It's been done before but...

[MiseryBusiness]

Recently there have been a lot of posts regarding 'Pack Theory' and 'Dominance Theory' and I thought we could all share our thoughts.

I posted on a thread recently to ignore the advice the OP had been given about ''being the pack leader'' and was told that if I didnt believe in Dominance theory I must treat my dog like Paris Hilton and carry them around in a handbag and pamper them like babies or some such rubbish.

I have found reading The Culture Clash by Jean Donaldson and Ian Dunbar's online books and training methods very enlightening. My DH used to worship Ceaser Milan until I set him straight.

This is that annoying thing where people call it bullying when actually it's just that everyone disagrees with the one person who's being a loon.

Aaaaagh!

is a really sweet video of someone using clicker training to teach her dog to blow bubbles. What a clever and gorgeous dog! I think it's really funny when her trainer says "Not the paw. Woops!" and it's a really good example of how to correctly use "punishment". It makes the likelihood of that behaviour less likely to reoccur by applying some aversive consequence (a disapproving voice command from her human). She's mostly using positive reinforcement and you can see it working and how the dog looks to her owner for the next command. This isn't a fraught situation, obviously, and it's not terribly useful but is a great demonstration of shaping behaviour. I suspect my dog may not be clever enough to learn this trick but I'm going to try!

Ohbugrit-It's not the disagreeing part. That's the whole point of Mumsnet, isn't it?

In the other thread, Minimuu said very clearly that at stage 1, no attempt is made to remove the item. In other words, if it's done right, there isn't going to be any growling - the dog has no reason to growl. I'm not sure why it keeps being characterized as 'give a dog a treat for growling'.

It's not very helpful if a poster has a problem to just say 'oh well you should have done it differently when they were a puppy' as they can't go back in time. Also, taking food from a puppy will teach some puppies to resource-guard, which is just the behaviour you don't want.

Terrier, I still dont think anyone has been bullied on this thread, if there are other threads that you feel there has actually been bullying, please do go and post it there. Not here where it hasnt happened.

Flatbread - I do think you handing out advice and contradicting very good advice is dangerous. I have done a great deal of research on training but I would never presume to know as much as people such as minimuu. Therefore I wouldn't feel qualified enough to hand out advice that may be dangerous.

I'm not bullying, just saying it how it is.

I have a really great book called "The Perfect Puppy" by Gwen Bailey that was recommended here. It has some good advice about teaching pups to be easygoing around food (again, using positive reinforcement...adding bits of chicken and things to their bowl). It does involve taking the food away and then returning it with something "higher value" than kibble inside with the target outcome being that your dog comes to expect that if you take her food away or touch her bowl there will be a reward and that there is no need to be defensive with food.

Arf.

Just tried to watch the video and had an instantaneously alert dog sitting by my side with the sound of the clicker .

Terrier it may just be semantics but I wouldn't consider the 'not the paw' comment as a punishment per se. Actually I think she probably said it by accident, what she then says (correcting herself) is "whoops" which is I suspect is her dog's non-reward marker (think that is the correct term). When you have a dog that is trying really really hard to get you to click that clicker they will often give you a range of behaviours to test if that is the one you are asking for. The trainer will often has a phrase which means "not that one", I say "too bad!" but in an upbeat non cross manner. So yeah, although the dog doesn't get what it wants it's not in my mind an aversive consequence for doing the wrong thing.

If a dog thinks unpleasant things might happen to it while you are doing a training session it is going to be a bit hesitant and wary about trying new stuff.

Just one other thing, to no one in particular, just getting it off my chest. I think it is perfectly OK to post in this topic if you have very little experience with dogs. I have experience with exactly one dog. I am not an expert in any way shape or form, but I think my experiences with my dog, things that have worked and things that have not count for something. I sincerely hope that even inexperienced dog owners feel they are able to share advice with other mners. Of course these opinions may be challenged as that is par for the course on this site. Often the most interesting and thought provoking threads come about because of a range of differences in opinion. They certainly help me think about what and how things work for the best.

The point, Red, is Minimuu, did not say that do not give a treat if the dog growls. If you come to the dog, and it growls, and you put down a treat, what has the dog learned? How come positive reinforcement says that if a dog sits and you treat, it will associate sitting with the treat. But if it growls and you treat, it will form no association that growling=treat?

The issue here is that the dog does not trust the owner. There are ways to build the trust which can be positive in actually getting the dog to respect the op and help the owner become more of a leader, rather than acting as a candy machine.

I do have other examples of what worked, for at least my pup, which might be of relevance to the op in that thread, but it got so vitriolic that it was basically about shutting people up without listening.

For example, when my pup first growled an I made her sit to 'earn' her bone. It made me think of what else I could do to make her think that following my commands was the best way to getting food.

I would scatter kibble across the garden and then direct her 'this way' and point 'that way' to where the kibble was, so she associated my commands with the pleasure of discovering food. I think it reinforced that if she obeys me, she gets food.

Ok, granted my dog is not really aggressive to start with, so cannot say how a very food aggressive dog might react, but surely this is one way of building a bond of trust and respect from the dog, where the dog is learning to trust the owner through commands.

The point is it is hard to have a constructive discussion without a few people acting as if they know it all and there is no need for any other opinion or perspective.

Slubber, if you mean what I said about giving advice then I would like to clarify that I don't mean people shouldn't give advice for what has worked for them. I mean, to give behavioural advice that contradicts that of a known professional that you would openly admit may get you bitten.
For me that would be dangerous and I wouldnt be prepared to put any advice out there that I didnt know would work or that I thought may have a negative consequence iyswim.

Hopefully I have explained that ok. I would hate for anyone to think I dont value all advice given on the Doghouse!

But that is just me

Terreier, I have read, the Gwen Bailey book on puppies now that I have nine active wee ones. Also read the CM one on training puppies and a couple of other ones (cannot remember the names). I really enjoyed all of them, the CM book had no mention of wolf packs and alpha roll (at least in the stuff I read) and the others did talk about providing leadership and boundaries. So all in all, quite an harmonious blend of perspectives.

To the poster who said it is dangerous to provide any perspective that is contrary to the 'experts' here - In other parts on MN, people are open to perspectives on child-rearing and personal experiences. No one says it is dangerous to provide personal examples of what worked with someone's child. We humans main and cause more damage than dogs. So why this fear of dogs and having to find a gospel to blindly follow?

When I was bringing up my pup, I didn't read any books. But I saw people with amazingly trained dogs, I asked them what they did, and used my common sense to tailor what worked for my dog.

I am wary of anyone who says, I am the expert, just listen to me, my school of thought is the only one and works for every child in every situation, everyone else is irresponsible, abusive and dangerous. If a child psychologist tried that in MN, they would be laughed out as being delusional. But somehow in the DH it is seen as the norm.

I agree and I am totally open to different opinions and I wasnt saying you shouldn't give yours but you have admitted the advice you gave may have gotten the OP bitten so I was pointing out that I personally wouldnt hand out dangerous advice like that.

I wouldnt do that in the doghouse or anywhere else on MN, but as I said that is just me and I am also entitled to feel that there are areas that could become very dangerous and if I wasnt sure about the advice I probably wouldnt give it. That's all.

Terrier, your example isn't taking food away but adding to the food. It is a bit different from just taking the food away. And that's it, the food is gone. Which is what some people (generally those who subscribe to dominance/pack theory approaches) think that you should do in order to show your dog that you are the 'alpha' or leader. (I am not advising anyone to do this). I also wouldn't suggest taking the bowl away to add food if you have a new adult dog because it might respond very differently than a puppy would, and it's better not to cause anxiety in the first place.

The trick in the video is cute. Thanks for the link. (metaphorical sausage!). I think you can tell the dog has been trained using positive methods (apart from hearing the clicker) because it offers different behaviours when one isn't right - nose in the bowl, nose in the water, paw in the bowl, knocking the bowl over. I didn't think they needed to say no and I'm not sure if it was deliberate or not. Anyway, nice idea to try with my dog, thanks.

That's a good point, Redwing. I agree; it could be risky to do that with a new adult dog.

Flatbread-I've borrowed bits and pieces of wisdom from other dog owners too when I've admired their dogs manners and behaviour.

Very interesting about the "non-reward" marker, Slubber Kind of like an opposing cue to the clicker? That's neat See! I learned something new on the doghouse today!

Terrier, just had to get back to you as I have annoyed myself by giving out incorrect information
So having found the chapter in the book (Culture Clash) the correct term is No-Reward Marks I was almost right, or NRM or mark and (I quote)

[a NRM] functions as a conditioned negative punisher, as signal that the dog has just lost a reinforcer or that his chances for reinforcement dipped to zero with the behaviour just offered.

So then I had so look through the book some more as negative punishment sounds a bit not in keeping shall we say, and all it means is a good thing ends for the dog.

I think the word 'punishment' is very emotionally loaded for humans but in the book what I would think as punishment Jean Donaldson describes as positive punishment (bad thing starts) or aversives.

She explains it a billions times better than me

MiseryBusiness, I suspect we are actually in agreement about this but I feel, quite strongly that an Internet forum such as mn functions on a buyer/reader beware format.

If you start a thread on anything at all on here you are inviting all and sundry to give an opinion on it unless you have asked for a particular poster by name or for a particular group of people who share a consensus of opinion on a particular subject. Anyone can still answer though, they just need to expect to be soundly disagreed with.

That goes for anything. I am not a fan of threads that are "shut down" by experts who play top qualification trumps, they stifle discussion and debate which as I have said I find for my understanding the most interesting and useful.

I have no reason to doubt any of the experts here in this topic or elsewhere on mn, however over the years I have probaly got to "know" hundreds of mners, some very well, but there is only one who I would say without any doubt is who she says she is, and she is my neighbour.
All opinions are welcome on mn, so long as they stick within talk guidelines, but at the end of the day it's just an information resource. For serious and dangerous issues I would always want to be checking with a rl expert as well.

I do agree with you Slubber and I really do love the wealth of knowledge that you can gain from all areas of MN. I guess it's just a personal thing for me, really.

Flatbread, I hope you dont feel I dont appreciate your contribution on this thread. I knew by starting a discussion on positive training there would be others that dont totally agree on whether it works best for all.

I think that sometimes when you have seen the potential danger that comes from taking the wrong advice with regard to training it's hard not to get a bit worked up if you feel someone could end up hurt or the dog could become very unhappy.

Thanks for that, Slubber. I've just ordered that book on Amazon. It sounds really interesting

Misery, thanks

I personally think that while clicker training is great for teaching a dog tricks, it is over-used to the exclusion of other important learning tools. Dogs are one of the few animals that can read our expressions, and one way to build a bond with our pet is to make them focus on us and our subtle instructions through our body language. It helps them bond with us in a more meaningful way.

I think, in part, why trainers are so pleased to use clicker for all problems, is that it is the only tool they have, as they don't have a bond with a dog they have just met. Similar to the other extreme of using shock collars or whatever.

For example, I was teaching my girl to walk to heel. She is a sheepdog and loves to run forward and look back and ask, 'where are we going'? It is good as she is focused on slight moves of my head to tell her where we are going. But sometimes, i do want her to walk to heel.

If I had gone to a trainer, they would have probably used a clicker. Or a bad trainer would have used a prong collar or something. I did it through having my dog off-leash for a walk to the park where we play ball. If she ran ahead, I stopped and very slightly snapped my fingers. She would look at me and automatically trot back and sit. Then I would start to walk again, without saying anything and she would walk with me, till something interesting smell ahead made her run forward and I would stop and repeat. This went on till we reached the start of the park. She ran ahead and I stopped, and she didn't return. She looked at me and with a stubborn expression indicating 'I am staying here, I want to play ball'. I just turned back, said nothing and walked home. I was nearly home before the stubborn girl ran back after me. We started again, and she walked perfectly to heel. And we had a great session of ball chasing.

The point is through this method she learned that she needs to listen to me, even when the gratification is a long way off. It is teaching her discipline and now with just a slight snap of my fingers I can get her to walk to heel.

The thing is, only an owner can do this. If a random trainer came to my dog and started walking and stopped. My dog would be off doing her own thing, wouldn't bother to come back to the trainer without a sweet or some form of instant gratification. A trainer needs to make themselves exciting to the dog. An owner, well, not really. My dog wants to hang out with me, she feels safe, it is fun and it reinforces that we are one family unit which makes both of us bond more.

So the long and sort of what I am saying is that I think that dogs are very resilient and don't need constant praise to learn. Nor does a correction make them nervous or resent the owner (note I am not talking about prong collars and electrical shocks). I see my dog with the pups and she really is quite rough, and sometimes I just stop her as I am . She is a loving mum, but she bites them on their ear and leg and they squeal and run to hide under the sofa. And most of the time the poor buggers have done nothing at all to warrant this! She also has no qualms taking away her favorite toy from them and the puppies look a bit and then in a minute and continue playing with something else. And they still come running excitedly to their mama the next time she comes around.

Awww...that's lovely, Flatbread It sounds like you have a great bond with your dog .

Thanks, Terrier . I don't think my dh is that happy, as she sat on the floor next to his side of the bed while he was sleeping last night, breathing loud sighs into his ear.

He hadn't taken her out for a final session of ball playing after dinner, and she knows how to push his guilt buttons . So at midnight, they went to play ball and then it was peace in the household.

She doesn't bother do do that to me as she knows I will sleep through an explosion, her breathing in my ear would just be a gentle fan.