Lee wrote: "IMO, we've got a bit of a schizm in the so-called working lines. You've got your sport dog - super high prey, calm grips, often a 'beta' type dog, high threshold for defense. Then you've got dogs with a low threshold for defense, show more outright aggression, often combined with lower prey drive, greater handler hardness and dominance. The sport dogs have such a high threshold for defense that it is sometimes difficult to impress them - they don't recognize a threat. In addition, if they are the type to adopt the beta role and be willingly led, there is no reason for the lower ranking animal to defend the boss. It's the boss' job to defend the pack, and that's US."


<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

Originally posted by Renee Felknor:
Do the dogs today have better trainability? Definitely not-but we do have tools today that were not available 10-15 years ago. I have to agree with this statement in that it's really our handling skills that have improved and helped us realize our dogs' true potential as well as our own potential as handlers, not so much the dogs. I believe it's when we discovered how to train with motivational methods that really made the difference. I think if guys like Mr. Flinks didn't share his secrets with us, most of us would still be jerking our dogs around by the collar, believeing our dogs didn't have a love for the work as a result of our poor training skills, and not knowing they had the drive all along to do motivational training, all because of our lack of know-how. But now, we have those tools, and that's the difference we see on the field. It's handler knowledge.

The "tools" were actually available by the late 30's when BF Skinner published "The Behavior of Organisms" (something like that).....the information, though, sat idle as it was VERY unpopular at the time to discuss behavior in a scientific manner. However, anyone living in 1940 who cared to could have found the same information that is frequently discussed in this and other training forums. You are correct though, this information wasn't published in easy-to-read books until the mid-80's...and even then there weren't many such books.
Coincidentally, yes....it seems that parrots, dolphins, and dogs (and kids) are so much easier to train these days!

But even with a thorough understanding of learning theory, training wasn't as easy 15 yrs ago. Many of the popular sport lines in the 80's and early 90's didn't have the high motivation to work to earn something. Certainly their prey drive was nowhere near what we often see today. Without something they want to work for, the handler was left with having to provide the motivation for the dog - fear. Negative reinforcement was the order of the day to get speed and precision cuz the drives weren't high enough to motivate the dog to bust his butt. The trainer I learned everything from was extraordinarily knowledgeable of learning theory, but the lines he liked were hard, dominant, low-prey drive dogs - it didn't make for the same happy, enthusiastic obedience dog as most of today's dogs.

I wouldn't know about that stuff....the difference in working dogs these days (remember my original post in this thread?). With regard to dog training in general though, the information was available. On the other hand, the chances of someone reaching for a Skinner book because they wanted to get their dog to be a happy heeler was pretty remote. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />
Really, I don't think any of those people who worked in the animal training field paid much attention to Skinner at the time (or in the decades following his publication)...old traditions die hard.

I guess what I'm saying is that SKinner was very well understood where I was - but it didn't matter. Dogs often weren't so easy to motivate. Skinner had the luxury of taking his subjects down to 75-80% of normal body weight...THAT'S strong motivation and food works wonders. The animal has to have some STRONG motivation; when the food and play/prey is only moderate, the extra incentive came from the other quadrants of OC (and still does when needed). Today, we're often able to get the dog much, much closer to our end product using only positive methods because of the genetic (drive)difference in the dogs.

I hear what your saying...I think...that sport dogs didn't have the drive that they do know. What I am saying is that the principles of behavior were laid out long ago for our use. My girlfriend has a cocker-mix. It's about as much trouble as a hamster...and just as quiet...certainly not a driven athlete. This dog is not the result of modern breeding (of course) and probably compares to what companion dogs have been like for a hundred years. But the principles of behavior remain the same, and the dog responds perfectly (as would all organisms) to the basic principles of behavior.
If you want a rat that is ultra-driven for the food to get faster results, then you have to get it fairly hungry. Dogs, on the other hand, are often down right piggish...even if they are OVER weight. If not, then you don't have what the dog wants.
I spend most of my time working with humans, and the law would not allow us to manipulate their caloric requirements to get faster results...so long as our practice is consistent with behavioral science, we get results unobtainable by any other form of psychology.

 Quote:

Originally posted by kelton sweet:
If you want a rat that is ultra-driven for the food to get faster results, then you have to get it fairly hungry. Dogs, on the other hand, are often down right piggish...even if they are OVER weight. If not, then you don't have what the dog wants.

And here is where I depart from the purely positive camp. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> I strongly disagree that you can ALWAYS find something positive to motivate an animal to a really high level. A heck of a lot of dogs are quite simply what they've been bred to be for centuries: slugs, deadheads. SOME dogs have fantastic food drive - that's awesome. Some have intense prey/play - awesome. A few are even so desperate to earn acceptance from their owner that praise and social rewards will motivate them over the top. But a huge chunk of dogdom doesn't WANT anything BADLY, except maybe to be left alone to sleep on the sofa. You can get a dog to learn behaviors using +R, but to get that dog to a very precise, and physically difficult/demanding criteria requires that the animal bring a high level of motivation to the playing field. You can get a slug dog to retrieve at the trot and pass a CDX. But can you get that same slug dog to fly out, snatch the db, and fly back to you, skidding to a halt in front, using only positive methods? Nope. And it isn't the fault of the trainer that he somehow failed to find the appropriate positive motivator for that dog. He can take that dog's body weight down and artificially create motivation - but then the food rewards are no longer positive reinforcers; they're negative reinforcers because you have put that dog into an AVERSIVE state of desperate hunger, as Skinner and so many other scientists have done and continue to do today. When all else fails, fear is always the strongest motivator of them all. The vast majority of us don't want to use aversive techniques, and they are our last fallback after we have max'd out the potential of positive only. That's why the GSDs of today are so much easier and more fun to train - because prey drive has become a VERY strong drive which we can use to positively motivate the dog. We can reach our really high criteria using positive methods - but it's only cuz the animal brings the requisite drives to the work.

 Quote:

Originally posted by kelton sweet:
The response that you seek must first be part of the organism's capacity.

All of the responses we are trying to train for this sport ARE well within the capacity of the dog's chosen for the sport ('cept for the folks who try to do it with a Rottie <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> ). I'm not talking about asking a dog to meow or climb a tree..I'm talking about simple behaviors, but performed at an extremely high level of accuracy and speed. A clumber is CAPABLE of it (so are American Shepherds), but can you motivate it to WANT to? Nope.

 Quote:

Originally posted by kelton sweet:
...their differing genetic capacities to be reinforced by specific stimuli

I don't require that the dog like food or prey...I'd be tickled if it liked ANYTHING so well that I could use it to reinforce its behavior, but the fact is tons of dogs just don't have an INTENSE liking for anything.

 Quote:

Originally posted by kelton sweet:
...I have yet to find a dog that isn't fully interested when it is nearing his meal time, and I am holding that meal moistened with chicken broth.

I've met bunches of them! Especially my first dog who left an entire steak in his food bowl overnite til I threw it away. I've met plenty that like food, but not too many who will work HARD for it. Again, it's the intensity of the drive that is the issue. You were asking if the dogs of 10 yrs ago were 'better' or not, and in this respect, i'd say today's dogs are easier to train due to their enhanced drives.

 Quote:

Originally posted by kelton sweet:
If someone attempted to scare the hell out of this dog for some sort of sport performance, well...what's the point? You might be able to pull it off, but it strikes me as just plain weird!

It's not necessary or desirable to scare the hell out of them; but a little negative reinforcement goes a heck of a long way towards closing the gap between the performance that the dog is willing to OFFER from positive motivation and the performance that the trainer wants as the final product.