Moderator: Moderator Pack
GONEHUNTIN' wrote:Constructeur wrote:My dog is a total meathead, and we have to do everything the hard way. I just thought training vibe as a positive was a way to break that up for him. It started when he was young and we would just toss bumpers, he'd retrieve the bumper, get lots of vocal praise and a vibration. We built on it from there.
I don't like the collar telling the dog he's good. Nor do I think a dog needs any praise until the job is completed. When a dog completes the task, I want him to know I AM THE ONE PRAISING HIM, not some mechanical collar. I want the correction to come from me and the praise to come from me.
Dog's need no praise WHILE COMPLETING A TASK, only when it is complete.
GONEHUNTIN' wrote:Success with one dog doesn't make you right. If you'd read some dog training material you'd see that your premise is incorrect. It doesn't matter how good your dog is or where you hunt. Your training concept is not correct.
PL_Guy wrote:There's nothing wrong with "praising" (Positive reinforcement) completion of individual segments of a behavior chain. There's nothing wrong with pairing vibration or tone with an intrinsic positive reinforcer (or even another conditioned reinforcer) making it a conditioned reinforcer. If paired with verbal praise the dog "enjoys" it will function just as the verbal does in so far as increasing the frequency of the praised behavior. That is essentially what clicker trainers do. The proof of one's training techniques comes in measurement of results - do the behaviors you want increase in frequency, do the undesired behaviors decrease? If so, your technique is "working," if not you need to try something else.
Where the dog "believes" the reinforcement (positive or negative) comes from is not as important as the dog's response to it is. This is really a pretty big subject.
As I said in an earlier post I learned to use low-level ec as a cue (neither positive of negative reinforcement. The dog finds it neither pleasant nor unpleasant. It is neutral!). But higher levels are clearly unpleasant to the dog and constitute positive punishment. I gave up on ec as negative reinforcement (as the ear pinch in ff is used) a long time ago.
I don't hesitate to use ec on a dog when it flushes a bird it had been pointing but doubt I'll get much support for that here...
Jere
Kiger2 wrote:GH is right on this.
We use a little kids pool to have the dogs get into to clean their feet before they come in the house. We use the command "kennel". Ive noticed with a lot of consistency that if the dog gets one or two feet in the pool and I say "Good ", the last feet dont go in. They see the command "good" as completing the task and being released of the task they were asked. Same as a dog making a retrieve, dont say good dog until you get the bird.
PL, You have mis named positive and negative punishment. More consistent terms would be "direct" and "indirect". Direct would be correcting on the break. Indirect would be picking up the bird. Though to be clear, the terms as I used them would not perhaps coincide as they are used in the retriever world. But nothing "positive " in either circumstance for the dog, getting corrected,or not getting the retrieve.
I have no problem using EC on a dog that incorrectly handles a bird as long as it has been properly conditioned.
Dont confuse kids with dogs. And even too much praise with children can cause issues!
Kiger2 wrote:The retrieve is a chain of conditioned responses. But I have seen it too many times when the award is given, the chain breaks.
I suspect another example of poor timing. Dennis Voigt wrote elsewhere: “I use good dog to over 200 yards. But i also pair it with a body signal-a sort of raised arems [arms] as in the parting of the seas! I can use that to 400 yards and even in a trial. I use it at the instant of the retrieve. It can't hurt but I know the real reward is the bird.” I'm trying to find a current link to the thread he started where he talked about the stuff you're disagreeing with. The thread (Simplifying Dog Learning Science -10 FAQs) went on for four pages over many months and was very well received. The science and associated vocabulary was developed starting in the 1930s before I was born so I had nothing to do with it or with the terminology. Use whatever you want.
We can agree to disagree on the terminology.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests