Hey,

I don't like teaching anything with discomfort (negative reinforcement) and believe there are ways that can make things VERY clear to a dog, VERY quickly using positive methods (clicker/marker word) and only once the exercise is learned must compulsion be employed to proof the behaviour and ensure compliance around distractions. Personal belief, people may disagree, but I can't bring myself to use even LOW stim to teach an exercise, when clicker/marker and food teaches it just as well.

In general when I train a behaviour I follow this process: I teach using food and a marker word ("yes!") until the behaviour is well-learned and generalized. I start from puppyhood, so by the time the dog is about 5 or 6 months old he knows the basics well in several environments. Then somewhere around 6 months old, he figures out that the world can at times be just as rewarding as I am, and he'll ignore a recall, or break a stay. E-collar time! I do NOT associate the e-collar in ANY way with the command. I only associate the e-collar with the word "no!" or correctional equivalent. So in essence, he is given a chance to comply EVERY time before he is corrected, and because the stim is associated with the word "no!" my obedience commands and performance are not tainted with evidence of avoidance/compulsion.

Interestingly, in training the "no!" I find that very shortly I get a dog that responds to a voice "no!" immediately, with little to no conflict, and clear understanding on the dog's part.

I'm just genuinely curious as to why this isn't the way the e-collar seems to be used more often. Basically what I have is one EXTREMELY solid e-collar enforced command... "No!"... Which can be employed to anything and everything from a recall to leave it to stays. Is there a reason this isn't the way most people tend to do it?

When I see e-collars used, either positive punishment or negative reinforcement, it is always associated with each command. There's stim for non-compliance of recall, down, sit, stay, etc. but no WORD associated with the stim. Therefore the dog associates each command with the potential for stim, and thus exhibits stress signs (ears fall back, panting, etc.) When I train the stim associated with "no" the dogs are much more relaxed, but know that upon hearing "no" they must instantly correct their behaviour. I get dogs that want to avoid the "no" and they think that quick compliance is beating the stim, so all in all I feel good about it because the only time they're afraid of the stim is when/if they've chosen to do something wrong.

So has this ever been a common method? If so, why was it seemingly abandoned? If not, why not?

Thanks!

Jennifer,
When you post that you're not open to trying a different training method using an e-collar, why even have the discussion?

I also have a question for you, as you have said "but I can't bring myself to use even LOW stim to teach an exercise, when clicker/marker and food teaches it just as well."
So - may I ask how you use the clicker/marker and food method to train the out an aggresive dog off a helper during high drive bite work?
Just interested in how you would train this with your method....

I should clarify, my background is in the application of low level stim and escape training. That's how I learned to use an e-collar in the first place. I have chosen to deviate from that based on my experiences. Despite the training I've seen, I do not believe the dogs respond better learning through negative reinforcement than they do learning through positive reward based training.

Why have the discussion? I'm interested in others' input. Just because you don't drop everything and change methods every time someone says something, it doesn't mean their input isn't of any value. And remember, there's a difference between being EXPERIENCED and simply repeating several years' worth of limited experience. I'm always interested in learning. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

The newer methods of training ORIGINATED when people questioned past use of the e-collar. And it's silly to think that things can't possibly be improved further, and irresponsible not to question things that cause hesitance in your own mind.

As far as using positive during bitework, it's commonly taught with a puppy. EXTREMELY commonly! My puppies out in drive by the time they're done teething. And that carries over to the helper. NOW, once the dog understands "out!" (and mine do from a tender age, using pure reward/absence of reward, i.e. Balabanov) then to reinforce it there's absolutely nothing wrong with using a collar, that's not what I'm debating or questioning. My approach only differs in that I associate higher stim with "no!" Never applying stim in the absence of "no!".

I've trained a lot of places, and never have I seen a dog be started on a helper before he was taught the basics of targeting, grip, and OUT on a tug. And that's all positive, or at least it should be, and can be.

Sorry...

So in the bitework example, I teach it as follows:

1. Puppy tugging, using "out!" and ceasing play until the dog outs. Eventually the puppy knows that "out" means to stop biting. I have NEVER had a problem teaching this to a dog, and have never needed to resort to compulsion to teach the out.

2. Now the dog understands out, and is introduced to the helper (because he shouldn't be biting the helper without a foundation in basics like out). Because the helper is involved, drive is escalated. If he does not out the first time, I'd say "no!" accompanied with stim, then repeat the command if necessary.

It doesn't take long for the dog to get it. And really doesn't differ much from using the collar like a prong, except that because it is associated ONLY with "no" and the dog is ALWAYS given the ability to comply before stim is ever employed, you don't have to worry about the dog starting to pop off the bite early, in anticipation of stim as in escape training.

I asked the question using the term "aggressive dog" as I was wondering about how it worked on green dogs, not puppies, many of whom come over and have issues with the out. So my question didn't actually get answered there...

If you *never* use compulsion on an adult, aggressive powerful, green dog for the out, you're a much better trainer than myself or anyone else here.

If you're ever in my area I'd love to have you check out a dog that we have in the kennel, it's extremely possesive of objects and has badly bitten more than a few professional dog trainers - I'd like to see this if this behavior could be corrected via positive methods. ( several board members have seen this dog in action, the "Black Mal O'Death" )
But I don't think so.... < shrug >

Will,

For some reason you seem really argumentative, and for some reason think I'm saying the collar isn't needed in training?!?! I'm the LAST person who'd say that! I use it all the time, with just about every dog in later phases of training, but only AFTER the teaching phase and ALWAYS with a "stim word" (no). Perhaps it's because it's Monday you're up for a fight. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Anyway, the same applies with green dogs. I've never had to use compulsion to TEACH an out. You can wait a dog out on a tug. It may take a while, but you can. I'm 120lbs and I can wait a dog out, and sure my arms may hurt the next day but the dog learns and it's done without compulsion. So if that makes me a better trainer than you, so be it. I doubt it, but if you're going to discredit yourself who am I to stop you? I honestly think that ANY capable trainer can teach the out without compulsion. I've yet to see one that can't. Of course to enforce it you must use compulsion with any good dog. But you seem to be missing that I place an extreme differentiation on the teaching phase from the proofing/enforcement phase.

If you've got an aggressive, powerful dog that doesn't understand the out, my first question is why wasn't he taught the out before the helper was even introduced? If he WAS taught the out as most if not all dogs are taught, then you're in the enforcement phase by now and stim is acceptable and likely needed. In that case, we aren't even disagreeing so I'd chalk it up to a "Monday thing". <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

I think you are confused on my question... My issue is not whether to enforce using a collar. My issue is quite simply a question of whether or not associating the stim exclusively with specific word will help prevent some of the effects of using stim not paired with any specific "stim word". These effects include anticipation, confusion, ears back, excessive panting, etc. My goal in training is always to create as much CLARITY as possible.

Please carefully read my posts. I don't like Monday's either, but I don't want to argue with someone who I'm in AGREEMENT with. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

YOU SAID:

"If you're ever in my area I'd love to have you check out a dog that we have in the kennel, it's extremely possesive of objects and has badly bitten more than a few professional dog trainers - I'd like to see this if this behavior could be corrected via positive methods. ( several board members have seen this dog in action, the "Black Mal O'Death" ) But I don't think so...."


Okay, I'll bite. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> I started as a compulsive trainer. My first REAL dog (i.e. a challenge) was a female malinois that would bite me as soon as look at me, and it took me a year to realize she hated me. She had possession issues, and her immediate reaction to everything was strike first.

I left training for about 6 months and just played with her. No kidding. Slowly, the year of compulsion was undone and while I did not allow her to walk all over me, I never put her in a position she felt she needed to defend herself or her possessions against me either.

I bought the two Balabanov DVD's and through employing his "Game" and play (reward) and non-reward with her, she learned the out. She learned it faster, better, and more reliably than ANY compulsive teaching had EVER produced.

Does that make me a better trainer than you or anyone here? I dunno... Can you take a dog you're not working well with, and modify your training enough (perhaps even COMPLETELY out of your comfort zone) to make it work? That's my definition of a great trainer.

With this malinois, I wonder how he was taught to out? Do you know, or was he purchased as an adult? If the latter, then has anyone taken him back to basics and PLAYED with him? Really TAUGHT the out? Or does he out on command during tug? If he does, then he understands the command and it's a case of enforcement being necessary (e-collar) but if he doesn't out from the tug, maybe, just MAYBE he doesn't understand. Possession in a dog when it comes to keeping a playobjekt from the handler is usually CREATED by compulsive teaching of the out. Just something to consider?

Same way for me ( didn't we all start as compulsion trainers? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> )

He was an adult purchase from Holland, so the question of the old training....who knows.., but the object guard exercise for these KNPV titled dogs is always something to consider.

While I consider Ivan the best handler in the U.S., and one of the top five trainers, I've seen him work his own dogs before a trial, and the use of the e-collar didn't seem all that positive to myself and some of the spectators..
Still, KUDO's to him for yet another win at the AWDF with a *terrific* score! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

Will,

I agree that Ivan rocks. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> I think we aren't so much disagreeing here as we are using different terminology. I break down "teaching" and "enforcing".

"Teaching" is taking a dog that knows NOTHING of an exercise, and creating an association in his mind between a given WORD and a given ACTION. Agreed? I don't believe this EVER requires compulsion.

"Enforcement" however, in a high drive dog, definitely DOES require compulsion. Enforcement is taking something that the dog has already learned (positively) and convincing him that he has no choice but to obey under all distractions, in all situations. In an ideal world, 100% reliability. Agreed?

Ivan uses compulsion. He couldn't be where he is without using it. But he uses it appropriately, and never in the teaching phase of an exercise. I think that is why his dogs function without any conflict.