E Collar —> Stimulation or Vibration

[Constructeur]

You still feel qualified to tell me I'm wrong without seeing how my dog is, how we hunt, any of it. I've been on here long enough to see at least as much garbage 'insight' as helpful. Seeing as how he's 4.5 now, and an absolute war hammer of a dog, we're going to continue doing things the wrong way.

[GONEHUNTIN']

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.

[GONEHUNTIN']

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.

[booger]

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.

I've found that to be completely untrue with my dog. She needs lots of encouragement to do a new task, she does better with encouragement before the task is completed to be reassured she's doing the right thing. I've used a clicker sometimes but nearly always use food treats.

My dog gets marginally excited if I just tell her good girl and pet her as a reward after she does the desired action.

[booger]

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.

If the training is working for him and his dog, then how could you say his training concept is not correct?

Each dog requires different training and I would argue success with one dog is exactly what you're looking for. Now it might only work for his dog or for very few, but to say the guy is incorrect for doing something that works for him, is well, incorrect.

[GONEHUNTIN']

I didn't say he was incorrect, I said his premise was and it is and so is yours.
If a dog is properly trained in an orderly sequence, the dog understands that praise comes and completion of the task not before or during.

What do you do if you praise your dog then it quits and doesn't do it?

There is a reason trainers do things in a sequential pattern and it has been developed over a good many years now. Just because it works for one dog doesn't mean it will work for two.

[PL_Guy]

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

[GONEHUNTIN']

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

The first sentence is the most important part of your post. The rest of your post I don't understand. Positive punishment? I really doubt you ever truly understood the collar.

[PL_Guy]

"Positive punishment" - Dog responds in a manner you do not want - you zap him. Dog is less likely to respond improperly next time (Punishment decreases unwanted behavior)

"Negative punishment" - Dog is sitting at heal, really wants the retrieve, Bird boy throws mark, Dog breaks, Bird boy picks up bird (Punishing dog for breaking by denying it the retrieve) Dog less likely to break next time. (punishment)

"Negative reinforcement" - Create an unpleasant or even painful condition for the dog, Give command, Remove unpleasantness when dog complies properly. Dog is more likely to (more rapidly) properly respond in the future (reinforcement increases desired behavior)

"Positive reinforcement" - should be obvious.

Jere

[Kiger2]

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!

[PL_Guy]

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, I fully agree: Timing is very important - getting one or two feet in the pool is not completing the task, positive reinforcement at that instant is misplaced and your observations prove the point.

I don't agree with your prohibition on giving praise when segments of a retrieve are completed. The retrieve can be considered a sequence of chained conditioned behaviors starting with the initial coming to heel, sitting, running out when released, picking up the object running in on the return, again coming to heel (or stopping with sit in front finish), releasing bird only when so commanded. Praise can be effectively used on completion of any of the segments.

This is NOT MY terminology. I can cite references should you care to expand your understanding. I simply tried to give examples to help GH understand what I had written as he said he did not understand.

The terminology may not be standard in the retriever training world - use whatever words u may want. However without a consistent language it is impossible to talk about some of this stuff. Many folks use "negative reinforcement" when they actually mean "Positive punishment." The concepts that Reinforcement INCREASES behaviors, Punishment DECREASES behaviors are meaningfully connected to and consistent with the outcomes. The concepts that Positive xxx is accomplished by adding a stimulus while negative xxx is accomplished by removing a stimulus are meaningfully connected to and consistent with the outcomes (though perhaps more difficult to grasp mentally.)

When I use "negative reinforcement" in my posts it will mean something akin to what goes on in FF by ear pinch. WRT positive and negative; 'Direct' easily substitutes for 'positive,' 'indirect' not so much for 'negative.' The important thing is a MEANINGFUL vocabulary everyone understands - not so much the actual words.

Yes, too much Praise (praise is probably positive reinforcement - but that depends on how the praising words were "conditioned") can get you into trouble. Depending on how the dog reacts to the first "Praise," continued "Praise" may actually positively reinforce an undesired behavior. I give a cue to "Stop and Stand Still." Dog complies and I may pat dog on shoulders, even break silence and say "Good." If dog moves, starts to wiggle around or such when I first "praise," and I drag the praise out in time, I am reinforcing the moving/wiggling etc! This is partly why "clickers" can be effective - but you better be certain of exactly what behavior you're "clicking" or you can get a well conditioned but unwanted behavior very quickly!! Been there - done that! Silence is golden; very short reinforcement appropriate, protracted reinforcement dangerous.

Jere

[Kiger2]

The retrieve is a chain of conditioned responses. But I have seen it too many times when the award is given, the chain breaks.

We can agree to disagree on the terminology.

[PL_Guy]

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.

Dog training is as much if not more "Art" than it is "Science." The most important language associated with it is the language the dog uses to communicate with you. Your understanding and response to it is Art which can be described using the language of the science but doesn't have to be. the dog won't understand the words. But if you respond in a manner contrary to the science your results will not be optimal. I'll post the link (if I can get it) and other references later for those who might want to explore the science.

Jere

Jere

[PL_Guy]

For those who want to study a bit, the link to Dennis Voigt's thread referred above has been found:

http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums ... ce-10-FAQs

There were two follow-up threads:
http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums ... nce-Part-2
and
http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums ... nce-Part-3

There is one book I found useful: "How Dogs Learn" by Mary R. Burch (Author), and Jon S. Bailey

Anyone who can study these references without learning anything useful - please write your own book with special emphasis on what you did not find there!

Jere