QUOTE: Suzanne Clothier's excellent site, flyingdogpress.com END
Her article REWARDS, LURES & BRIBES is excellent, BTW. :>
JMO.
Her articles on Haltis and Prongs are my personal favorites. In fact, I think I will be making a "Recommended Reading" list at the end of this article that will link over to those specific articles!
And thanks, guys. It often surprises people I compete with that I'm so young... I also look older than sixteen, so I get serious raised eyebrows in the junior ring!
Here's revised article with lovely paragraph breaks, woohay:
A Prong Collar in One Hand, a Clicker In The Other: Two Ends of the Spectrum"
As I started to delve more and more into dog training, I quickly found that there are two schools of thought right now in dog training. A few decades ago, Koehler-style 'yank and crank' training was at its peak. Chokes and prongs were used to pull dogs around for little to no reward, and it resulted in demotivated, unhappy dogs performing like beaten circus ponies: head, ears, and tail down, no spirit. Fortunately, yank and crank has evolved into what is now known generally as 'traditional training': using fair corrections and correcting only dogs that have learned commands -- not dogs in the learning process. Treats are used both in teaching the behavior, and in rewarding the proper behavior even when the dog is out of the learning phase. But in the past five to ten years, it seems as if we have gone to the other side completely. No corrections -- not even the word "no" -- all "positive", lots of cookies, and the discovery of everyone's favorite noise-maker, the clicker.
Is there a balance?
I think so. Right now, 'traditional' dog trainers: those who use corrections as needed and food as needed -- feel that this purely positive method of dog training has gone too far. And 'positive' dog trainers: those who use NO corrections, just ignore the negatives and use lots of food -- feel that the traditional trainers are dog abusers and that their dogs are unmotivated.
Although I have only a little experience in dog training, I have gone to obedience competitions and watched purely positive dogs compete and succeed, and traditionally trained dogs compete and succeed. I've seen dogs from both areas fail exercise and make all sorts of mistakes. It has become pretty clear to me, through trial and error and watching others, that there is no 'one true way' to train dogs. Each dog is different and much be treated as such.
There are dogs out there, rare but true exceptions, that do not respond well to corrections - even correctly-timed, fair corrections. It just rolls off of them like water off of a duck's back - they continue doing whatever they were doing. These are the candidates for purely positive training, and in fact, it's dogs like these that usually get their handlers into clicker training in the first place! But the general population of dogs seems to be capable of taking and responding to corrections, and it makes little sense to me not to use a tool that the dog can accept.
I compare this to parenting. Although I obviously don't have kids myself, my mother works in childcare and I've sort of learned second-hand how to parent. Is telling your child "no" a bad thing? I don't think so! Is it true that there are some children that completely break down at the word "no", who take it to heart and get upset? Definitely! You have to set boundaries for your children, and you have to set boundaries for your dog. You also need an efficient way to set these boundaries.
The way to set boundaries varies depending on each individual child or dog. Some children respond to a verbal "Don't touch that!". This is similar to a verbal correction in dog training -- say "no!" and your dog leaves the bird cage alone. Other children may need you to take them by the hand and lead them away. This is like a physical correction: the firm contact they receive allows them to focus on the human touching them. And some children, if given something else to do, will avoid whatever it is anyway. This is similar to clicker training; you give your dog something better to do and reward them for that positive behavior -- for example, teaching your dog to stay on a mat when someone comes to the door as opposed to correcting them for jumping up on said person.
Are all three methods capable of achieving a pleasant result? Certainly! Will all three methods work for each dog? Not by a long shot. It's up to the handler to experiment for each dog. We've accepted that some dogs are toy-motivated, some are food-motivated, and others are praise-motivated -- why can't we accept that some dogs respond better to correctionless clicker training, verbal corrections, or physical corrections?
Another common problem I've seen is that the debate has grown so heated that trainers aren't willing to venture from whichever side they're already on. You CAN use a clicker and a prong collar on the same dog, at the same time! Unfortunately, this idea eludes some people, but if you look at the core of traditional training as it is now, you can easily see how you can tie the two together. As I said earlier, corrections are used with dogs that have learned the behavior. During the 'learning phase', no corrections are used! Traditional trainers today use marker training -- the same thing as clicker training, just without the shiny plastic box -- to teach new commands to dogs. A quick "Yes!" followed by a cookie for each step in the right direction. Sound familiar? Then, once the dog has the command down pat, corrections are used when the dog willfully disobeys the command; be it verbal or physical.
In conclusion, I feel that it is the trainer's job to decide what method(s) of dog training are right for each of their dogs. Experiment a little -- a quick leash pop to an unfocused dog won't kill him, and maybe he'll look up and focus? And teaching how the clicker 'works' isn't hard to do at all. There is nothing to lose and everything to gain by trying a little bit of everything.
Re: Working on a training article...
Top
Previous Topic
Index
Next Topic.jpg)
