Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
ScienceDaily (May 25, 2009) — A new study shows how the behaviour of dogs has been misunderstood for generations: in fact using misplaced ideas about dog behaviour and training is likely to cause rather than cure unwanted behaviour. The findings challenge many of the dominance related interpretations of behaviour and training techniques suggested by current TV dog trainers.
Mod cut: copyright violation
The only problem I have with this article is that if you go to any field trial competition or hunt qualifier you will see scores of well behaved, obedient, fulfilled, hard working, healthy, happy dogs who have spent their entire lives being trained with methods that would be categorized by many as "negative".
I would agree that there is little need for anything other than positive methods if you only need your dog to be a good citizen and listen to you on the walk, but so-called negative methods do have their place.
I agree with Yukiko on the importance of establishing oneself as pack leader in the mind of the dog. By nature, dogs, wild and domestic, need pack order and if the human owner faills to assume the leadership role, the dog (many, perhaps not all), will try to assume the position of pack leaders and be less likely to follow commands. From my experience, this is especially true of certain breeds which require more structure. I have mixed thoughts on variations of the alpha roll--but I did do it once when my dog chased after one of our chickens.
The only problem I have with this article is that if you go to any field trial competition or hunt qualifier you will see scores of well behaved, obedient, fulfilled, hard working, healthy, happy dogs who have spent their entire lives being trained with methods that would be categorized by many as "negative".
I would agree that there is little need for anything other than positive methods if you only need your dog to be a good citizen and listen to you on the walk, but so-called negative methods do have their place.
see, i don't know that negative methods are always ineffective. from what i've seen i think they can work. but there are 2 questions that raises:
1. negative methods may work, but at what potential cost to the dog's emotional and physical well-being and the master-dog relationship?
2. are there other methods that are just as effective?
force-based, negative, whatever training methods are traditional, so of course the majority of trainers of all types use them. but there *are* positively trained dogs who do well and earn titles in field and hunting trials, agility, working situations, even schutzhund. that kind of stuff isn't my area of training, so forgive me if i mess up any terms, but i belong to a mailing list dedicated to positive methods and there are people on there who train dogs for field trials, for protection, to be service dogs, people who rehabilitate aggressive dogs, all sorts of trainers. one of the most famous advocates of positive training, patricia mcconnell, trains herding dogs both for trials and to work on her sheep farm.
So you're willing to inflict negative stimuli on your dogs for TWO YEARS? You'd get better results with positive training.
I will agree with you if you raised a St Bernard, an Akita and an Airdale together for 10 years.
When you have big dogs who are stronger than you they know it. The only way to control them is with your will. I have never punished any of my animals with a newspaper, or other physical punishment. I teach them with the water bottle which is used to back up the command NO when they didn't listen the first time. After a short time all you have to do is show the bottle and you never have to use it again. I do this with my cats also. They are smarter so it only takes one or two squirts to last a lifetime. Your dogs understand that you mean business and they obey.
Big dogs mature a lot later than small ones so the training curve is a lot longer and you have to cut them a lot more slack until they are truly old enough to understand what is expected of them. Of course I use positive reinforcements all along the way, but if that is all you do, your dog will only see you as a source for a treat. They are not as stupid as some people think and like children, they are masters at manipulation. Although, I have to admit that St Bernards who are all about being respected, will sometimes turn their back on you to show you their feelings, an acknowledgement, and an offer of a big hug is usually enough to bring them back.
In all my life, I have never had a dog run away, or bite me or do any damage to another person in my home or away from it. All my dogs lived to an age beyond the normal for their breed.
My personal experience applies only to me, but it is a hell of a lot more important than some article.
Why don't you speak from experience and tell us how you handled your dogs. That would be more meaningful.
Location: Visitation between Wal-Mart & Home Depot
8,309 posts, read 38,776,945 times
Reputation: 7185
Quote:
Originally Posted by groar
see, i don't know that negative methods are always ineffective. from what i've seen i think they can work. but there are 2 questions that raises:
1. negative methods may work, but at what potential cost to the dog's emotional and physical well-being and the master-dog relationship?
2. are there other methods that are just as effective?
force-based, negative, whatever training methods are traditional, so of course the majority of trainers of all types use them. but there *are* positively trained dogs who do well and earn titles in field and hunting trials, agility, working situations, even schutzhund. that kind of stuff isn't my area of training, so forgive me if i mess up any terms, but i belong to a mailing list dedicated to positive methods and there are people on there who train dogs for field trials, for protection, to be service dogs, people who rehabilitate aggressive dogs, all sorts of trainers. one of the most famous advocates of positive training, patricia mcconnell, trains herding dogs both for trials and to work on her sheep farm.
With regard to point #1 - I think we could spend all day nailing down exactly what a "negative" training regimine is, but the relationship between dog and owner should not be damaged by incorporating a force element if the dog and the human are in tune with eachother (difficult to describe). Also, even the most totalitarian handler is going to train mostly or primarily by positive reinforcement or the dog is going to fail. A dog wearing an e-collar is still doing its job because it loves what it does. Otherwise, you get no performance - just a ruined dog that doesn't do squat. As for point #2, a lot of service and working dogs are basically positively trained, but I would be very surprised to learn that there is not some negative association component. I can't really imagine training dogs for many jobs that would not require corrections of one sort or another. I think that any dog doing any job is going to make mistakes and I'm having a difficult time thinking of an acceptably efficient process for discouraging same without doing something to create a negative association. For a dog that works in the field or around hunting, there are mistakes that can cost the dog his life. The dog needs to be 100% on the spot with some commands and needs to be 100% trustworthy in certain scenarios. To me, its shaky if the dog only knows the clicker.
I don't think that using correction is necessarily the same as dominance-based training. Please correct (heh) me if I'm wrong.
I agree as doing a correction is not necessarly Dominance based training. To me Dominance training is based on the whole mindset that dogs want to be apha and will see things like going out a door first or eating first as a sign of weakness in their owner and loose respect for the owner. These trainers feel that forcing the dog to submitt is necessary to gain its respect. It was based on wolf behaviour with the fatal error in believing the alpha wolf is making the others submit by rolling them when in fact they are submitting and show the submission by rolling on to their back. While dogs may roll a puppy you do not see them rolling another adult what you see is one submitting to the other.
While I do prefer positive training, minor corrections may be necessary in some cases but the " corrections" done with dominance training can often evoke more anxiety or aggression.Most aggression in dogs is due to fear/anxiety.
I have found that most people that think they have an Apha dog do not have a true alpha. Most people think my Jazz is an alpha dog . The truth is no way is she alpha as she is a coward with genetics ( border collieX cattle dog) telling her to take control. yes she will take control but she uses aggression to do so and when a True confident alpha dog is around she will be the first to submitt to it..some alpha! An alpha dog is very confident and you can tell it is the alpha by the way most other dogs behave around it. An agressive dog is not the same as an alpha dog and alpha dogs rarely have to use aggression.
Location: Visitation between Wal-Mart & Home Depot
8,309 posts, read 38,776,945 times
Reputation: 7185
Quote:
Originally Posted by kansas sky
I don't think that using correction is necessarily the same as dominance-based training. Please correct (heh) me if I'm wrong.
OK, I guess that was further digression from the topic.
However, I would say that if you are issuing a correction to your dog you are necessarily assuming a stance of "I'm the boss" and the implication is that "you are going to do it my way - not yours." That's standing on pretty dominant turf.
I don't think you need to roll your dog to convince him that you are in charge, but you do need to convince him that you are in charge. I'm sure that many would disagree, but you shouldn't ask your dog to do anything.
Last edited by jimboburnsy; 08-19-2009 at 10:34 PM..
OK, I guess that was further digression from the topic.
However, I would say that if you are issuing a correction to your dog you are necessarily assuming a stance of "I'm the boss" and the implication is that "you are going to do it my way - not yours." That's standing on pretty dominant turf.
Well now I don't know. This may be splitting hairs, but in my mind it's a matter of attitude. There's a difference between teaching your dog and constantly being on guard for him to usurp your position as pack leader. Even when I was a big proponent of dominance theory, I never utilized it much myself. Looking back, I think it just felt unecessarily adversarial to me. I'm lucky enough that a light correction (almost always just vocal) followed by praise for the desired behavior works beautifully in my dog.
Just in case I haven't been clear, I do think there's room for correction in training. Some dogs thrive on pure positive reinforcement. It forces them to use their brains more. But I believe that some dogs want and need more guidance. It's just that I think it should be guidance, not dominance.
This is a really interesting discussion. Thank you to all involved.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
An alpha dog is very confident and you can tell it is the alpha by the way most other dogs behave around it. An agressive dog is not the same as an alpha dog and alpha dogs rarely have to use aggression.
