| Firstly I would like to agree with Barry's technique in this case. It should indeed achieve the desired result with such a dog in a very short time.
Barry McD Wrote "Now Niche and others come from a different discipline and type of training than me, Shutzhund, and I do not presume to know enough about that discipline to even comment on its techniques, but I do know that it is not a traning method that is appropriate in its entirity for family pets. Some of its techniques may translate well to a household environment and work, but over the past years the training of PETS has turned farther and farther away from leash training, verbal corrections, and positive punishments (where you say or do or add something to the dog's environment to make it stop), and modern trainers, supported by behaviorists and the newest understandings about dog behavior, have overwhelming moved to what could in general be called positive training methods. This is occurring with all animals, too, not just dogs." This is an extremely subjective point of view based on experience and ones own ideologies. As you have clearly stated yourself Barry you know very little of Schutzhund and what it entails. Many of the "MODERN" training techniques and beliefs that you speak of came from schutzhund as people sought to improve what they were doing and how to achieve it. It may be better to not draw conclusions as to regards to something you do not have the knowledge on. Conditioning a dog to respond one way or another to a given stimulus whether it be for sport, police service dogs etc etc etc or a pet dog is no different. The dog learns to have an association between one and the other. The only difference being that a police dog etc "MUST" respond to a command no matter what level of stimluation it is under were a pet dog may not have to be so correct in it's commands. I for one however do not see it this way and feel that in the modern era of owning a dog (especially a dog such as a Rottweiler) if we are to take this dog in public (and even more so if the dog is too go off lead) the dog must respond to its commands as close to 100% of the time as possible. Whilst it is true that the "overall" training of dogs has moved further away from the use of compulsion and aversive training techniques taking into application such things as "successful approximation" and "random reinforcement" many many trainer and behaviorists have held onto the use of techniques that take into account positive punishment and negative renforcement. Some of the reasons for this maybe: 1)the lack of complexity of such techniques making them easier for the lay owner to implement. One of the great short comings of any technique is the ability of people to implemnt the technique in the way that is effective. Many professional trainers and behaviorist still advocate the use of + pinishment and many people find them easy to implement and are not as reliant on timing as total positive methods. 2)The quickness of the technique to alter behavior. 3)Some behaviors are self rewarding (aggression often fits into this) and thus some negative stimulation of some sort can result in a behavior switching from a successful to an unsuccessful behavior.4)The ability to gain correct responces to given triggers and stimulus under greater levels of duress. 5)To have the ability to bring knowledge and use of aversive techniques into the mix necessary to gain the desired result what is needed for each individual dog. Some dogs simply will not respond to positive only techniques same as it is true that not all dogs will respond to techniques that can be consider adversive. Many behaviorists and trainers see it necessary to add as many strings to their bow as possible. There is no one group of techniques that will work totally on all pets as even pet dogs vary greatly. A technique that would work on a adult, stong rank drive APBT will not necessarily work on a handler sensitive, overall soft temperamented Cavalier King Charels Spaniel. The fact is also that even Cavalier's and the like have high rank driven dogs and we cannot pick and choose the dogs people bring to us.
These are just some.
This should not mean that one is better than the other, but there is more than one way to train a dog and to suggest that one technique is only appriate for one application is to demean it as apposed to another. As I said above the correct use of any sound training techniques will gain results no matter what application we are trying to achieve.
Barry Wrote "Separately but related, the great mass of research and evidence about dealing with aggression suggests that using any form of assertiveness, aggression, cohersion, physical discomfort, or dominating behavior to reply to growling, barking, and other unacceptable dominant or aggressive canine behaviors is absolutely the worst way to deal with them. In this case, fighting fire with fire will only set the house on fire!
Based on this, I would suggest that you do not verbally or physically correct the dog--except for using the leash to move the dog away from the person it is growling at and to maintain everyone's safety."
Once agin this is a very subjective opinion that takes strongly into account opinions of other trainers and behaviorist that support the types of training techniques supported by Barry. This does not mean that they are wrong but to say that the "great mass" of trainers and behaviorist feel this way I feel to be incorrect and that the canine training industry is indeed well and truly split on the issue. I for one strongly advocate the use of postive punishment techniques in the curing of aggressive behavioral problems as I feel that aggression in the real world is often self rewarding for dogs and can be infinatly more difficult to cure without the use of such techniques. This does not mean I will not or do not use positive only techniques with some dogs, just that I do not find in the great number of cases that the use of positve punishment causes greater or higher levels of aggression. For me those that theories such things do so based on only half research that already supports already concluded beliefs. Having trained and corrected over 400 dogs that have taken the high level step of biting their owner, and many hundreds more that were aggressive to strangers etc I would have to disagree with such theories and believe that in great many cases that + punishment will infact have a very quick positive effect on the behavior.
There is a huge amount of misinformation in reagrds the use of positive punishment being perpetuated by trainers who's idealogy is towards postive only training techniques who use arguements based on research to support such points of view. But those that research such things, texts and research conducted in recent times by such people as Michael Domjan (text titled "The Principles of learning and behavior"), Azrin (and Holz) (text titled "Punishment in opperant behavior") Cambell and Church, Solomon will find many of these theories are just not true in all or even the majority of cases. We can lla find information to supprot what we do if we are willing to take the parts that we agree with a leave behind the parts that don't. Others that also aply in relation to the rules sorrounding the use of punishment and how the incorrect use effects dog such as M.E.Seligman will find many of the ideas that have been perpetuated by such people are not infact true and that not only are the negative effects of punishment in the learning process and in the altering behavior are greatly exagerated that there is in fact many positive results to such work.
To conclude, back to the Shutzhund folks. They would probably not use most of the ideas I have mentioned, and may not even agree with the idea of using only positive rewards and negative punishments, but that is because, as I said earlier, they have different goals and a different relationship with their animals, and their animals are different from the average house pet Rottweiler. Once again this shows a lack of knowledge as to what schutzhund and the likes entail. Schutzund for many, many years has been the temperament test required for the rottweiler to breed and has helped to shape the overll temperament of the rottweiler that we have all grown to love. Such techniques weather they be a pet dog or not relate to the Rottweiler as although few dogs have the genetic ability to make the grade in such things as schutzund does not mean that the two are worlds apart. Infact the reverse is often the case and that the two are very closely related. Good control ina dog in real life and on the sporting feild are often identical. Certainly a dog that is bred for Schutzhund may be "Harder" in temperament than one that is not this does not mean that the same techniques will not work although it may not.
The methods used in a sport like Shutzhund or to train a police dog are done by knowledgeable trainers under controled conditions for specific reasons that relate to their goals. That does not mean that these same methods, used by a casual dog owner under uncontroled circumstances will work or yield the results you, as a pet owner, want. The facts are that a police dog must achieve almost 100% consitant response to to a given trigger or stimlus almost 100% of the time. As I have written above I see no reason for this to vary from that of a pet dog. A sound training technique will achieve the desired result with almost any dog. There certainly is no proof to sepport that a positive only technique will work better when a dog in outside of its controlled envionment than one that uses aversive techniques. If anything this is too the contrary as a technique that will use + punishment in the final stages of the training will not only gain the same result as a postive only technique (as the initial training of the technique is positive) but it adds a catch to the dog to say "now that you know what to do if you dont, well there a catch". This can lift the consistantcy of responce well up.
The more positive-oriented and humane approaches (and I do not mean to suggest that Shutzhund is inhumane; not at all) are safer for you, have virtually no potential to hurt or aggrevate the dog or situation, and will yield very good results in most cases, with the added bonus of strengthening the bond between you and your dog in a distinctly positive way, without complicating your life with mind games about who's the Alpha, dominance, pack order, etc. Whilst you may say that schuzhund is not inhumane the use of such a word suggest that those that use techniques not fitting into the "Positive only" mold are using techniques that are inhumane. Such a word once again in very subjective. What one person calls inhumane another may have no problem with. Also to suggest that a positive only technique has less negative contingencies than one that takes into effect some use of aversion is one of the pieces of misinformation that I seak of above. Both posoitive only and those that take into account compulsion have possible negative contigencies and can be if conducted in the incorrect way on the wrong dog can create great danger for the handler. I have had to correct many many dogs that have been incorrectly trained through positive only techniques. Some dogs simply are too strong for such techniques. The same can certainly be said for aversive techniques. If used incorrectly they can indeed cause defensive reactions towards the owner and damage the dogs temperament as well as other things. But so can all techniques. The key is too find a balance or technique that fits the dog and hanlder. Barry also suggest that you will have a better relationship with your dog for positive techniques only, which is too suggest that using some degree of aversion or compulsion that you will damage such a realtionship. This again is what I call misinformation. Yes if used incorrectly or with the wrong dog such techniques will indeed weaken your relatioship but if used correctly aversion will have no ill effects on the hanlder/dog relationship and will often improve it. Punishment is indeed a natural part of the relationship between dogs in a pack and very much in the realtionship between pup and mother. Some argue that the likleyhood of damaging a dog with positive only techniques is lower. I agree it is indeed the case. But not always the case.
I do not want this to be a bashing positive only techniques (I am using clicker to train Shakirra my 16 weeks old bitch as I do to train a lot of inital responces into all my dogs and for film/trick type of work) nor of me Bashing Barry although I think that many will see it as such. However the truth is positive techniques have great merit and I for one hope that training keeps going down this path and I hope that Barry keeps writting his indepth posts. I simply wanted to highlight some points that I could not 100% agree with and that I felt showed a lack of knowledge in one area. I also wished to clear up some ideas expressed that where opinions based in idealogy and nothing more. Nor do I wish to alter what Barry has written here, to this particluar thread starter, the advice given here I feel to be correct at this time. Nor do I wish to try to alter what Barry is doing, he has clearly found a training technique that his idealogy agrees with. I just wished to show that there is always another side. I hope that Barry will offer opinions on what I write. Having two or more possible techniques that people can use to cure such behavior will allow them to use the one that fits better with their ideology, dog etc.
I feel that any truly good trainer/behaviorist will have good knowledge on all training techniques and will be able to bring all techniques into play when needed. I for one think that we all should teach behaviors that we want through as positive techniques as is possible and in the great many cases feel that we can alter behavior through positve only techniques but feel that we must also have a good knowledge as to where such techniques have weaknesses. Many things that have been written in regards training techniques both positive only and those that also use aversion have not been based in research but rather in opinion. This is something we all must be careful with.
WorkinDogz speak of Dr Spook's work which was based in some part on the ideas of B.F. Skinner and that punishment has very limited ability to alter behavior etc. However recent research such as that spoken about above do not support this theory and has infact shown the exact opposite that indeed = Punicshment has great ability to alter behavior. There has been a lot of arguement lately between Skinner theorists and the researchers from the labs of M.E.Seligman or his research partner Bruce Overmier and the use of Negative Reinforcement. Who is correct and who is not may never be answered in our time, but the fact is that one is not absolutley correct as many behaviorists or trainers would have us believe. There is at present now days once again much research into the use of punishment etc that for a time was seen a politically incorrect. This can only serve to help us all and bring to light some of these theories perpetuated by many as being incorrect on both sides of the arguement.
Mick.  |