i've seen dogs that have their butts glued to the floor with purely motivational training, that will do it if you are skipping, running, jumping, others are flashing toys all around that dog, etc. THAT takes a long time, and i would think that's what the lady was referring to.
Actually, no. She was referring to teaching the dog to sit without having to lure it there every time. It's great that she is happy with those results, but that has been my point over the course of this entire discussion... reasonable
time. My view of reasonable is obviously different than that woman's and probably different than a lot of people's. In respect to self rewarding and often dangerous behaviors, "reasonable time" gets much much shorter.
it takes months to get your dogs ABSOLUTE focus using only PR, but you'll get amazing results out of it."
I agree. You can absolutely get great results with PR... and you can get great results from compulsion as well. A dog that is trained with compulsion, correct, fair, compulsion usually looks just as happy as a dog trained with PR. No, not every dog, but most. Your dog doesn't so you changed your methods. That is commendable, not everyone is willing to do that.
and besides, the counter "back it up with how many 200pt scores you have" is kinda silly, because RARELY does anybody do perfect, especially because of the human element, both on the handlers side and the judges side.
And I never would have said that to anyone other than the person who I was talking to. This same person said that "if you can't train your dog using only PR then you should never own anything other than a fish." She was totally serious and meant exactly what she said.
personally i wouldn't like some stranger telling me what works for my dog too much either, but consistently high scores are one thing, and very impressive, the occasional 200pt score, if any, is also SUPER impressive, but kinda just the cosmos aligning in your favor that day!
Again, I totally agree on this one. That same person's scores weren't even consistantly high, so frankly she didn't have a leg to stand on.
In my opinion, the average dog needs an actual consequence for their action, and more of a consequence than a "bad dog" from their owner. Also, with self rewarding behaviors, especially when the dog has succeeded, fixing that behavior can take far longer than I personally would consdier reasonable.
Consequences can be bad like you are implying or they can be good. The question for an individual trainer needs to make is what one would be best, not nessarilly the quickest for them as a trainer and for the individual dog.
Well, if you have read any of my posts, you'd realize that I am referring to negative consequences in realtion to not following a command that is known and understood.
Or the consequence will be that the dog will associate the pain with the ducks and, once they get a chance, still go after them. You can't say that can't happen with our breed.
I just heard a story of a Pit Bull that was sprayed by a skunk then proceeded to kill it. Hmmm....I guess that correction didn't work.
Not quite. The ducks are going about their daily duck lives and the dog charges and gets a correction. There is nothing to draw the line between duck and the correction.
The skunk was a target and the dog was in "combat" with it and the dog got sprayed. The skunk was not passive, it actively "attacked" the dog. The next time that dog sees a skunk it will probably do after it. This is a big problem with dogs that have attacked porcupines, they remember the porcupine "attacking" them over and over but they are focused on the target that is hurting them, so they continue to attack it. The next time, they want to "get back" at it. I know four dogs who have tangled with porcupines and all four have tried to do it a second time (or in the case of my parent's dog, a third.) Will every
dog? No, of course not.
When a dog is activly going after (or trying to go after) a dog, it is in drive and focused on that dog. If you give it an incorrect/poorly timed correction then the perception of the dog is that the correction is related ot the other dog.
For dogs not trained to do so, a passive object does not illicet the same reaction and associations as an acitve/challenging one.
How would your method work if you were teaching the same dog to herd the ducks? I don't think it would be effective at all.
Well, if you were teaching the dog to herd the ducks then you wouldn't want the dog to stay away from the ducks so what does that have to do with anything? She wanted to solve the problem of the dog chasing and killing the ducks
teaching the dog to herd them never entered into the discussion. "My method" was to keep the dog from looking sideways at the ducks - "Going after ducks sucks."
I was a member of a hardcore PR only list for a wile (agbeh on yahoo.) There were a number of trainers there, though you are not allowed to give training advice (whatever.) I joined in an effort to broaden my horizions in training. I finally gave up on it when they applauded a member for teaching her dog to sit reliably... after months of work. For me, that is not a reasonable amount of time. Is it for some people? Obviously yes, but I'm really not thinking it is reasonable for the rest of the dog owning world.
This contradicts this
I trialed for my CD with Riggs last year. We didn't get any legs, all due to handler error. I was so keyed up that my dog didn't have a clue what was going on and his reaction to that was to break his sit on the first day. Things went downhill from there and he got less and less attentive the more I got stressed. The less attentive he got the more stressed I got, and we self destructed. I finally pulled him because it wasn't worth it.
Actually, no they don't. The dog breaking was due to HANDLER ERROR, as clearly noted in the post. Reread it. No handler error would have produced a completely different result, as evidenced by his 8 and 10 minute downs in training with dogs retreving in the ring behind us, 8 dogs in the ring with us and our instructor weaving in and out around the dogs and stepping over them. Me totally freaking out and displaying body language that he perceived as "bad" illicets a distinct and not uncommon reaction - "if mom's freaking out that bad then something is really wrong here, I'd rather be over there with her instead of way over here." A quite common problem with people new to showing. The same thing happens at horse shows with new riders. Wound up handlers equal misbehaving animals.
Anyway, I was told by another PR trainer that the reason that he broke his sit and later quit heeling was because I trained with corrections and if I had trained with PR only then he would have wanted nothing in the world more than to stay right at my side every step; not even the hotdog that was being eaten by a spectator at ring side (I was ready to kill). I asked her to back up her words with all of her 200 point obedience routines... funny enough she couldn't produce a single one.
Funny enough, neither can you. So what is your point? Your method is better? Obviously not.
Gee, funny, I never said that I had one. Please, go find me the post where I said I did. The person I was talking to stated that any dog trained with PR would never want to leave your side ever, and never want to do anything but what you taught it to do. Quite frankly, that's a load of horse pucky... no one here has said any method is infallible, I personally feel that proofing with compulsion is more reliable
Have you trained Riggs to not go after other dogs and squirells or whatever? If so, from everything you are saying you should be able to go just about anywhere with him and he would be pretty much 100% bomb proof. Is this the case?
Well, yes, yes I have, quite reliably actually. Not long ago he was worked in the immediate proximity of 4 other intact male dogs. Off leash? No, I'm not stupid and that's a risk that isn't worth it to me. And you'll have to show me where I ever said my dog was bomb proof, or even implied that he is. He's reliable, not perfict. We're talking about training methods, not picking apart my dog... or anyone's dog for that matter.