Rusky Posted December 23, 2007 Share Posted December 23, 2007 you can't train a horse safely, for example, without it. ask monty roberts about that, actually ask my mate who has been breaking horses in for years.... Tess did you really attend a seminar? you must have been asleep. I believe the lady in question is as we speak at Yellowstone where she has spent many many days, weeks and months observing the wolf packs. Monty roberts breaks a horse with no punishment in 20 minutes. There was no 24 hour constant... he let the horse return to the herd, it went and then returned to him 24 hours later of its own free will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmolo Posted December 23, 2007 Share Posted December 23, 2007 Monty doesn't use positive punishment- but he uses lots of negative reinforcement, as does Pat Parelli with the 7 games. I have seen Pat and other horsemen get on unstarted horses in half an hour- but not without stress and negative reinforcement. Everything done with horses involves applying of some kind of pressure and removing it. These horsemen don't clicker train and or use food/ play/ pat rewards- they use the removal of pressure- that they applied! Rusky- i also read one of Monty's books (don't think it was shy boy though) and there was 24 hour pressure on the horse as tess suggests. And.. dogs aren't horses. Predator and prey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmolo Posted December 23, 2007 Share Posted December 23, 2007 Rusky- may i ask if you use headcollars? And if you consider them to be a positive tool? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rom Posted December 23, 2007 Author Share Posted December 23, 2007 Tess did you really attend a seminar? you must have been asleep. I believe the lady in question is as we speak at Yellowstone where she has spent many many days, weeks and months observing the wolf packs.Monty roberts breaks a horse with no punishment in 20 minutes. There was no 24 hour constant... he let the horse return to the herd, it went and then returned to him 24 hours later of its own free will. Rusky- i also read one of Monty's books (don't think it was shy boy though) and there was 24 hour pressure on the horse as tess suggests.And.. dogs aren't horses. Predator and prey. Twasn't Tess...Twas me. It is my understanding that you can't get a -R without first applying a +P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Spotted Devil Posted December 23, 2007 Share Posted December 23, 2007 (edited) you can't train a horse safely, for example, without it. ask monty roberts about that, actually ask my mate who has been breaking horses in for years.... Tess did you really attend a seminar? you must have been asleep. I believe the lady in question is as we speak at Yellowstone where she has spent many many days, weeks and months observing the wolf packs. Monty roberts breaks a horse with no punishment in 20 minutes. There was no 24 hour constant... he let the horse return to the herd, it went and then returned to him 24 hours later of its own free will. As you were quoting my post there, Rusky, I will respond. Applying the very slightest pressure to a horse's mouth or head using a bit or a bitless bridle is negative reinforcement - applied correctly the pressure is removed as soon as the horse responds and is a fabulous training aid. This is backed up by positive reinforcement (vocal or physical). It is very much the same with the application of the legs to ask a horse to move forward/backward or change direction. It is not the use of negative reinforcement, per se, but the timing and the force of the pressure. The problem with both Monty Roberts and Pat Pirelli (I'm not denying that they can work with horses, mind you!) is that they fail to correctly differentiate between positive and negative reinforcement/punishment. This can lead to much confusion when discussing learning theory - here are my definitions as I understand them. I honestly believe much of this debate of positive vs negative training would be negated if understanding was reached on this.... Positive reinforcement - something added to increase the likelihood of the behaviour being repeated...e.g. "good dog!" or a treat or a tug game. Negative reinforcement - something is removed to increase the likelihood of the behaviour being repeated....e.g leg or hand aids in horses or release the tension on the dog's leash. Positive punishment - something is added to decrease the likelihood of the behaviour being repeated....e.g. growling at the dog when it jumps up. Negative punishment - something is removed to decrease the likelihood of the behaviour being repeated...e.g. ignore a dog when it jumps up. I've used all those methods in training my pup (and other dogs), but I follow up all punishments with positive reinforcement when the appropriate behaviour is displayed. I hope what I've written makes sense after 2 glasses of red Sometimes I just feel frustrated that many of us seem to be talking about the same thing but just fail to define it in the same way! Edited December 23, 2007 by The Spotted Devil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkS Posted December 23, 2007 Share Posted December 23, 2007 I have one small question for you MarkS, do you believe that the use of food in training is contributing to the higher cases of aggression or is it due to lack of leadership and guidance.?? Your comments in the Adelaide newspaper website seem to indicate that you feel the use of food in training is one of the culprits.....? Kelpie-i My apologies I missed your question. Hmmm..does food cause aggression, only if you need to fight for it No, I would never sugest that using food is responsible for the rise in dog bites. I am suggesting the the Dog & Cat Management Board look at the possiblity that there maybe a connection between the number of dogs now doing totally positive reinforcement training than in the past, due to the fact that the board, welfare groups and most Vet surgeries now focused on and promoting this type of training. In the past twelve months or more the focus in Adelaide has been on totally positive training methods. Puppy pre-schools are focusing on just rewarding good behaviour, and ignoring unwanted behaviour. They are not taught how to correctly (in my opinion) imprint correct social behaviour in to puppies, as they are virtually turning away from treating dogs as dogs. As an example; I had one lady come to me 2 weeks ago with a rather exuburent Dobi female. She went to a positive trainer here in Adelaide. Her Dobi, lunged forward and had a go at another dog, this lady instinctively corrected her dog immediately, and placed her back by her side. The instructor told her off for using any negatives. Told her next time just pull your dog back gently and reward the dog with food when she is beside you. This lady after a few weeks was at her wits end, as the dog was getting worse and not better with these methods. Thats when she sought me out. This Dobi is around 9 months old. All this Dobi needed was a quick pop on a flat collar, and she gave into it totally and would allow any dog to walk past her. This in all of less than 5 mins. Now if totally positive methods are not working in this instance, how are they dealing with dog to human aggression? This Dobi is a beautiful dog, all she needed was some clear guidance and leadership. She is now working beautifully around other dogs. This case was a very simple one to fix. Puppy pre-schools now from what I understand are not dealing with overly assertive puppies correctly. Most are told to ignore the behaviour or use 'time-out' (which in many instances I have an issue with. But more on that later). I had another guy call me in total desperation. He had 2 GSD's, both had been brought up on the totally positive method again. This guy on the phone was very honest with me and said unless I can help him, he is getting rid of his dogs. His number one frustration is that he didn't know how to correct his dogs, as he was never taught that at his training. These dogs were now 18 months old, and he said he lost his temper with them quite a few times, and felt bad about it later. But these dogs were now ruling his house. When he came to me it was obvious these dogs were very assertive, and this assertive behaviour had never been dealt with correctly. He had no idea how to be assertive to his dogs in a way the dogs could understand. He was resorting to hitting them. One of these dogs resorted to retaliating with aggression. This guy couldn't believe how simple it was to really be in control, without being abusive. He had never been taught how to be assertive with his dogs. I can go on and on with case histories. But one that worries me the most is the family that follow thru with all these methods being taught now, and have an assertive dog at home, and this dog bites a child, all because a lack of proper leadership and a setting of bounderies and limitations. This no negative policy is crazy for many dogs. For some yes I agree you can achieve fantastic things, but these dogs are intinctively followers, and willingly follow. I believe its turned into a numbers game.. They do succeed on many dogs, and the ones they don't succeed with are left with no options but to seek out someone like me, or dump their dog. There is nothing wrong with rewarding with food, or any positive. What maters is the dogs current state of mind when we give the positive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonymc Posted December 23, 2007 Share Posted December 23, 2007 Rusky,your taking a little bit of Monty"s picture out to support your view and not the whole picture.I had the pleasure of meeting Monty. Shy Boy was caught and ridden in a three day process and not released.He was taken back to the ranch and given twelve months work then let go. I agree totally with Cosmolo here.Horse training is not purely positive as yes pressure is applied and then behaviour rewarded by release of that pressure. Rusky seeing monty working with a young unbroken Horse is only a part of the picture.A young unbroken horse with relatively small amount of baggage is one thing but a big tough old buckjumping Ranch or station horse is a totally different kettle of fish and requires a totally different approach. The purely positive crowd really need to take a lesson from the very animals they claim to train.These Animals would show that their own species specific behaviour is not purely positive. Tony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rusky Posted December 23, 2007 Share Posted December 23, 2007 Tess did you really attend a seminar? you must have been asleep. I believe the lady in question is as we speak at Yellowstone where she has spent many many days, weeks and months observing the wolf packs.Monty roberts breaks a horse with no punishment in 20 minutes. There was no 24 hour constant... he let the horse return to the herd, it went and then returned to him 24 hours later of its own free will. Rusky- i also read one of Monty's books (don't think it was shy boy though) and there was 24 hour pressure on the horse as tess suggests.And.. dogs aren't horses. Predator and prey. Twasn't Tess...Twas me. It is my understanding that you can't get a -R without first applying a +P apologies to Tess so? did you fall asleep? And... it wasn't me who brought up the horses, was someone else. I was just responding.... I do that. I didn't read any of Monty Roberts books. I just watched and listened to him doing a training session from a DVD brought to the course.I have however just been talking on the phone with my mate... who breaks in like Monty, not because of him just because there was a better way....... I train dogs using positive reinforcement because I knew there was a better way than positive punishment. You can't see that, thats ok. I just agree with the RSPCA and disagree with Mark. I don't like the RSPCA , but I like their stance on training. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rusky Posted December 23, 2007 Share Posted December 23, 2007 Rusky seeing monty working with a young unbroken Horse is only a part of the picture.A young unbroken horse with relatively small amount of baggage is one thing but a big tough old buckjumping Ranch or station horse is a totally different kettle of fish and requires a totally different approach. Tony are you saying he hobbles and ties? Are you saying that the training DVD was contrived and that really he punishes the horses? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rom Posted December 23, 2007 Author Share Posted December 23, 2007 Tess did you really attend a seminar? you must have been asleep. I believe the lady in question is as we speak at Yellowstone where she has spent many many days, weeks and months observing the wolf packs.Monty roberts breaks a horse with no punishment in 20 minutes. There was no 24 hour constant... he let the horse return to the herd, it went and then returned to him 24 hours later of its own free will. Rusky- i also read one of Monty's books (don't think it was shy boy though) and there was 24 hour pressure on the horse as tess suggests.And.. dogs aren't horses. Predator and prey. Twasn't Tess...Twas me. It is my understanding that you can't get a -R without first applying a +P apologies to Tess so? did you fall asleep? No...I was awake enough to remember her talking about the acclimatisation pens. Before wolves are released into Yellowstone they are kept in acclimatisation pens. There are a few reasons for this. The first is that it was impossible to capture a whole pack when wolves were being gathered to repopulate Yellowstone. Secondly they found that if they did release wolves from different packs, they wouldn't readily form a new pack and they had to do that to protect genetic diversity, but also so that there were sufficient numbers in a pack to hunt successfully. So they opted for a soft release....the wolves were put into acclimatisation pens and they had a pack structure sorted out within 24hrs usually but they were kept there for at least a month. Interestingly enough, the wolves were only fed once a week while they were in the acclimatisation pens (if I remember correctly, these pens around an acre or two in size). Sometimes for different reasons, the free wolves are captured and put back into these pens. I believe that the only way that Jan Fennel could have studied the wolves in Yellowstone is in these acclimatisation pens...she mentioned them herself....in captivity and reliant on humans bringing in food once a week. I remember reading a report from Yellowstone that was a celebration that for the last 1000 days there was one reported wolf siting a day....from the hundreds of visitors to Yellowstone each day of those wolves that are not in captivity. Most of the observation of the wolves that are not in captivity by the staff involved with management/study is done by either helicopter, where the wolves are sedated with a dart gun if they need to get closer, or by studying the reported kills on livestock in the surrounding farmlands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kavik Posted December 23, 2007 Share Posted December 23, 2007 slightly ot - but now that we are talking wolves . . . Has anyone else watched the National Geographic doco White Wolves where David Mech befriends a wolf pack? Very fascinating stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
haven Posted December 23, 2007 Share Posted December 23, 2007 Tess did you really attend a seminar? you must have been asleep. I believe the lady in question is as we speak at Yellowstone where she has spent many many days, weeks and months observing the wolf packs.Monty roberts breaks a horse with no punishment in 20 minutes. There was no 24 hour constant... he let the horse return to the herd, it went and then returned to him 24 hours later of its own free will. Rusky- i also read one of Monty's books (don't think it was shy boy though) and there was 24 hour pressure on the horse as tess suggests.And.. dogs aren't horses. Predator and prey. Twasn't Tess...Twas me. It is my understanding that you can't get a -R without first applying a +P apologies to Tess so? did you fall asleep? And... it wasn't me who brought up the horses, was someone else. I was just responding.... I do that. I didn't read any of Monty Roberts books. I just watched and listened to him doing a training session from a DVD brought to the course.I have however just been talking on the phone with my mate... who breaks in like Monty, not because of him just because there was a better way....... I train dogs using positive reinforcement because I knew there was a better way than positive punishment. You can't see that, thats ok. I just agree with the RSPCA and disagree with Mark. I don't like the RSPCA , but I like their stance on training. I've said it before and I will always ask the question "better for whom"? People love to throw around training terms such a positive only and natural horsemanship because it gives them the warm and fuzzies but at the end of the day it is your human perception that is colouring the method to make it seem 'better'. What one animal finds aversive is often completely different to what another does, in fact what's aversive to one may just be another's reinforcer and what one finds appetetive may be aversive to the next. As people have said natural horsemanship uses almost exclusively negative reinforcement by way of removal from the 'herd'. This is a flight animal, being isolated screams against it's very existance and banishment from the herd equals certain death in the wild. Do you honestly think that doesn't cause the horse any psychological pain or stress? Again, with so called 'purely positive' training, you are still using negative punishment in the form of withheld reinforcers, isolation, restriction etc. Many dogs would find those options far more aversive than a physical correction. So, is it better for the dog or do you just think that it is because of your human perception that "corrections are bad mkay"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmolo Posted December 23, 2007 Share Posted December 23, 2007 Rusky- do you really believe natural horsemandship is purely positive?? Can you give an example of what part of the process would be purely positive? And headcollars? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dak07 Posted December 23, 2007 Share Posted December 23, 2007 I pose a qeustion to anyone who claims they are purely positive trainers , How do you communicate to the dog that its behaviour is undesiralde / unwanted without the use of punishers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rusky Posted December 23, 2007 Share Posted December 23, 2007 I believe that the only way that Jan Fennel could have studied the wolves in Yellowstone is in these acclimatisation pens she wasn't even there when wolves were first reintroduced to Yellowstone. your beliefs are wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erny Posted December 23, 2007 Share Posted December 23, 2007 It seems to me that some of those who used to talk about "purely positive" or "positive only" are now coming away from that description. Not necessarily that they are changing their views or methodologies (or are they, perhaps by increments?) but they do now seem to be asserting that they will use "passive punishment". Now - is this a way of simply not opening the argument that was ever present when one spoke of "positive only"? Or is it that they recognise (by theory or by experience) that indeed, punishment often does form a necessary PART in a dog's learning career? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rusky Posted December 23, 2007 Share Posted December 23, 2007 Rusky- do you really believe natural horsemandship is purely positive?? Can you give an example of what part of the process would be purely positive? And headcollars? there weren't any hobbles or beatings, no screaming horses, no blood or sweat..... you disagree that's fine. Maybe you should go to Monty roberts website... I believe he has one... I can find you the link or you can google it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rusky Posted December 23, 2007 Share Posted December 23, 2007 Many dogs would find those options far more aversive than a physical correction. did they tell you that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Spotted Devil Posted December 23, 2007 Share Posted December 23, 2007 (edited) Rusky- do you really believe natural horsemandship is purely positive?? Can you give an example of what part of the process would be purely positive? And headcollars? there weren't any hobbles or beatings, no screaming horses, no blood or sweat..... you disagree that's fine. Maybe you should go to Monty roberts website... I believe he has one... I can find you the link or you can google it. At the risk of repeating myself, a punishment does NOT necessarily entail what you describe... Positive reinforcement - something added to increase the likelihood of the behaviour being repeated...e.g. "good dog!" or a treat or a tug game. Negative reinforcement - something is removed to increase the likelihood of the behaviour being repeated....e.g leg or hand aids in horses or release the tension on the dog's leash. Positive punishment - something is added to decrease the likelihood of the behaviour being repeated....e.g. growling at the dog when it jumps up. Negative punishment - something is removed to decrease the likelihood of the behaviour being repeated...e.g. ignore a dog when it jumps up. Edited December 23, 2007 by The Spotted Devil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erny Posted December 23, 2007 Share Posted December 23, 2007 (edited) Rusky - you do seem to be one who takes into account only the extreme ends of each perspective, even though throughout this thread "moderation" and "fairness" has been the doctrine. Many dogs would find those options far more aversive than a physical correction. did they tell you that? Without tracking back and re-reading each post here, I'm not sure where you took this quote from ..... so I'm unsure of the context in which it was written. But regardless, your response is not one that is founded in fact or science. It's probably not an argument at all. I guess I could counter it by asking you "do they tell you otherwise"? ETA: Rusky - I think it is great that you have the strength of conviction enough to join in this discussion . I think there are many that don't and are not. Healthy debate is a great way to learn. :D Edited December 24, 2007 by Erny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now