Re: Cesar Milan Ratings = cash. I must admit I haven't watched much of him at all but what I did see made my stomach turn, and I would never watch him again as I wouldn't give him the ratings.
Re: Cesar Milan [quote author=JulieT link=topic=3765.msg42832#msg42832 date=1387836576] [quote author=TeamGSP link=topic=3765.msg42825#msg42825 date=1387836085] More "traditional" methods still come into play in the gundog side of training. For general obedience, recall and retrieving the clicker and purely positive methods work fine. [/quote] That's interesting - I'm not far along in my gundog training. What kind of things require a "traditional" approach? [quote author=TeamGSP link=topic=3765.msg42825#msg42825 date=1387836085] The less aversive methods you can use the better for the dog and your relationship with your dog. The problem with them is your timing needs to be perfection and in unskilled hands they border on abuse. [/quote] That's interesting again. Could you say more about how and why you think less aversive methods might be abusive? If that's what you meant. [/quote] Ok well I take aversives to be ear and jowel tugging, snapping back a leash, use of various types of choke and pinch collars etc etc (please note those collars are more prevalent in setter and pointer communities as they don't teach their dogs to heal). Any other type of negative reinforcement. So in my opinion the more training you can do without any of the above the better. When it comes to gundogs, once again please note I handle hunting dogs that will hunt game out to 200yds from me so my training might not replicate the Labrador world. But in my experience the hunting of live game, the scent, chasing down of wounded pricked birds etc is beyond the clicker I think Pippa returns to traditional methods for the shooting field. I also believe that a dog certainly needs to know what no means or Agh Agh whatever you choose to use.
Re: Cesar Milan [quote author=TeamGSP link=topic=3765.msg42839#msg42839 date=1387837603] Ok well I take aversives to be ear and jowel tugging, snapping back a leash, use of various types of choke and pinch collars etc etc (please note those collars are more prevalent in setter and pointer communities as they don't teach their dogs to heal). Any other type of negative reinforcement. So in my opinion the more training you can do without any of the above the better. When it comes to gundogs, once again please note I handle hunting dogs that will hunt game out to 200yds from me so my training might not replicate the Labrador world. But in my experience the hunting of live game, the scent, chasing down of wounded pricked birds etc is beyond the clicker I think Pippa returns to traditional methods for the shooting field. I also believe that a dog certainly needs to know what no means or Agh Agh whatever you choose to use. [/quote] I'm not being critical of you - I'm interested. What aversives do you use and find are necessary in hunting, scenting, and chasing down wounded birds? Positive reinforcement isn't just about a clicker (doesn't need to be at all really, I don't think). I am genuinely interested - you seem to be talking about distance being the problem. I'm not sure why punishment is any more effective than rewards at a distance?
Re: Cesar Milan [quote author=JulieT link=topic=3765.msg42842#msg42842 date=1387838036] [quote author=TeamGSP link=topic=3765.msg42839#msg42839 date=1387837603] Ok well I take aversives to be ear and jowel tugging, snapping back a leash, use of various types of choke and pinch collars etc etc (please note those collars are more prevalent in setter and pointer communities as they don't teach their dogs to heal). Any other type of negative reinforcement. So in my opinion the more training you can do without any of the above the better. When it comes to gundogs, once again please note I handle hunting dogs that will hunt game out to 200yds from me so my training might not replicate the Labrador world. But in my experience the hunting of live game, the scent, chasing down of wounded pricked birds etc is beyond the clicker I think Pippa returns to traditional methods for the shooting field. I also believe that a dog certainly needs to know what no means or Agh Agh whatever you choose to use. [/quote] I'm not being critical of you - I'm interested. What aversives do you use and find are necessary in hunting, scenting, and chasing down wounded birds? Positive reinforcement isn't just about a clicker (doesn't need to be at all really, I don't think). I am genuinely interested - you seem to be talking about distance being the problem. I'm not sure why punishment is any more effective than rewards at a distance? [/quote] Oh no punishment is useless at distance. One of the worst things in traditional training is the drag back to the point where you blew the command and punish the dog for not responding. The dog doesn't have a clue so I don't do that. I will go and get my dog for ignoring a recall, slip on the lead and bring them back to a lane for a chill out session and then work them closer on a few successful recalls before sending them off in the field. My food treats etc are all useless in the field. My dogs will spit them out. My rewards and punishment in the field are simple Being allowed to hunt Not being allowed to hunt So a call to sit, the reward for the sit is being allowed to hunt on. No sit the the dog is brought back to heel and released to Hunt again after a period of time as a reward for some good heel work. Pippa might explain things better
Re: Cesar Milan I totally agree. GWPs are known to be hard and hot headed which I think is the result of the overwhelming urge to hunt, point and retrieve bred into them. No food or hands-on praise would be enough to tempt them - as you say, removal from the hunt is (as I see it) the only acceptable and workable way. (I tried clicker training several of my parrots but failed dismally. They very soon learnt how to make the noise and then expected a reward for it. At one point I had both clicking to each other and giving across sunflower seed kernels as their rewards)
Re: Cesar Milan [quote author=TeamGSP link=topic=3765.msg42844#msg42844 date=1387838702] My food treats etc are all useless in the field. My dogs will spit them out. [/quote] You don't have to be "in the field" for a dog to spit out treats when distracted by much more exciting things - my pet pooch will spit out treats on Wimbledon Common if he thinks a "hunt" around the wood might be possible! ;D ;D ;D It's not just about food. [quote author=TeamGSP link=topic=3765.msg42844#msg42844 date=1387838702] Being allowed to hunt Not being allowed to hunt [/quote] So you use positive reinforcement, and negative punishment. So far, you are describing yourself as a positive only trainer. I think. Maybe Pippa will correct if muddled.
Re: Cesar Milan Exactly right, Julie. Being allowed to hunt = positive reinforcement. Not being allowed to hunt = negative punishment (where negative means 'removal of a stimulus' and punishment means 'net result is reduction in behaviour' (that behaviour being blinking or running off or whatever the dog did prior)). All textbook 'motivational training', 'operant conditioning' type methods. No different to 'timing out' a puppy for biting or turning round to remove attention for jumping up - those are negative punishments too.
Re: Cesar Milan [quote author=JulieT link=topic=3765.msg42848#msg42848 date=1387841901] [quote author=TeamGSP link=topic=3765.msg42844#msg42844 date=1387838702] My food treats etc are all useless in the field. My dogs will spit them out. [/quote] You don't have to be "in the field" for a dog to spit out treats when distracted by much more exciting things - my pet pooch will spit out treats on Wimbledon Common if he thinks a "hunt" around the wood might be possible! ;D ;D ;D It's not just about food. [quote author=TeamGSP link=topic=3765.msg42844#msg42844 date=1387838702] Being allowed to hunt Not being allowed to hunt [/quote] So you use positive reinforcement, and negative punishment. So far, you are describing yourself as a positive only trainer. I think. Maybe Pippa will correct if muddled. [/quote] Thanks it's good to know I'm more positive than I thought lol I take it positive trainers all have a NO ? That they use to indicate poor behaviour ? Do you reinforce the no ?
Re: Cesar Milan I think, probably :-\, no is strictly a positive punishment (it is introducing an unfavorable event). But only one trainer I've met doesn't use "no" at least sometimes. I'm not sure what's right about about "reinforcing" the no, I don't, at least in terms of introducing more positive punishment. I really only use it as a "no reward" marker - it just means "no treat for that".
Re: Cesar Milan [quote author=JulieT link=topic=3765.msg42860#msg42860 date=1387870496] I think, probably :-\, no is strictly a positive punishment (it is introducing an unfavorable event). But only one trainer I've met doesn't use "no" at least sometimes. I'm not sure what's right about about "reinforcing" the no, I don't, at least in terms of introducing more positive punishment. I really only use it as a "no reward" marker - it just means "no treat for that". [/quote] It's where I start to get confused. I was told that no without a marker such as a tap on the nose or a tug on a lead is just a word and thus means nothing. Like the click and treat the treat reinforces the well done aspect Without the treat the click wouldn't mean anything So does "No" on its own mean anything ? Only seeking clarification here, not criticising any methods or judging
Re: Cesar Milan [quote author=TeamGSP link=topic=3765.msg42865#msg42865 date=1387875374] It's where I start to get confused. I was told that no without a marker such as a tap on the nose or a tug on a lead is just a word and thus means nothing. Like the click and treat the treat reinforces the well done aspect Without the treat the click wouldn't mean anything So does "No" on its own mean anything ? Only seeking clarification here, not criticising any methods or judging [/quote] I think this is where you have to go back to: Things get better for the dog Things get worse for the dog Things stay the same If things get worse, the dog is unlikely to do whatever he was doing just before things got worse. If things stay the same the behaviour will become "extinct" eventually. Because the dog won't expend energy on activity that makes no difference. So if "no" is meaningless (things stay the same) it doesn't matter in the longer term, the behaviour will still become extinct. If the dog happily "self rewards" though, for a behaviour while you are saying no, then things got better. So the key is still the control of rewards. It isn't necessary to add a punishment to get the better behaviour.
