Aidan3

Good find!

I used a photo of Dwight Shrute from The Office, he is a GSD cross in case anyone sees him and cares to pass on the fact.

Just to be clear, the problem isn't that fallout is hard to measure, it's hard to correctly attribute to a cause and often gets overlooked because trainers (or teachers, or parents) are looking elsewhere.

Excellent questions, PetSitters. When we're working with a single animal this is what is known as a "single-subject design", which has a number of problems (and some advantages) which you can Google, there should be some accessible info on SSDs out there. In a nutshell, it would be very difficult for a dog trainer to correctly attribute an effect to a cause using a single dog. It would be very difficult for a research scientist or applied behaviour analyst, for that matter. When you start talking about groups of dogs we have ways to address the problems inherent with SSDs. Nevertheless, statistical analyses makes several assumptions which we have to be confident that we can make about the dogs we have in front of us. This makes it difficult to work with very small groups of dogs, or dogs of different breeds with widely varying traits unless we're using tightly controlled conditions. Luckily,the most basic laws of learning have been found to be highly generalisable. We can do things in tightly controlled environments, or with highly uniform samples (a sample is a group of subjects), or even with completely different species, then make observations and see if they apply in the real world, or with the species we are more interested in. This can enable us to confidently make some assumptions about, say, dog behaviour that are based on experimental data which can reveal causal relationships. Causal relationships are links between cause and effect, which are often very difficult to see, much less prove. Humans are notoriously bad at getting them right, we learn all sorts of things that influence our decisions and even our observations (not the YouTube vid with the balls). We often confidently make false attributions, e.g my child became hyper after drinking red cordial, completely missing the facts that my child did not become hyperactive after drinking red cordial yesterday, and that my child was at a party playing with lots of very excited kids when she drank red cordial this time. Right from the earliest days of behaviourism, punishment was observed to have all sorts of unintended consequences that could be very difficult to predict. Sensation, perception, prior learning, biology and cognition influence the way that animals respond to aversion. Skinner studied punishment deeply and eventually decided that we should avoid it. Things have changed a bit since then, we know a bit more about punishment, but Skinner's observations are still relevant. All the things that I have mentioned in earlier posts are things that have been observed in the lab (and outside the lab), and it is prudent to consider them when working with dogs. We need to keep an open mind and accept the possibility that our actions, no matter how skillful, may have unintended consequences that we might not see or causally link to an effect. How much we err on the side of caution is probably a personal choice, and will probably change for each person over time.

Not always, and it's not always a problem when it does. Do you know much about the cause and effect fallacy or confirmation bias? Bitches certainly can have a negative influence on their pups, just like human mothers. I tend to think that bitches have the advantage over us in terms of non-verbal communication, though. Are you saying you would actually do what I suggested so long as the dog wasn't the "ramping up the aggression" type? Not around my dog you wouldn't!

That's right, and fall-out from correct application is also the handler's fault. Yes, now you're getting it! It's exactly like training with an e-collar, you take the vicious dog to the park, sic it onto another dog then zap the hell out of it. See, we're all experts on the interwebz.

My understanding is that they were well aware that removing the cats would cause an increase in the rabbit population (I think blind Freddy could have seen that), but the cats were having such a devastating effect on the birdlife that it was necessary. Whether they could have predicted the difficulties in removing the rabbits, or the destructive effect they would have in the mean-time I don't really know.

Dab of peanut butter on the wall, then get him used to being handled by different people while he licks it off. Then start to phase out the peanut butter, use some food in the hand instead.

In that case I haven't explained myself very well It's not that the effect is miniscule, it's that it's difficult to attribute problems the dog may have to something that you have caused. It could be a very large effect, but you might blame genetics ("weak nerve"), for e.g, or "low drive", or a critical period - not realising that it was something you did in training or behaviour modification. It happens every single day. There are literally thousands of reactive dogs out there who, while having some genetic predisposition, were made that way through handling. Even more dogs who lag, forge, become over-excited, lose focus easily or whatever - because they have been made that way. That's fallout too. Or you might simply miss the problem. I watched a person make a dog aggressive under instruction using corrections. Both instructor and handler were convinced that they were doing the right thing, but to anyone watching it was an astounding display of abuse through incompetence. They were seeing what they were looking for and missing everything else (see the YouTube video I posted for a remarkable demonstration of missing obvious things when we're focusing on other things). The point about the laboratory was that only under true experimental conditions can we say with any confidence that we are correctly attributing cause and effect, but if you can't really see what I'm on about with cause and effect, that's OK, it's not a big deal. We attribute effect to cause intuitively all the time, it's human nature, but we're frequently wrong. We blame genetics, drive, nerve, critical periods, focus, softness, sharpness etc when we don't really know for sure that those things are responsible.

What is your definition of "fallout", Petsitters? This is not a judgment on you, but on all of us, I would be very surprised if you were able to identify most fallout, much less link it to training. It's just not that simple. If you develop some negative emotionality, avoidance, disinterest, loss of focus, "low drive" or ambivalence in a dog, how do we link that to single events, or worse, to recurring patterns of action by a dog owner over time? It is extraordinarily difficult outside the lab. In the lab we can compare samples and hold all other variables constant. In the lab we can attribute effect to cause, in the real world we can rarely do that (although intuitively, we do it all the time, mostly incorrectly). In the real world there are too many factors, we make inferences where there are none, we see the things we are conditioned to see and miss the things we are unaware of. No doubt everyone has seen this awareness test on YouTube? If you haven't, take a moment to watch, if you have, you will know what I am talking about (those who have seen it - NO SPOILERS!)

No, they sound the same. Pain is weakness leaving the body.

http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&q=rabbit%20population%20macquarie%20island&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=1216l7759l0l36l29l1l17l17l0l378l2298l2-5.3&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&biw=1334&bih=615&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=ws That ought to keep you going for a while ;)

Australian Road Rules make it illegal to lead a dog alongside a bike on the road. But is it ok on bike paths? As far as I can tell it is only a problem on public roads, so if the bike path allows dogs on leash then that is probably OK. Fire trails are often good, nice and wide and usually not busy.

There is only one like mine Aidan, and you are yet to assess him ;) Very true But I can state with some confidence that all dog behaviour is normally distributed, and that he would be within 3 standard deviations from the mean. Here's a statistic that's not made up, that means there is a 1/500 chance that he is significantly less responsive than the worst dogs that I've worked with. Possible, but is it probable?

He's mad for it, but stops short of killing. I was surprised when he caught the water rat, but not surprised when he let it go. Sabella isn't so different either, she caught an injured bird once and brought it to me with a soft mouth. She is gun-shy though, which is not good for a working line GSD. Django loves guns!

So is that the method, or the trainer? Keep in mind that I have worked with a lot of dogs like yours, I doubt Rex is a special snow-flake. Getting dogs to a standard where they are enjoyable to take for walks around other dogs is not a long, drawn out process.

Steve is a brilliant trainer, but how does this support your argument that "in the pet dog training market that a balanced combination of all training methods works best"? You are comparing a rare talent against a lowest common denominator, and using the opinion of this forum (one of thousands around the world, and not a representative sample) to support your claim. Some forums recommend Cesar Millan, others recommend Susan Garrett, others recommend Uta Bindels. It depends on what people are training for, and who is the brilliant trainer closest to them. For example, if you ask on this forum who to see in WA, you will more than likely get the recommendation of one of several no-compulsion trainers. Steve's link I posted supports my argument Adian, so Steve is wrong in that case? Steve is a respected friend of mine, but I do not agree with some points in that article even though I "have a tool box with many options" and agree with many of the other points he makes. However, your claim was made on the basis of popular opinions from this forum and the history of results from Steve and Mark. This ignores every purely positive trainer who also has a brilliant history of results, the opinions of every other forum in the world, and the fact that sometimes this forum recommends purely positive trainers if they are in the area. It also ignores the fact that Mark and Steve do not agree on many things. So who is right? What is "best" and what does "best" mean? Is there a "best" across the board? What I would like to see is an end to this ridiculous divisiveness in dog training, but I think hell will probably freeze over first. We know that trainers of every persuasion will fail or succeed depending on the dog in front of them and their ability to use those methods with those dogs. This includes purely positive, this includes purely compulsion, and this includes everything in-between. I haven't used a check chain to give a correction in 10 years and haven't needed to. This does not mean that I think every trainer who uses a correction chain is a crap trainer or "wrong" for doing so, although some undoubtedly are. I don't personally use a head halter either, but I have absolutely no problem with trainers and behaviourists such as Dr Overall or Dr Sophia Yin who use them intelligently, although some undoubtedly do not. Who is best? No such thing, I think we need to get over the idea. Every dog is unique, but no dog is a special snowflake. ETA: I do have a problem with abusive training techniques or those that ultimately damage the relationship between the dog and handler, or the relationship between the dog and people in general. Punishment and negative reinforcement do not have to be confrontational or harmful. If what you are doing is confrontational, then you're stepping into dangerous territory as your husband found out and recognised (to his credit) with Bronson. See http://companionanimalsolutions.com/blogs/confrontational-behavior-modification-techniques-and-the-risk-to-owners/ for empirical support for this opinion. If you had to say which was a "better" way to go based on the results of those surveys, which would you pick? (It's a trick question) I think a lot of trainers are too quick to label something as being damaging or abusive on the basis of a tool or quadrant used, which is an over-generalisation. Fall-out is real, I cannot stress this enough, but it is not assumed that harmful or irreversible fallout will occur simply because someone used a correction, or acted to stop dangerous or harmful behaviour.

Steve is a brilliant trainer, but how does this support your argument that "in the pet dog training market that a balanced combination of all training methods works best"? You are comparing a rare talent against a lowest common denominator, and using the opinion of this forum (one of thousands around the world, and not a representative sample) to support your claim. Some forums recommend Cesar Millan, others recommend Susan Garrett, others recommend Uta Bindels. It depends on what people are training for, and who is the brilliant trainer closest to them. For example, if you ask on this forum who to see in WA, you will more than likely get the recommendation of one of several no-compulsion trainers.

Adelaide must be a very enlightened city Compulsion (with praise, which is rarely reinforcement without compulsion) was the status quo for a very long time, and it has taken a long time for that to change. When I started clicker training (which was a "method" at that time) it was a very small population of people who were willing to challenge that status quo, experiment, make mistakes and see if the zoo and marine mammal techniques could be applied to dogs and how far we could go with them. We had all previously been traditional trainers, I didn't know anyone that wasn't. It was not uncommon for clubs to insist on correction collars, and when clickers started to become popular many clubs banned them. Positive training was never simply to obtain higher obedience scores, I am confident that you have been mislead on that point. It was an application of the science that marine, military and exotic species trainers had been using successfully since the 1950s.

Positive methods are, very broadly speaking, slower to start off with. They are not always intuitive for people in our society (although that is changing). There are no obedience clubs or pet training classes that are set up to provide maximally efficient training using these methods (not even close). In the long run, IMHO they are more efficient. Once you have a base of learning and there are expectations, norms, and boundaries, everything becomes much faster. For some of these reasons, most instructors or trainers will include some level of aversion or response prevention in their structures (e.g long lines, head halters, collar pops).

You must have had some outstanding obedience clubs in Adelaide 20 years ago. Is Adelaide particularly progressive in the move to positive training methods these days? My friends in SA tell me that more traditional style classes are still the norm over there. I know that the move has been gradual down here, and the standard is perhaps not as high as it could be. Clubs were training with traditional methods since the post-war period, so they had a long time to perfect their methods. Most clubs are now changing from those methods to positive methods for a variety of reasons, I don't think politics plays much of a part because they certainly made it very difficult for the "dissenters" who wanted to see more positive methods allowed in classes.

I'd just like to point out that I said "often" it's an excuse. A good many of these ads are from people who are not actually moving, or if they, really have no reason not to take the dog. There are many people who genuinely cannot afford to take their dog, or who feel (often correctly) that their dog may be happier left behind if a good home can be found. I don't wish to tar everyone with the same brush.

It's often an excuse. They don't want the dog any more but know that is a socially unacceptable excuse.

Ok true never thought of it that way,point taken. Sadly, people will also take free dogs as bait dogs. Less of a problem these days thankfully.

Racist.