realpitbull wrote:
1) If you use the e-collar for proofing, can you argue that you've spent sufficient time establishing a positive reinforcement history for behavior you are seeking to maintain, in varying environments and under varying levels of distraction (especially in the environment you'd choose to use the e-collar)? If you feel that the distractions you are working around are far too desirable to your dog and food/play is not sufficient reinforcement for ignoring them, have you used Premack to attempt to establish reliability?
realpitbull wrote:2) What justification is there for using pain to get a dog to perform reliably? Except in **truly life or death situations** which you cannot *avoid*, I cannot think of any reasons where I would say B justifies A, if B equals a behavior I want my dog to perform and A equals an aversive I must use to get him to perform it. Certainly not a performance event where I am seeking titles which only matter to me nor to justify off-leash reliability (especially since 100% reliability off leash is a dream, not a reality, no matter what method you are using to train).
realpitbull wrote:3) I avoid the terms "obey" and "disobey" in dog training discussions. These are loaded words, and presuppose a dog's understand of an intangible "rule" or "law" that an owner establishes- "You do THIS because *I* said so, end of story!" A dog is either "good" for obeying, or "bad' for disobeying. But to a dog, any behavior he performs is the "right" behavior - dogs are really straight forward like that; you don't have to guess at motive. If a dog does something, it's because there is reinforcement behind it, not because he is trying to be sneaky or is willfully disobedient. I look at a dog's behavior and if he does not respond to a cue or does something I don't like, I examine the reinforcement in the situation: has the dog not been properly reinforced for responding to my cue? What reinforcement is the dog getting for choosing a(n) (unwanted by me) behavior? I then figure out how to eliminate the reinforcement for doing the "wrong" thing and establish the reinforcement for doing the "right" thing.
The only "laws" a dog obeys are the laws of learning. If every behavior a dog performs, to the dog, is "right" (established as such because of reinforcement he has received), is pain in training ever really justifiable or fair?
realpitbull wrote:4) For those of you that use positive reinforcement to initially train a dog, then switch to aversives to "proof", are you worried about poisoning your cues?
katiek0417 wrote:
If she is across the room doing something, and I tell her to "lay down" and she doesn't...should I let that go just b/c I'm not there to "make" her do it? No, b/c if I do, she has just gotten away with something, and has also raised herself in the "social ladder."
katiek0417 wrote:Are there certain things that you do not allow your dog to do in your house? I, for one, do not allow counter surfing....the room, and quickly give her a treat...before 2-3 seconds has passed. Guess what? My kitchen table is at least 15 feet from the counter. I'm not making it across the room that fast when i have to push the chair back, get up, etc. So, I've really missed the chance to reward her for getting down when I told her to. Also, I've tried this method, she didn't care, and it didn't work, she still countersurfed. Alternatively, I have used the e-collar to "correct" her for countersurfing, with a stern "Pfooey." I no longer have a dog that countersurfs.
katiek0417 wrote:Many members of this board have discussed the fact that their dogs will hide if they have done something wrong. Example, dog eats shoe, dog doesn't meet you at the door. Sacha has done stuff that is not allowed (she has taken food from Nisha's bowl), then runs away before I can get to her. Nisha, before doing something for which she has previously been corrected will look at me for my reaction while doing it. Can you honestly say these dogs don't know that they're doing something wrong? There must be some inkling that what they are doing is wrong or they would not hide/run away from you/look at you out of the corner of their eye.
realpitbull wrote:4) For those of you that use positive reinforcement to initially train a dog, then switch to aversives to "proof", are you worried about poisoning your cues?
katiek0417 wrote:I don't know what other people do, but I do not give the correction at the same time as the command.
realpitbull wrote:1) If you use the e-collar for proofing, can you argue that you've spent sufficient time establishing a positive reinforcement history for behavior you are seeking to maintain, in varying environments and under varying levels of distraction (especially in the environment you'd choose to use the e-collar)? If you feel that the distractions you are working around are far too desirable to your dog and food/play is not sufficient reinforcement for ignoring them, have you used Premack to attempt to establish reliability?
2) What justification is there for using pain to get a dog to perform reliably? Except in **truly life or death situations** which you cannot *avoid*, I cannot think of any reasons where I would say B justifies A, if B equals a behavior I want my dog to perform and A equals an aversive I must use to get him to perform it. Certainly not a performance event where I am seeking titles which only matter to me nor to justify off-leash reliability (especially since 100% reliability off leash is a dream, not a reality, no matter what method you are using to train).
3) I avoid the terms "obey" and "disobey" in dog training discussions. These are loaded words, and presuppose a dog's understand of an intangible "rule" or "law" that an owner establishes- "You do THIS because *I* said so, end of story!" A dog is either "good" for obeying, or "bad' for disobeying. But to a dog, any behavior he performs is the "right" behavior - dogs are really straight forward like that; you don't have to guess at motive. If a dog does something, it's because there is reinforcement behind it, not because he is trying to be sneaky or is willfully disobedient. I look at a dog's behavior and if he does not respond to a cue or does something I don't like, I examine the reinforcement in the situation: has the dog not been properly reinforced for responding to my cue? What reinforcement is the dog getting for choosing a(n) (unwanted by me) behavior? I then figure out how to eliminate the reinforcement for doing the "wrong" thing and establish the reinforcement for doing the "right" thing.
The only "laws" a dog obeys are the laws of learning. If every behavior a dog performs, to the dog, is "right" (established as such because of reinforcement he has received), is pain in training ever really justifiable or fair?
4) For those of you that use positive reinforcement to initially train a dog, then switch to aversives to "proof", are you worried about poisoning your cues?
realpitbull wrote:This is negative punishment.
katiek0417 wrote:Well said, Malli and Michelle.
My dogs are working dogs. I don't believe in clickers b/c they do nothing for the drive of the dog. If I want my dogs to work, I need to work them in drive.
katiek0417 wrote:My dogs are working dogs. I don't believe in clickers b/c they do nothing for the drive of the dog. If I want my dogs to work, I need to work them in drive.
1) The wet grass scenario....I would argue that the dog hasn't been properly reinforced for sitting in wet grass. If I only train on dry, comfy surfaces, I can't expect my dog to sit his bare butt on wet grass (eewww yucky!) I'd figure out what the dog would want that could be used as a reinforcer and then practice! Not trying to change your way (which works for you!), again just saying what I'd do.
realpitbull wrote:3) Michelle, briefly, to explain a poisoned cue.......when you've taught your dog using positive reinforcement, the cue itself becomes a precursor to the reinforcer; the dog gets that the cue = reinforcerment is coming (assuming some behavior is performed, of course). But it's still a predictor that a reward is coming. If you then start to correct a dog for not performing or not performing fast enough (after you've given your cue), you'll find your behavior breaking down all together; because the cue that the dog had been so happily responding to before is now predicting an aversive. The dog associates the cue with the aversive, not with the misbehavior.
You'll find this happens a lot with lagging dogs. The dog's been heeling nicely, responding to the cue "heel", but when the dog starts getting corrected for lagging here and there, you'll find that the lagging might seriously increase instead of decrease. The dog is given the cue, "heel", and immediately lags behind in an effort to avoid the correction he now invariably gets when he hears that cue. The cue no longer means, "ok, when I hear 'heel' and stay at mom's side and walk with her, I get nice things!". It now means, "I hear heel and I get corrected". I mean, if anything, it's miscommunication.
pitbullmamaliz wrote:I was always anti-e-collars as I've always heard them referred to as "shock collars".
mnp13 wrote:katiek0417 wrote:My dogs are working dogs. I don't believe in clickers b/c they do nothing for the drive of the dog. If I want my dogs to work, I need to work them in drive.
This I would disagree with. Ruby was a nut case when I was working with the marker. You can foster drive with a marker, you just have to approach it differently.
realpitbull wrote:katiek0417 wrote:Well said, Malli and Michelle.
My dogs are working dogs. I don't believe in clickers b/c they do nothing for the drive of the dog. If I want my dogs to work, I need to work them in drive.
Can you explain this further? How does using a CR decrease or interfere with drive?
realpitbull wrote:
2) Katie, if you use positive reinforcement (which it sounds like you do!), why would you be opposed to using a conditioned reinforcer? Just curious!
mnp13 wrote:There is no way you can train for every condition everywhere. The dog may sit on wet grass and decide it won't sit in mud. It may sit in mud but not in a puddle. It may sit in a puddle but not in a lake. You can't spend your life finding places to teach your dog to sit, you'll never get past sit.
After some variety in the training, including sit at a distance, sit out of heel, sit during a recall, etc. The dog "knows" sit. Then it's time to teach the dog that not sitting will get them in trouble.
mnp13 wrote:Again, I disagree. Witholding a treat is an adversive, it's just not physical. Lack of a reward is a form of punishment.
katiek0417 wrote:
The CR needs to be MORE interesting than the bite in the case of a PP dog. Both my dogs love the bite. Sacha will let go of the bite for food...but only if it's in her face, and particularly good smelling. Nisha won't come off the bite for toys, treats, whatever. Once she is allowed to carry, she drops it...typically b/c it's not animated enough for her. But she loves being IN the bite.
katiek0417 wrote:In obedience, both my girls know sit. If I tell them to sit, and they hesitate, even if they don't get a reward (if I withold the reward as you said), and say sit again...regardless of whether I reinforce with food or a CR, they really just learned that they have to sit when I say "sit" two times. Next time it might be three times. When do you draw the line? Sit means sit. Sit does not mean sit after I say it three times, it means sit the first time I say it. I'm not opposed to CR's, but I'd much rather use a reward that they REALLY want (food, tug, play time, love, etc)...
I look at a dog's lack of response in a certain (new) environment not as disobedience, but as a lack of understanding. I wouldn't feel comfortable using an aversive like an e-collar correction or collar pop.
realpitbull wrote:Wondering why you turned this into a positive vs compulsion training thread. Thought my original post was well within the realm of the original topic and that my questions were very specifically related to e-collar training. Oh well.
realpitbull wrote:No, you cannot train for every scenario; but you CAN do your best (and train for the most common and likely to be encountered scenarios - wet grass is easy!) And if the behavior of SIT has lots of reinforcement behind it in various environments, the chances of the dog sitting in that random, novel environment is high.
realpitbull wrote:I look at a dog's lack of response in a certain (new) environment not as disobedience, but as a lack of understanding. I wouldn't feel comfortable using an aversive like an e-collar correction or collar pop.
But you cannot eliminate all aversives from life, it's just immpossible. So I'll do my best not to ADD any.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users