Longcoat
-
Posts
313 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Longcoat
-
-
It's not the GCCC that is at fault for Amstaffs and APBT's to be judged the same breed. It's Ms Chivers fault. The applicant provided evidence that Amstaffs and APBT's ARE the same breed. The GCCC didn't contest, why would they? The defendants agreed with the evidence and used it against the applicant. Therefore the court ruled they were the same breed.
I still don't get why Ms Chivers would provide that kind of evidence. STUPID.
What's done is done, maybe they were looking for a win for all unpapered amstaffs or pitbulls, i don't think calling them stupid is going to change anything.
What if the thought, hey he's an amstaff and he's 'got off' what about all the other dogs (pits), they're all the same so why not let us own them aswell.Personally i don't think the council would ever have lost, they wouldn't go back on what they thought was right, and would spend whatever it took to get their way. They're the real reason all amstaff owners now find themselves in. not Ms Chivers. All she has done is care about her dog and fought tooth and nail for him, sure i don't know why this evidence was produced, but it's done, and all papered amstaff owners may look at the back yard pitbull owner in a different light, for now they will be classed as the same.
That's not uncommon with the anti-BSLer's putting the spotlight on other breeds to try and get their's off the hook
It's a wonder the bite stats didn't come out to put some heat on GSD's, Rotties, Dobes etc as they usually do. Not that I support BSL in any way...........but if the anti-BSL crowd don't be careful what they are doing like in this case, they can be a dangerous lot. It is Ms Chivers fault totally from the beginning buying an unpapered dog. Dedicated dog people have been campaigning for years for people to buy pedigree papered dogs from registered breeders, personally, like thousands of others, I haven't had an unpapered dog for 30 years and have no interest in ever owning one again, but everyone knows better and the one needing a papered dog more than anyone in the circumstances was Ms Chivers 
You have to admire the dedication for someone to fight and protect their dog which is commendable, but a silly slip up to save "ONE" dog has the potential to have "HOW MANY" Amstaffs possibly facing the needle route to Rainbow Bridge
There are some good lessons to be learned from this case and hopefully some people have learned to re-access their approach with anti BSL campaigns as to how the best intentions can backfire for the worse. -
'Jed' date='5th Apr 2010 - 09:51 PM' post='4440678']
There is NO difference between condeming APBT and ANKC registered breeds. Some ANKC breeds are banned or restricted in Queensland already, and I have no doubt that those bans will spread to other states, at the whim of various councils. Registered Amstaffs are completely banned from Toowoomba, and have been since the instigation of the bans.Unregistered dogs are totally at risk, or those dogs whose papers cannot be found.
Restricted dogs
Under the commonwealth Customs Act 1901, local governments can prohibit certain breeds (or cross breeds) of dogs in their jurisdictions, under a local law. The decision to make such a local law is at the discretion of each local government, the Minister and state government have limited powers to intervene in local government laws.
Rubbish Jed, above is the restricted dogs of Towoomba and Amstaffs are not subject to the Customs Act. We have been down this path previosly. No councils can or have still in force the restriction of any breeds other than subjects of the Customs Act as of July 2009.
Couldn't be bothered. Can't you understand what you have written and bolded (above)? Your own quotation disagrees with your argument.
I'll write it again
Under the commonwealth Customs Act 1901, local governments can prohibit certain breeds (or cross breeds) of dogs in their jurisdictions, under a local law.
The customs Act refers to restricted breeds and only those breeds can be restricted by council. However, council doesn't have to restrict any breeds at all which they have the option. That's the Law Jed, your interpretation is wrong
No, you're wrong. You have no understanding of the matter at all. You can't understand the written word, or the law, yet you are telling everyone else they are wrong.
Try to read it and comprehend it, will you please?
You sound very much like a poster named Rex.
Jed, think about it more carefully please???. The customs act has nothing to do with local council. Are you saying that a local council can add breeds to the Customs Act for import restriction???. The Customs Act is about the importation of certain dog breeds which it restricts. Those breeds that the Customs Act restricts can also be restricted by local council if they so choose. The Customs Act has nothing to do with the keeping of certain breeds, it's soley about importation/exportation.
Are you saying that a local council can add breeds to the Customs Act for import restriction??No, councils can't add anything to the import bans. They have no power to do that. They do, however, have the power to ban breeds from their council areas. The APBT is included in the importation bans, yet they were not banned from council areas when the customs bans were first enacted. That came later. Councils have added breeds to the bans in the past and they will continue to do so.
Read the import bans you quoted yourself. They state that councils can add breeds - at will. No further dogs will be banned from import, but councils will ban further breeds from their cities and shires, as they have done already.
The only thing, imho, which will save AST being added to GCCC is Dawn whatsername, the GCCC councillor who is anti bans, and will probably fight in council against AST being added.
But with the supreme court ruling, other councils may well add AST to the bans.
The local council doesn't need to work under the Customs Act should they be empowered to restrict any breeds at will and could have their own lists. However, they don't have their own list in their bylaws, they refer the list of restricted breeds to the list as per the Customs Act. What I originally wrote was copied and pasted off the Towoomba council heading of "Restricted Breeds" which tells you to refer to the Customs Act. Towoomba council doesn't provide a list of restricted breeds in it's bylaws as an example.
-
Many of the Amstaff/APBT people claim the two breeds are not the same..........so who's telling the truth, or is the APBT more of a "working line" Amstaff like a working line GSD or Field bred Labrador.......same dog, different leg action
-
'Jed' date='5th Apr 2010 - 09:51 PM' post='4440678']
There is NO difference between condeming APBT and ANKC registered breeds. Some ANKC breeds are banned or restricted in Queensland already, and I have no doubt that those bans will spread to other states, at the whim of various councils. Registered Amstaffs are completely banned from Toowoomba, and have been since the instigation of the bans.Unregistered dogs are totally at risk, or those dogs whose papers cannot be found.
Restricted dogs
Under the commonwealth Customs Act 1901, local governments can prohibit certain breeds (or cross breeds) of dogs in their jurisdictions, under a local law. The decision to make such a local law is at the discretion of each local government, the Minister and state government have limited powers to intervene in local government laws.
Rubbish Jed, above is the restricted dogs of Towoomba and Amstaffs are not subject to the Customs Act. We have been down this path previosly. No councils can or have still in force the restriction of any breeds other than subjects of the Customs Act as of July 2009.
Couldn't be bothered. Can't you understand what you have written and bolded (above)? Your own quotation disagrees with your argument.
I'll write it again
Under the commonwealth Customs Act 1901, local governments can prohibit certain breeds (or cross breeds) of dogs in their jurisdictions, under a local law.
The customs Act refers to restricted breeds and only those breeds can be restricted by council. However, council doesn't have to restrict any breeds at all which they have the option. That's the Law Jed, your interpretation is wrong
No, you're wrong. You have no understanding of the matter at all. You can't understand the written word, or the law, yet you are telling everyone else they are wrong.
Try to read it and comprehend it, will you please?
You sound very much like a poster named Rex.
Jed, think about it more carefully please???. The customs act has nothing to do with local council. Are you saying that a local council can add breeds to the Customs Act for import restriction???. The Customs Act is about the importation of certain dog breeds which it restricts. Those breeds that the Customs Act restricts can also be restricted by local council if they so choose. The Customs Act has nothing to do with the keeping of certain breeds, it's soley about importation/exportation.
-
You were saying Longcoat....
The court rejected that Tango was an Amstaff and ruled him as a Pitbull. The court didn't rule that Pitbull's were Amstaffs. There are no restrictions upon Amstaffs.
No they didn't: They ruled that Tango IS an AmStaff and then they ruled that AmStaffs ARE APBTs. So it goes like this: Tango IS an AmStaff, so he is actual fact an APBT because they are the same breed, ergo so he IS a restricted dog... this is now going to go to appeal and if the appeal is not successful there is precedent in the Qld supreme court that AmStaffs are in actual fact APBTs
I think we need to see the "proper" report. There is now another version that Tango is a Staffy??? None the less, the lesson learned for future reference is buy a pedigree dog from a registered breeder or foster papered dogs
-
'Jed' date='5th Apr 2010 - 09:51 PM' post='4440678']
There is NO difference between condeming APBT and ANKC registered breeds. Some ANKC breeds are banned or restricted in Queensland already, and I have no doubt that those bans will spread to other states, at the whim of various councils. Registered Amstaffs are completely banned from Toowoomba, and have been since the instigation of the bans.Unregistered dogs are totally at risk, or those dogs whose papers cannot be found.
Restricted dogs
Under the commonwealth Customs Act 1901, local governments can prohibit certain breeds (or cross breeds) of dogs in their jurisdictions, under a local law. The decision to make such a local law is at the discretion of each local government, the Minister and state government have limited powers to intervene in local government laws.
Rubbish Jed, above is the restricted dogs of Towoomba and Amstaffs are not subject to the Customs Act. We have been down this path previosly. No councils can or have still in force the restriction of any breeds other than subjects of the Customs Act as of July 2009.
Couldn't be bothered. Can't you understand what you have written and bolded (above)? Your own quotation disagrees with your argument.
I'll write it again
Under the commonwealth Customs Act 1901, local governments can prohibit certain breeds (or cross breeds) of dogs in their jurisdictions, under a local law.
The customs Act refers to restricted breeds and only those breeds can be restricted by council. However, council doesn't have to restrict any breeds at all which they have the option. That's the Law Jed, your interpretation is wrong
-
You were saying Longcoat....
The court rejected that Tango was an Amstaff and ruled him as a Pitbull. The court didn't rule that Pitbull's were Amstaffs. There are no restrictions upon Amstaffs.
-
Here is latest from Gold Coast Bulletin for what it is worth
http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2010/0...court-news.html
Couple's dog fight on shaky ground
Melinda Marshall | April 6th, 2010
A COUPLE'S six-year, $500,000 fight to keep their dog on the Gold Coast is on shaky ground after they today lost their court battle.
Their dog Tango was ruled to be an American pit bull - a breed not allowed to be housed on the Gold Coast.
But this afternoon, the council handballed the issue back to the State Government, saying they would take no further action for now.
Kylie Chivers and John Mokomoko had taken on the Gold Coast City Council in the Supreme Court over the identification of their dog as an American pit bull, as opposed to an American staffordshire terrier.
However, Judge J Martin today ruled Tango was an American pit bull. Under council's by-laws the dog is now deemed dangerous and needs to be put down.
Councillor Bob La Castra, at a press conference this afternoon, said the court's decision confirmed the position the Gold Coast Council had taken.
He called on the Queensland Government to clarify whether American staffordshire terriers should be treated the same as pit bulls, saying no further action would be taken until the State Government made their intentions known.
``We will just, pardon the pun, be chasing our tail until such time as we know what the State Government ruling is,'' he said.
To keep the animal safe the family moved it to a kennel just south of Tweed Heads more than five years ago, where it could be registered as an American staffordshire terrier.
Today's decision could have wider ramifications for thousands of dog owners who believed their American staffordshire terriers were a different breed and not subject to the same dangerous breed by-laws.
The ruling was that Tango is a Pitbull NOT that a Pitbull and Amstaff is the same breed.
-
'Jed' date='5th Apr 2010 - 09:51 PM' post='4440678']
There is NO difference between condeming APBT and ANKC registered breeds. Some ANKC breeds are banned or restricted in Queensland already, and I have no doubt that those bans will spread to other states, at the whim of various councils. Registered Amstaffs are completely banned from Toowoomba, and have been since the instigation of the bans.Unregistered dogs are totally at risk, or those dogs whose papers cannot be found.
Restricted dogs
Under the commonwealth Customs Act 1901, local governments can prohibit certain breeds (or cross breeds) of dogs in their jurisdictions, under a local law. The decision to make such a local law is at the discretion of each local government, the Minister and state government have limited powers to intervene in local government laws.
Rubbish Jed, above is the restricted dogs of Towoomba and Amstaffs are not subject to the Customs Act. We have been down this path previosly. No councils can or have still in force the restriction of any breeds other than subjects of the Customs Act as of July 2009.
-
A council could easily be sued for damages banning an ANKC recognised breed overnight requiring people to get rid of their dogs...........won't happen in Australia.
This is a genuine question - why would being an ANKC breed matter in terms of legal action? I can see that politically it means there is a lobby group with a lot of members likely to oppose a ban, but really the ANKC and the affiliated canine associations are just clubs that keep registries and run events. How legally (rather than politically) is recognition of a breed by them any defense against banning or any reason why legal action for damages would be more succesful than for any other dog?
It's reasonable to say that if a state organisation for example Dogsvic who list breeds recognised by the ANKC, implies that those breeds are permitted to be kept and is the sole reason a person selected that particular breed. If the breed was banned to the point that dogs of that breed were seized and destroyed, who ever is responsible for banning the breed can be sued for damages created by the loss of their pet. Breeds not recognised by the ANKC or crossbreeds have no official verification to imply that such a breed of dog is permitted to be kept, in other words keep one at your own risk. One could argue that the only reason for investing in the particular breed was because of ANKC recognition.
-
Yeah full trial...not just the bite work.I will be very interested to see a video of your schutzhund dog trained using praise/correction alone, with no toys or food, Longcoat, if you would care to post a video of the trials you compete in? It will be interesting to see if you can gain results, and scores, comparable to those teams using food and toy motivators.
Agreed
Seriously LC, could you show us a video of your dog in competition?
No problems, I will organise one
-
When a distraction is greater than the reward, that's when purely positive methods fail in my experience.
Depends on the reinforcement history and how well the response has been conditioned. I'm not 'purely positive', but the value of an individual reinforcement v level of distraction becomes a non-issue even at my level of expertise.
It certainly does depend upon reinforcement history but in the reliability crunch, there will be some distraction somewhere greater than the reward on offer and the dog will bolt, or disobey especially off leash.
Diva was right, it is not that the distraction is "greater than the reward on offer" but that the dog is not conditioned, through it's reinforcement history, to respond in that environment. Believe it or not, it is not a competition between reward and distraction (unless we are discussing bribery). Otherwise how would you explain dogs who recall off live prey, not knowing whether there is a reward available or not?
That's were a dog trained to recall to avoid punishment works in any environment. I agree with what you are saying here Aidan, but conditioning a dog to respond in so many different environments, there will be one environment missed being the time the dog finds it's fate. That's were E Collars etc come into play, drop means drop so to speak.
-
My girl does "round the house" obedience such as drops, stays, off leash walking, etc, for just praise/correction. I refuse to shovel treats into her for easy, routine requests. It's just not necessary.
But I can't imagine training her for her SAR work with no extrinsic rewards. I have never seen, or heard, of a SAR dog working for praise alone. All our dogs get a huge play and praise reward when they find the victim or end of the trail (except for the few dogs who prefer, and get given, food and praise instead). We reward because we want them working extremely enthusiastically for long periods of time. It's not sufficient to have a dog working half heartedly, going through the search routine just because the handler says so. We want dogs who live to work, and that requires huge rewards.
It's the same with all the schutzhund dogs I've seen - all good schutzhund dogs I've seen work in either prey or food drive in the obedience phase (and food drive in the tracking phase). They do not work just to avoid correction, or gain praise.
I will be very interested to see a video of your schutzhund dog trained using praise/correction alone, with no toys or food, Longcoat, if you would care to post a video of the trials you compete in? It will be interesting to see if you can gain results, and scores, comparable to those teams using food and toy motivators.
You have just confirmed that a "few" SAR dogs are rewarded with food obviously not all which is the point.
Yes, the rest are trained with toys. None are trained with praise/correction alone.
William Koehler's were................how did he manage that???
-
A few have tried to train police and security K9's with food and positive reinforcement and what suffered was reliablity.
That is not universally true. Selecting a few non-specific examples does not the truth reveal.
It has been demonstrated repeatedly that positive reinforcement will produce extraordinarily reliable behaviours over thousands upon thousands of trials. Punishment does not produce the same level of reliability in the long-term.
Practical considerations, not ultimate reliability, dictate the use of +P and -R in the field.
What some of the K9 trainers have told me Aidan, is that some behaviours cannot be corrected effectively with positive reinforcement and punishment in those circumstances creates a better result???.
-
Food/toy reward is a training tool that must be ultimately replaced with a reward system permitted on the field. In Schutzhund, you cannot have anything on the field or use anything other than verbal praise and a pat at the end of a routine. No food hidden in pockets, hands drenched in meaty smells etc tec.
Just be careful not to confuse reinforcers with antecedents.
A reinforcer increases the likelihood of a behaviour. An antecedent predicts it. If food is not an antecedent then it isn't required to produce the behavioural response.
In plain english, just because you used food while training the response - that doesn't mean that you will always need food. You can still use other reinforcers, and you can still use schedules of reinforcement. If you need to hide food in your pocket, then you have conditioned food to be an antecedent.
That's exactly what is happening with some teams having difficulty with routines under trial rules without active food/toy motivation. Thanks Aidan, it's now making sense why
-
My girl does "round the house" obedience such as drops, stays, off leash walking, etc, for just praise/correction. I refuse to shovel treats into her for easy, routine requests. It's just not necessary.
But I can't imagine training her for her SAR work with no extrinsic rewards. I have never seen, or heard, of a SAR dog working for praise alone. All our dogs get a huge play and praise reward when they find the victim or end of the trail (except for the few dogs who prefer, and get given, food and praise instead). We reward because we want them working extremely enthusiastically for long periods of time. It's not sufficient to have a dog working half heartedly, going through the search routine just because the handler says so. We want dogs who live to work, and that requires huge rewards.
It's the same with all the schutzhund dogs I've seen - all good schutzhund dogs I've seen work in either prey or food drive in the obedience phase (and food drive in the tracking phase). They do not work just to avoid correction, or gain praise.
I will be very interested to see a video of your schutzhund dog trained using praise/correction alone, with no toys or food, Longcoat, if you would care to post a video of the trials you compete in? It will be interesting to see if you can gain results, and scores, comparable to those teams using food and toy motivators.
You have just confirmed that a "few" SAR dogs are rewarded with food obviously not all which is the point. The obedience phase of Schutzhund is made of up several activities using different drives and as we mentioned previously, you can't use any motivators in a trail except voice and praise. Anything used in training has to be weaned off. Generally you take the dog from the crate onto the field and can't use motivating devices on the day. The point I am making is that we have some great training dogs, super performers PROVIDING at the end of each routine some food is shoved in it's mouth or a toy is pulled out from the pocket. Without those motivators on the field the dog's mess up the routines and fail their trials.......happens all the time. The transformation between actively using motivators and not using them in trials presents the difficulty. A great faultless routine in training doesn't gain a title unless the dog can work to an alternative reward.
-
It's funny because up until about 4 years ago I would have been on Angelsun's "side" & said that you couldn't get reliability out of a dog except with a check chain & certainly not using food, just goes to show how much has changed .
A few have tried to train police and security K9's with food and positive reinforcement and what suffered was reliablity. Bit different when aggression is involved with dogs in fighting drive disobeying a command than a dog muffing up a trick routine or an agility exercise which doesn't quite have the same potential consequence when reliability is needed at it's most. It depends upon the level of reliability you need from the dog.
-
:rofl: Sorry Longcoat but you just put your foot in it!!!!Clickers.........another device
, what's wrong with markers and release words.......same thing, same concept without the need of yet another device not permitted in the ring. Getting a dog used to working with implements not permitted in trials makes for more work. Why use a clicker when you have a voice to do the same thing???You can only use marker words in the ring in between exercises, you can't use them when you are actually competing, can you?
Personally I use a marker and release word myself but each to their own, you have highly successful people like Uta Bindels who use clickers and get great results in (Schutzhund) competition, obviously it works for them
Can you use food and clickers in the ring between exercises???. Most world level Schutzhund trainers don't use clickers and more train with E Collars on the quiet. The point is, the less devices you need to rely upon to motivate working potential, the better the dogs training foundation for reliability.
E Collars are negative reinforcement though............what would the Delta mob think of that :D
-
Clickers.........another device , what's wrong with markers and release words.......same thing, same concept without the need of yet another device not permitted in the ring. Getting a dog used to working with implements not permitted in trials makes for more work. Why use a clicker when you have a voice to do the same thing???
You can only use marker words in the ring in between exercises, you can't use them when you are actually competing, can you?
Personally I use a marker and release word myself but each to their own, you have highly successful people like Uta Bindels who use clickers and get great results in (Schutzhund) competition, obviously it works for them
Can you use food and clickers in the ring between exercises???. Most world level Schutzhund trainers don't use clickers and more train with E Collars on the quiet. The point is, the less devices you need to rely upon to motivate working potential, the better the dogs training foundation for reliability.
-
'huski' date='5th Apr 2010 - 02:09 PM' post='4439615']
So you're saying you can get the same level of focus and drive from my scent hound purely from training her with praise? AWESOME - please feel free to come to Brissy and demonstrate. How many scent hounds have you trained or trialled with purely using praise? You must be very good at it.
I started training in the '70's Huski in the days when your dog was obedience trained properly you threw your leash away and the dog was motivated to work for you with the only reward system being verbal praise..........we didn't use food at all. It would be foolish to suggest that yesterdays dogs couldn't work, they did brilliantly and better than some of today, no food, no clickers and no leash.............so how was that achieved back then I ask the people who claim without food, toys and clickers that you can't train a dog???
-
Yes we do train in prey drive for bitework, not obedience though.........infact many world level Schutzhund dogs are trained with E Collars also
What a load of crap! I know schutzhund trainers who work their dogs in prey drive when doing obedience. It would hardly be uncommon!
I have no problem with e-collar training, btw
Handlers with bad timing are in fact responsible for mucking up a dogs effort, however not all handlers are inept with a clicker, in fact many work it very well. The key again is to work the dog to the shape/behaviour desired and then wean the dog off the cliker (food) which I was told by a trainer in QLD that it was impossible to do. In their opinion, when clicker training, it is forever. There was nothing I could do to explain to this person that clicker, like any method is a tool that works if done properly but you MUST move beyond the actual clicker as a reinforcement because as mentioned by Longcoat, it as well as food and toys are not permitted in a trialing situation and my experience watching overly rewarded dogs (not little babies) is that they are not able to work without having rewards stuffed in their faces constantly.Why not use a clicker forever? If you've trained your dog to trial you won't need it in the ring because your dog can work for that amount of time without needing food or reinforcement with the clicker. Most people use clicker training to teach behaviours, unless you stop teaching your dog new things of course clicker trainers will always use clickers.
How many dogs who trial today do you think have been trained purely on praise? We all know you can't use food or toys in the ring, yet many trialling dogs are trained successfully with them. Of all the people I know who train in drive, there are many who trial successfully with their dogs and they maintain their drive the entire time they are in the ring without the handler needing food or the prey item on them, because they increase the amount of time the dog can sustain that drive. There is no need to wean your dog off food or prey rewards just because you are trialling. I wouldn't work for no pay, why should my dog? I still don't see the difference between using praise and using food or toy rewards. All are rewarding the dog. If we follow your logic, your dog should be able to work without any praise, too.
My dog is trained in food drive and I don't need to stuff food in her face constantly. Still wondering if you think she looks like a dog who is unable to think or work because she's trained with food??
Does this mean that the instructors are wrong or the method is wrong? I beleive the instructors aren't as smart or knowledgeable as they would claim to be. I've said MANY times before, I do not have any issues with TRUE positive reinforcement training. But like so many methods out there, this one left to some, has turned into basically a joke. A true positive trainer SEES results and the level of food lowers as the training moves along.Of course they lessen the time between food rewards... or you'd never get in the trial ring. Doesn't mean you have to eliminate them entirely, though.
The reality though, which escapes some here in the is thread, is that you do not always have food in your pockets....how do you reward then?The reality does not escape me, and if you'd bothered to read my posts, you'd see I addressed this several times already. You're assuming that a dog trained with food rewards never complies to the handler without food being present. As I said earlier, my dog happily complies to commands in every day situations without me needing food. But when we go to training I want her to work in drive, and I expect 110% focus, fast, snappy responses to commands, I want her full of beans and jumping off the walls excited to work. I don't always want her in that high energy state at home.
Going back to the main poster and the observations they had at the 'feed it til it drops' class, this discussion was based on that method versus anything else, and what people thought about it. Like so many positive threads to educate, this is beginning to turn into a heated debate on 'youre wrong and I'm write" sort of thread.Because you ARE wrong that dogs trained with food are unable to work well in trials, or that they have less reliability, or that they can't think or work - or that ALL dogs can be trained just as successfully, to the same standard as they are with food/toy rewards, with praise. That assumes all dogs are the same and motivated by the same things. You are welcome when you come up to QLD next to get the same work I get out of my dog just with praise
I can not stress enough....I am not against positive training, however based on behavioural aspects of dogs, and years of experience with a great many breeds, I can not be convinced that the methods currently being used by Delta are in fact in the best interest of the dogs or their humans.I am more than happy to use e-collars or prongs. I have no problem with corrections or punishment. I'm not and never have been a fan of DELTA training, but that's not what I'm talking about.
Clickers.........another device
, what's wrong with markers and release words.......same thing, same concept without the need of yet another device not permitted in the ring. Getting a dog used to working with implements not permitted in trials makes for more work. Why use a clicker when you have a voice to do the same thing??? -
Huski and a few others:
You are misunderstanding what I am saying.
Firstly I am not against food rewards, as I have said multiple times that during the beginning process I do in fact use food. I also use toys if needed, so claiming that I am against dogs that are food trained, or feel that they will not succeed overall is not true.
I also brought up the mention of low versus high food rewards in response to another posters comment. This was not my experience with the belgian but anothers and yes, it does happen all the time, specially with a dog that has a low food drive. (try a great dane for example)
Handlers with bad timing are in fact responsible for mucking up a dogs effort, however not all handlers are inept with a clicker, in fact many work it very well. The key again is to work the dog to the shape/behaviour desired and then wean the dog off the cliker (food) which I was told by a trainer in QLD that it was impossible to do. In their opinion, when clicker training, it is forever. There was nothing I could do to explain to this person that clicker, like any method is a tool that works if done properly but you MUST move beyond the actual clicker as a reinforcement because as mentioned by Longcoat, it as well as food and toys are not permitted in a trialing situation and my experience watching overly rewarded dogs (not little babies) is that they are not able to work without having rewards stuffed in their faces constantly.
Does this mean that the instructors are wrong or the method is wrong? I beleive the instructors aren't as smart or knowledgeable as they would claim to be. I've said MANY times before, I do not have any issues with TRUE positive reinforcement training. But like so many methods out there, this one left to some, has turned into basically a joke. A true positive trainer SEES results and the level of food lowers as the training moves along.
The reality though, which escapes some here in the is thread, is that you do not always have food in your pockets....how do you reward then?
As for the comment made by me about distractions....it was taken to beleive that these were placed with young and inexperienced dogs, which is not true nor was intended to read that way, as I stated that during the sit/down/stay exercises the distractions were littered across the floor. It's called 'proofing' and isn't done with beginner dogs. However my beginner dogs are challenged with distractions and dogs are not pushed aside because they might be one to the rest of the class which was one of the statements made earlier in this piece.
Going back to the main poster and the observations they had at the 'feed it til it drops' class, this discussion was based on that method versus anything else, and what people thought about it. Like so many positive threads to educate, this is beginning to turn into a heated debate on 'youre wrong and I'm write" sort of thread.
I can not stress enough....I am not against positive training, however based on behavioural aspects of dogs, and years of experience with a great many breeds, I can not be convinced that the methods currently being used by Delta are in fact in the best interest of the dogs or their humans.
I believe what Angelsun is saying is correct. Food/toy reward is a training tool that must be ultimately replaced with a reward system permitted on the field. In Schutzhund, you cannot have anything on the field or use anything other than verbal praise and a pat at the end of a routine. No food hidden in pockets, hands drenched in meaty smells etc tec. The dog has to work for the handler full stop. Most problems arise with dogs that work perfectly in training with food/toy reward and come trial day they fail rountines when the routine of reward is missing. It's one of the hardest hurdles to get over with many dogs that amounts to the training methods used. You have to get the dog off any reward system other than verbal praise and a pat to trial and title. The dog is on the field too long, with too many routines to await a food treat back in the crate. The dog can't be focused on leaving the field for a reward, it has to work.
Obviously, not too many concentrate on verbal praise reward methods and don't know how to do it properly. As Angelsun explained, you don't always have food or a toy in your pocket, but we all have hands and a voice which CAN be used as a reward system successfully to cement into training from the beginning without the need for massive weaning off processes as the reward foundation is already in place.
So why does your dog when returning home come to meet you...........for a treat??? NO, a pat and rub, verbal praise and a bit of horse play which the same method can be applied in purposeful training just the same
-
Longcoat you are welcome to come and train my beagle using strictly praise and get the same drive and focus I get using food. I won't ever wean her off food rewards when we are doing drive training, this doesn't mean I have a dog who only complies to my commands when I have food but that the level of drive and focus I expect when we train in food drive is different to when we are at home or out and about.
Many Schutzhund trainers work their dogs in prey drive, do you think they should all be working their dogs purely with praise too? How frustrated do you think a highly prey driven working dog would be with no outlet for that drive?
Yes we do train in prey drive for bitework, not obedience though.........infact many world level Schutzhund dogs are trained with E Collars also
-
I would never starve my dog - although being a beagle she is almost always starving - but I would and have fasted her for 24 hours or fed her meal via training. The type of training I do can be pretty high energy and I would always prefer to work her on an empty stomach. Not because she can't work after having a meal, but it's better for her not to. There is nothing cruel about fasting a dog for one meal. Most of the time she has her main meal in the morning and we trainer night time, if I do training in the morning I would do it before I fed her.
Fasting a dog for up to 3 days is not uncommon to generate food drive, I have had it suggested to me on several occasions and know a few that do it with dogs not overly food motivated. Mine isn't as food driven as some in training and I use a simlar feeding format as you do Huski when training.
Husky Attacks Child
in In The News
Posted
Dogs don't have to like kids, my dog hates them and the provocation is simply that the dog doesn't like kids which is enough to raise a dog's defense. I prefer a dog that consistantly dislikes kids because owning a dog like that, you handle the dog accordingly and NEVER allow the dog to come in contact with kids for any accidents to happen. Too often, people think their dog is ok with kids, don't supervise the situation properly and kids get bitten.