adopted dogs with that pre-existing condition, in that case THIS method would be the way to go.
(Old Spike)
Look at the video in my reply above, "strong dominant dude" with TONS of experience fucks shit up completely.
You've just never seen a problematic dog.
(Site Administrator)
I watched the full main video above, Daft, out of deference to your expertise. I am not the biggest fan of what is termed 'modern' dog trainnig. In this video, all I see is an example of how you can temporarily change an animal's behaviour as long as there is another reward / nutritive source of greater or equal value readily available; but wihout the struggle. Our friend keeps his left fist clenched for the whole video as he dispenses treats (tiny bits of meat) from it. I learned during a university animal behaviour course that for most animals in the wild, it's about obtaining their meal with the least amount of effort. At 6:40 we see a nice example of the dog actually conditioning the trainer as he brings a toss that is too far away closer to that left hand, where the real treats are. This is just a game for the pup and the behaviour won't be repeated beyond a couple of instances where there is no reward. Let's just agree that you don't believe in the dominance/hierarchy relationship, whereas I don't have that problem. The old way is the best.
(Short Spike)
My mother-in-law was visiting us for a couple months and within the first week had inadvertently trained our dachshund to take her slippers. She woke up one morning to be greeted by our dog waiting for her by the stairs. He was so excited to have a visitor, he grabbed one of her slippers and started to run around. She made the mistake of chasing him instead of calling him over and seemingly made a game out of it. She then proceeded to give him a treat as a sort of blackmail to get the slippers back. From that day till the day she left, he would wait for her to come up the stairs, take her slippers just as she approached and would not give them back until a treat was provided. He ended up training her.
Positive reinforcement 90% of the time and negative reinforcement 10%. I find that to be the best balance for both dogs and children. And just like my dogs, if any of my children were unwilling to share (with other siblings or friends), I would intervene and take the object away and only return it when they understood the importance of sharing. With dogs (and their short memory and limited cognition), you just need to take it away for a short duration. And obviously (for both dogs and kids) the younger the lessons are taught, the easier it is to teach and with a longer lasting positive impact. Though if you are adopting (I guess both dogs and kids), you better be prepared to get bit a couple times correcting their behavior.
(Site Administrator)
Indeed, pets and children often make the best trainers ;-)
(Short Spike)
Did you mispell trainees?
(Site Administrator)
erm..no.
(sounds retarded)
My girlfriend and mother of our child takes Daftcunt approach with our kid AND our dog, she tries to get our kid to do things with rewards and threatens to take them away if she doesnt listen, my kid pushes her buttons and knows when to put on the water works and knows when her mom is bluffing. And it fails horribly, with both the kid and the dog. When she puts her to bed my kid always gets back up and it becomes a night of vague threats and future rewards to get her back in bed, like "your not going to grandmas house tomorrow or youre not going skiing tomorrow if you dont go back to bed". It is a failure on her part. And she has been working with kids as an elementary teacher for 20 yrs. I did my time "training" my daughter that I dont bluff and I dont fuck around, if I tell her she is in time out till she stops, I will sit there with her for hours, Ive only had to do that twice when she was very young and now all I have to do is threaten to do it and she knows I will do it. Just like my dog, I spent the first years of their life correcting bad behaviors and not letting up. A prime example of recent was when I was teaching my kid boxing and she was not listening and punching wrong and I yelled and drilled her like a drill instructor till she punched the bag correctly and my GF came out shocked and tried telling me I cant do that and that not the way to teach her, I was being mean, etc... Till I said this, "do you you want her to break her fucking wrist punching the bag or would you rather me insist she listen to me and punch the bag correctly?". Its been a month and me and my daughter are still training and I only had to be that way only once, now she listens to me the first time I tell her to do something. I am a big jolly fun dad when its playtime but I can and will become a scary bear when I need to be. If she spills her milks by accident, I dont care, but I will make her clean it up, but if she throws one her toys because shes mad at something, or something like that, on purpose, I will be upset. She knows she can make mistakes but bed behaviors will and do have consequences. Its weird because my GF will get upset at her mistakes and "not want to deal with it" when it comes to our kids bad behaviors.
(Site Administrator)
And bonus, she will seek your approval because it has value and is harder won. Just be careful she doesn't like the bad-boys too when she's older. ;-) I foresee a future where you're constantly breaking out the Remington gun-cleaning kit and giving ol'Bessie a polish whenever the young suitors come calling heheh.
(Old Spike)
"My girlfriend and mother of our child takes Daftcunt approach..."
No, they don't.
Using positive reinforcement is not "spoiling" or "bribing" but creating or shaping behaviour. If they are not successful with it they are simply reinforcing the wrong behaviour.
Creating behaviour with positive reinforcement is actually more reliable than changing it with punishment, however the trainer needs to think harder about how to achieve it.
(Old Spike)
"In this video, all I see is an example of how you can temporarily change an animal's behaviour as long as there is another reward / nutritive source of greater or equal value readily available; but wihout the struggle."
Yes. This is true initially, during training whilst behaviour establishes itself, you fase out the higher value reward, though, after a while you can remove anything from the dog without the input of any "treat".
"Our friend keeps his left fist clenched for the whole video as he dispenses treats (tiny bits of meat) from it. I learned during a university animal behaviour course that for most animals in the wild, it's about obtaining their meal with the least amount of effort."
In effect this is what is used to change the behaviour here.
"At 6:40 we see a nice example of the dog actually conditioning the trainer as he brings a toss that is too far away closer to that left hand, where the real treats are."
No, this is incorrect. The trainer raised the level of difficulty too high too quickly for the dog (tossing the treat too far) so he had to offer it closer to get the initial success.
"This is just a game for the pup"
essentially yes
"and the behaviour won't be repeated beyond a couple of instances where there is no reward."
incorrect. The behaviour will be changed reliably as there is no suppression of behaviour due to punishment involved. The dog simply learns (is conditioned) that it is no problem if the handler takes away this important possession from him (reardless of whether this is food or a toy or whatever).
"Let's just agree that you don't believe in the dominance/hierarchy relationship, whereas I don't have that problem. The old way is the best."
We have to decide based on our own personal ethics whether we want to punish the dog when there are more reliable, non aversive methods available to us.
He is also setting the dog up to succeed rather than setting up to fail and then "correcting" (=punishing)
As there is no mental stress added by punishing or confronting the dog (as is done in the CM video) the dog rather happily complies, hence even when the bone is then filled with peanut butter we can see a continuous progress.
(Site Administrator)
Actual published source, please. Cause for now, the hierarchical approach has worked fine and turned out some really good hunting dogs (we're talking grouse and rabbit. I have kept them out of hunting wild/killer boar). Again, by hierarchy I'm referring to the master-pet relationship. Not sure why the yotz in this last video, above, is joking about getting down on all fours and sniffing eachother's butts. Probably a British thing. Thanks.
(Old Spike)
The video is by Dr. David L. Mech, his statements are of course not disputed by the scientific community. I doubt you will find a paper "debunking" the original study as it probably will have been retracted and replaced by other(s).
I did not say the punishment approach doesn't work at all (I actually started out as a trainer using aversive methods like CM). It doesn't with certain behavioural issues, that is why many dogs still get euthanised rather than professionally treated.
The handler / trainer has to decide based on their own personal ethics whether to educate their dog with aversive methods when it is actually completely unnecessary (and may even be counterproductive). A recent scientific study actually gives evidence that positive reinforcement methods work better than aversive methods.
Your argument is similar to that of many in the "dog agility commnity" years back, that laughed about trainers using the clicker for training their dogs, until these started winning competitions, these days most, if not all use the clicker.
The "butt sniffing" is a sarcastic remark towards those (like CM and his afficionados) that seem to think they are "simulating" certain dog behaviour (like a bite) when hitting, kicking or otherwise punishing the dog.
(sounds retarded)
I agree, if the dog has issues BEFORE you adopted the dog, you have no idea what its history is and smacking a dog thats been starved or beaten will only make it worse. Im talking about owners who raised their dogs, spoiled them and never trained them, and their dogs are little bastards that do whatever the fuck they want. I remember a couple episodes of ceasers that came across dogs with unknown issues and were probably abused and he did not do this with them, he even said it wouldnt work. He took them to his ranch and let them roam with other dogs to learn from them on how to behave ofr a few weeks, one time he said the dog would not be able to go back to his adopted family and he kept it to stay with his pack on the ranch.
(Old Spike)
It doesn't matter why the dog gives the unwanted behaviuour. There is NEVER a need to punish them in the educational process. With some you can, with others you don't. Why one would choose to apply aversive methods when there is no need (and, again, there never is, when we are talking about "educating", NOT "managing") is beyond me.
(sounds retarded)
Do you ever say "NO" to your dogs? DO they know what "NO" means? DO they stop immediatly when you say it? Or do they test you to see if you will be giving them treats becuase they know how the game is played? Just tonight, my daughter put her stuffed animal down on the floor and in the excitment of everyone being in her room for bed time he investigated this thing making noises on the ground and tried to lick it/nibble at it to see how it tasted and my GF said "no" in her usual playful meaningless way and he thought it was a game she was playing and he tried to lick it more till I said "no" and he stopped immediatly and left it alone. Now I wonder, since my GF takes the same approach as you do, how effective your "no" would be and how you'd have stopped it, or would you have taken the "toy" away and put the dog in "time out"?
(Old Spike)
"Do you ever say "NO" to your dogs?"
Never!
"DO they know what "NO" means?"
No!
If I need their attention I call the individual's name or tell muiltiple dogs to "look", when they are extremely excited (i.e. when they cannot respond to conversational volume any more) I whistle or shout "hey".
If I want them to leave things (food, bone, toy, people, etc.) alone I tell them "lass' es" (then "nimm es" when I decide they can eat or play with it), if I want them to drop something I say "aus".
If I need to control them otherwise I will call them and ask them to sit or lie down.
As the behaviours "attention", "dropping", "taking it" and "leaving it" were conditioned (trained) using non aversive methods there is no need to raise my voice or speak sternly (what the other twat calls "naster voice", I believe).
These behaviours have been well established so they don't expect anything in return but I still praise them (by saying "ja fein"). During training we fase out the reward so the dog doesn't "bribe" the handler to get them to do stuff.
If I need to create general behaviour like for example leaving alone whatever the kid plays with or holds in their hand, I start an association process of compatible behaviour with the situation (or person or thing etc.).
"Now I wonder, since my GF takes the same approach as you do..."
Well she doesn't now, does she.
The problem with saying "no" is that you don't give the dog information about what you actually want of them.
Either you have to condition certain behaviour to be repeated with a certain noise (like saying "leave it") you are making by reinforcing it or you have to condition the noise (like shouting "no") as a warning before the punisher so the dog freezes in fear of the consequences and supresses the behaviour.
I do the former as my ethices don't permit me to punish the dog as part of the educational process, you do the latter, probably anything you say in a stern fashion in a similar situation would have the same effect on your dog:
Stopping anything in fear of the consequences.
If you don't want to introduce that many "commands" (like "taking it" and "leaving it") you can simply associate the dog to look at you when you say their name call them away from the object of desire ("come") and then make them lie down away from it.
(Site Administrator)
Daft, let me respond to your 5 stanzas reply to me, above:
a. David Lynch's PhD thesis and subsequent work have done nothing to debunk pack theory and hierarchical relationships, which is all I've talked about. Pack = submission to a hierarchy; whether as alpha, beta or omega. You write 'I doubt you will find a paper debunking the original study as it probably will have been retracted and replaced by other(s).' This statement is silly since the original paper as you would call it is ages old wisdom (25,000 years' worth since man started domesticating the wolf). Also, don't just throw around citations and show some respect for Lynch's work; he found a way to insinuate/integrate himself into a wolf pack after all - and confirmed rank order is not determined by having the alpha dole out rewards/treats, but rather by agression and negative reinforcement, which he observed first-hand. Your candy-gum-drop-eutopian-dog-park style sounds lovely, but in the real world, and I'm assuming with dogs bigger than a plush toy, Lynch recognized that had he wanted to play a role other than simple observer in the pack, he too would have had to defend his rank, with agression. This is part of the reason the experiment ended.
b. More of Daftcunt backpeddling, not worth my time.
c. Holy shit.. this is your scientific study (reference yours)?!? "Positive Reinforcement is More Effective at Training Dogs than an Electronic Collar, Study Shows" with a Corgi running on the cover of 'Companion Animal Psychology' or whatever the f#@k? LOLOLOLOLS... dude. I am sorry. Sniff. Please do better. Sincerely, another member of the scientific community. 'Personal ethics of the trainer' that you harp on about take a back seat to training effectiveness when you're trying to break the dog's natural inclination or instinct - and this includes having the dog be subservient to a human master during times of uncertainty or stress. Negative reinforcement does just fine.
d. Daftcunt passing summary judgement: 'Your argument is similar to that of many in the "dog agility commnity" years back, that laughed about trainers using the clicker for training their dogs, until these started winning competitions, these days most, if not all use the clicker.' You're wrong, again. We're not all looking to hit a clicker and have a corgi or whatever jump onto a see-saw or fetch our slippers for laughs. Most of us, for practical reasons, are interested in a dog that comes to heel when called, and as per our original discussion as I recall, yields to authority and opens its maw and drops whatever wild pheasant/garbage/chocolate/your kid, whenever you command it to.
e. Regarding butt-sniffing. Seriously? Well.. thanks professor. We're glad you're here to expain this to us, haha. Do you sarcasm, much?
Please and Thank you, always.
(Old Spike)
"a" / "b" science has moved on, many dog "trainers" haven't. "Pack theory" is debunked believe it or not. Punishment based training does work (to a certain extent, not with all dogs), I NEVER denied that. If you want to use it although you don't have to it it is YOUR choice.
"hierarchical" is only sweet talking "punishment based". "Omegas / Alfas" don't exist in dogs, it is not how dominance in dogs work. You may also refer to a book by another scientist (so it is probably not intersting to you): James O'Heare Dominance theory in dogs.
"c" "lol snif" dafuck? do you have something to say? apparently not. What is wrong with the study? Please point out the flaws.
"'Personal ethics of the trainer' that you harp on about take a back seat to training effectiveness when you're trying to break the dog's natural inclination or instinct - and this includes having the dog be subservient to a human master during times of uncertainty or stress."
You would have an argument if these methods were more effective, they are not.
"Negative reinforcement does just fine" I believe you mean positive punishment (hmmm, science denier, wrong application of terms, are you a "sock" of the biastoid?)*
"d" You are proving my point again. Science has moved on and proven other ways are more efficient but the "traditionals" keep on beating their dogs into submission and try to shrug everything else of with what they think are snide remarks.
It would be funny if the dogs wouldn't be suffering from the likes of you.
* To clarify what we are talking about:
(Site Administrator)
And you've just proven my point. Zap collars go for 30$US with beep, vibration and yes, shock settings. I suspect you could have greatly benefited had the technology been there when you were younger (and yes, there's a double meaning there).
(Old Spike)
Keep on torturing your dogs if you like but please stop sweet talking this rubbish.
(Site Administrator)
Thanks for the parting shot but I've made it clear I'm against abusing or hurting the animal in any way. And I think all we've learned here is that on average you hold puppers in higher regard than you do your fellow man. Henceforth you shall be known as Darth.. Snuggles. Sweet talking? Seriously, you're the one giving your dogs diabetes.
(Old Spike)
"...you hold puppers in higher regard than you do your fellow man."
Only if it comes to twats like you or cockintheeye, skeptoid sock.
(Site Administrator)
Reading his replies to you, you got it stuck in more places than your eye bud.
(sounds retarded)
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
I think it's just in their genes to protect their food like their ancestors had to do. Some have it more than others.
My parents German Shepard is quite the opposite, you can take food from him all day long, and it won't bother him a bit. Never had to train him for it. OTOH, that dogs a pussy :D Even scared of our Corgi but they're slowly coming along.
(Long Spike)
Backdraft, I can only give your comment ONE of the +1's how do we fix this issue?
1. Common sense DNA answer
2. You have a corgi (mine recently past away after 11 years of ownership, I fucking loved that dog)
3. Showing an example that all dogs have individual personalities. Like people...
This is at least a +3!