wheres my rock Posted December 13, 2006 Share Posted December 13, 2006 id liek to add that working setter your right most epoples recall breaks down underdistraction however i'd say the same for those taught using al kinds of methods its all in te foundations if you rush you will miss smething and then it will show up under pressure the key to training any exercise realiably in y opinion is to buidl the foundations strong then add the distractions workingf rom easy to hard to easy i hardly know anyone who sees a whippet racing day as an oppurtunity to trian under distraction but i do same as last night a heap of dogs from club offlead i know all these dogs all ball mad chasing mine was working on focus and recalls he had just as much fun but it was with me not the other dogs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whatevah Posted December 13, 2006 Share Posted December 13, 2006 My flatcoated retriever has a very reliable recall. He rarely ever leaves my side. He is very much a "moral standards" dog. To explain a moral standards dog, it is one where you might accidently leave a door open, and he stands in front of the open door, and you have to just about beg him to come through, because he thinks he is not allowed. I do a paper run which is 4 hours of walking, so many distractions. The reason I think he stays by my side is because he never knows when a tennis ball may pop out from somewhere and be thrown. But I don't always have a toy by my side. My toller, I have to keep an eye on him and call him before he gets too far. But I notice his recall to a whistle is much better than a verbal recall. My puppy 9 weeks old is still in the learning stage. I call her from short distances and reward with either toy or food. When my husband does the sweeping with the broom that she loves, I play tuggy with her very close, to teach her to be more interested in the tug than the broom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JulesP Posted December 13, 2006 Share Posted December 13, 2006 Jesomil - coming to me will be the best thing later on as that is what I have taught him as a pup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
country joe Posted December 13, 2006 Share Posted December 13, 2006 A Flatcoat with high morals. never met one. But I would like to. Country Joe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rusky Posted December 13, 2006 Share Posted December 13, 2006 Rusky- just because you haven't met anyone who trials and uses aversives OR admits to using aversives, doesn't mean that they are not there. I find it interesting that you think you can't mix positive training with some aversives as this is the way i train with excellent results for my dogs and my clients. My youngest dog won her first trial at 15 months old with this training and she is a happy confident and successful dog who enjoys her work what I actually said was I don't know anyone personally who trials using aversives these days. I have to say that the dogs that run are continually being told by the judges to use positive training. :D I have met plenty but getting less and less. I don't see why you would mix positive with aversive it would be counter productive. Myszka. My post reply was speaking of Western Australia... not the UK not Eastern states either. If a dog is not food motivated then find an alternative obsession. a toy, tug game, whatever. It isn't hard to find something the dog loves and also that the dog loves and feels safe being with you which is the best of all in the combination of positive training. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kavik Posted December 13, 2006 Share Posted December 13, 2006 Interesting topic! I've found recalls are certainly easier with some dogs than others! My Kelpies have very good recalls - they are very responsive and quick and keep an eye on where I am. Running the opposite direction speeds them up very well. Diesel's recall is improving, but is not as good as the Kelpies'. I think it is a combination of a few things, different personality, less motivated, more interested in playing with other dogs. Until I am comfortable with their level of recall, I keep them on a long lead or at least a trailing lead. Interestingly, one thing I think may contribute (although it sounds contradictory) is that I gave Diesel less freedom than the Kelpies when young. Not sure why, maybe it was the size thing and worrying about people being scared of Diesel. But I was less worried about letting the Kelpies run around and come back than Diesel. One thing that I have found useful with Kaos - I started this as soon as I started taking him out on walks. I would allow him to wander to the end of the lead, go up to the park fence and see the dogs there with no interference, and when he turned to me or came to me, click and treat. So it wasn't long before he would go and say a quick hello and run back to me. Whereas Diesel would spend the whole time by the fence wanting to make friends :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Jones Posted December 13, 2006 Share Posted December 13, 2006 The WA police and customs use positive training. The search and rescue people I know use positives too. I have never been at one of their training sessions though, just the ones I know don't use aversives so I imagine recall is the same. I will find out though. the WA Police do use positive training, but they also use adversives in training. the last time i was in WA at the old police academy there were 8 dual purpose trained dogs running through proofing excercises with there e-collars on, This was around 2004. there are around 19 operational dog teams now with there latest graduates in november, one of the graduates from the UK used to have a training blog and has written articles on the use of prong collars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MonElite Posted December 13, 2006 Share Posted December 13, 2006 I don't see why you would mix positive with aversive it would be counter productive. How would it be counter productive? Ill put it in human terms for you. You drive a car and you go over a speed limit, you might get a fun adrenaline rush (drive satisfaction) Than you one day get your photo taken and get fined. Will you be slowing down next time you see a 24 hour speed camera? You still get to your destination, safe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
country joe Posted December 13, 2006 Share Posted December 13, 2006 I don't know anyone personally who trials using aversives these days. I have to say that the dogs that run are continually being told by the judges to use positive training. :D I have met plenty but getting less and less. I don't see why you would mix positive with aversive it would be counter productive. Rusky do you think aversive training is not necessary or cruel? Just noticed your animal rights reference at the bottom of your post. I just trying to get an idea of where you are coming from. country joe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rusky Posted December 13, 2006 Share Posted December 13, 2006 the WA Police do use positive training, but they also use adversives in training.the last time i was in WA at the old police academy there were 8 dual purpose trained dogs running through proofing excercises with there e-collars on, This was around 2004. not now, no e collars. Ill put it in human terms for you.You drive a car and you go over a speed limit, you might get a fun adrenaline rush (drive satisfaction) Than you one day get your photo taken and get fined. Will you be slowing down next time you see a 24 hour speed camera? You still get to your destination, safe. I don't speed and I don't see any similarities even if I did. I am human not canine, I treat my dogs like dogs, not humans with human understanding. I don't understand the use of aversives. I guess we can agree to differ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MonElite Posted December 13, 2006 Share Posted December 13, 2006 Ok lets get back to the canine terms, how do you show the dog when its doing something wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wheres my rock Posted December 13, 2006 Share Posted December 13, 2006 again what do you mean by aversive rusky a verbal nah removing oppurtunity to gain reward or physical corections Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmolo Posted December 13, 2006 Share Posted December 13, 2006 Rusky- are you suggesting that anyone who uses aversives in training does not use positive reinforcement??? Given that the two together would be counter productive in your eyes?? How can it be counter productive to show the dog when they are doing the right thing AND when they are doing the wrong thing? It creates clarity not confusion. An aversive is anything that the dog finds unpleasant- and a good trainer will use the lowest level possible- ignoring the dog for instance is aversive for some dogs, not for others. The dog determines both the reward and the correction- not us. And your suggestion of finding an alternative to food is fine but does not work for many dogs. Many of my clients have dogs who don't care about food and have no interest in a ball/ tug or a pat when presented with a distraction. What do you propose i do with these dogs? What about the dog that loves food but already believes that more success will be gained from chasing the rabbit (or whatever other high level distraction) than returning for the food treat. And there is only so high you can go in terms of food value- its not that i present a dry biscuit and put it up against the bunny! I used to use positive training techniques only (when i first started training) so i don't think i am talking through my hat. After gaining more experience and qualifications, i am able to recognise that all dogs are different and require me to pull out different methods from my 'tool box'. I want to know that my 'tool box' is as full of different techniques and knowledge as possible so i can make judgement calls based on the dogs presented to me, not generalisations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve K9Pro Posted December 13, 2006 Share Posted December 13, 2006 (edited) R: not now, no e collars. K9: wow, really, how do you know? not what have you heard, how do you know... Edited December 13, 2006 by K9 Force Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rusky Posted December 13, 2006 Share Posted December 13, 2006 Rusky do you think aversive training is not necessary or cruel?Just noticed your animal rights reference at the bottom of your post. not necessary and depending on the level of aversion very harsh. There are levels of aversion being mentioned. where is the animal rights reference? wow, really, how do you know? not what have you heard, how do you know... why what have you heard? what do you know? I disagree with the op. I disagree with aversion and positives being mixed. The WA police use positive training, they do not use E collars. and cosmolo Rusky- are you suggesting that anyone who uses aversives in training does not use positive reinforcement??? Given that the two together would be counter productive in your eyes?? yes correct but your qualifying statement is ambiguous and could be open to the wrong interpretation. For instance K9 suggested that witholding food is an aversive. I don't think witholding treats or tug toys is on the same level as ear pinching for example. I disagree that a reliable recall cannot be taught by positive reinforcement because I know it can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wheres my rock Posted December 13, 2006 Share Posted December 13, 2006 so rusky do you see an aversive as a physicla correction etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
country joe Posted December 13, 2006 Share Posted December 13, 2006 Sorry Rusky. I meant animal protection. I read the mission statement and must have got confused. country joe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Jones Posted December 13, 2006 Share Posted December 13, 2006 (edited) Rusky you cannot say the wa police force use 100% pure positive training, especially when 2 of the new dog handlers are from the uk and USE E-COLLARS. you can disagree all you want but thats the truth, a purely positive trained police service dog trained without any adversives...i have yet to see one... i highly doubt the WA Police Dog Squad has changed its training principles since i was there 2 years ago, and i highly doubt a civilian has the knowledge or authority to state what are and what arent training techniques for police service dogs.., Edited December 13, 2006 by Jeff Jones Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmolo Posted December 13, 2006 Share Posted December 13, 2006 Rusky- if you read my posts i am not saying that you can never teach a dog a reliable recall with positive training. However you fail to answer some of the points i make in my last post, maybe i should be more specific- If you have a dog that is not motivated by food, a toy or attention, how would you train this dog to have a reliable recall in highly distracting environments? If the dog already believes that the distraction can provide more reward than you, how would you train the dog to have a reliable recall using positive methods only? How can showing the dog when they are doing the right thing and showing the dog when they are doing the wrong thing be counter productive? Whether or not the police dept use aversives or not, i still suggest that they train in drive, not just using positive reinforcement as such. I stand by my original staement that you cannot compare these dogs or any working dog to a pet dog as their expectations and opportunity for reward are dramatically different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rusky Posted December 13, 2006 Share Posted December 13, 2006 Whether or not the police dept use aversives or not, i still suggest that they train in drive, not just using positive reinforcement as such. I stand by my original staement that you cannot compare these dogs or any working dog to a pet dog as their expectations and opportunity for reward are dramatically different. of course they use drive I also agree you cannot compare any dog be it working or not. If you have a dog that is not motivated by food, a toy or attention, how would you train this dog to have a reliable recall in highly distracting environments? more to the point how would you? I would find a motivator, I know many dogs who do not find food rewarding even when the treat has high value, usually the whole feeding regime needs to be looked at. One girl for instance who insisted her dog would not work for food followed me without question for BBQ chicken, another left food out all day long in case he got hungry or missed her. Often working with people and watching their lifestyle can give immediate answers, some take longer. I found a fluffy sort of frizbee after a show, I left it for reclaiming but a particular dog wanted it, really wanted it... This dog is not particularly food motivated. The owner of the toy didn't put her hand up so we used that for this particular dog, he will do anything for his toy, a happy accident... How can showing the dog when they are doing the right thing and showing the dog when they are doing the wrong thing be counter productive? I believe you are teaching only avoidance of the punishment, if we are really speaking of punishment aversion, but as I said in the last post I would need qualification of the statement to comment, the level of aversion. If you mean witholding the reward till we gain what we are asking then it is obviously not counter productive as the dog is rewarded for correct behaviour. Rusky- if you read my posts i am not saying that you can never teach a dog a reliable recall with positive training thank you, that is exactly what I am saying and if positive training works for a reliable recall then why use aversives as they are not necessary.If the dog already believes that the distraction can provide more reward than you this works only as a lure, ultimately the dog must and will see the handler as the reward but combined with many things, not just food. It is silly to expect that a dog will work for food alone for ever, it won't. Most dogs will take a treat anytime but it doesn't mean they are trained does it? The food is a motivator as are verbal and physical praise. I prefer training through positives, what more can I say? 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