[Deacon.dog]

Who uses it?

not here to start stuff, just here to chatter about training c:

 

[BKaymuttleycrew]

Really? You want to go down this rabbit hole? OK - Here is my response:

Does anything aversive in life ever happen to my dogs that 'trains' them? Yeah, probably.

Do I purposely ever set up a training plan to include pain, fear, intimidation or other tactics that will shut down & suppress my dogs' (or any that I'm working with) natural behaviors? Never.

 

[Deacon.dog]

I was trying to ask if anybody else used it, and to connect with them.

But thank you for your responce.

 

[petpeeve]

You want to chatter about training? Ok.

You haven't said whether you use aversives or not, but I'm pretty sure I know the answer to that. Can you give me a more specific example of how / when / why you use them? and maybe we'll go from there.

Just a word of caution.... don't expect agreement.

 

[LMH1012]

 

[LMH1012]

OK, I'll post properly.

First of all, I will say I never have, and never would use a prong, choke or e-collar. I'm appalled they're still legal in the UK and other countries.

I used to be a fully paid up member of the CM tribe. We had to be dominant over our dogs, or they'd try to dominate us.

That went flying out of the window when my first dog bit me. Luckily for me, he had great bite inhibition, but it shocked me into realising there had to be another, better way.

Fast forward to Dog 3.

Now I have a chihuahua who chose me. Previous owners said she'd growled or snapped at anyone else who was interested in her. Given what I now know about her, I believe them.

With me, she was completely different. Within minutes of meeting her, she was lying beside me on the chair, taking treats from my hand. It would therefore have been a huggggggggge betrayal of her trust to then use avervise training on her. She's so sensitive and easily spooked anyway that putting a simple, flat collar and leash on her is enough to cause her to shut down -, never mind a prong, or e-collar or kicking, poking or yelling at her.

Now, apart from her sensitivities, she's the happiest dog I've had. I love her happy dance, her helicopter tail wag, and the joy her face as she runs back to me for a treat. Most of the time, she's at heal, engaging with me. I wouldn't have had that with her if I used dominance theory and aversive training.

Nor would she have learned that I have her back and will listen to her if she feels out of her depth. She doesn't usually like to be carried because, bless her, she was carried everywhere for the first five years of her life so I feel honoured that she'll jump up on my leg, asking me to pick her up when a dog is a bit too big and bouncy for her.

Dominance theory is so pervasive, IMHO, not because it works. But because it speaks to the human ego.

 

[DaySleepers]

Kind of depends on how you want to define aversives? By the strict definition, I do do things in training that would fall under the 'aversive' category. I stop when a dog surges ahead on leash, allowing them to hit the end of the lead (technically P+). I apply body pressure (no contact, just getting into the dog's space) when I need them to move out of the way or return to their station when they've broken a stay, and release the pressure as soon as the dog goes where I want (technically R-). I ignore a dog who is barking for attention (P-), then keep ignoring until they're quiet and possibly sitting (R-).

Ftr, these are just highlighting little parts of a technique or training process, not saying that using any of the above as written are a complete 'how to' of how to effectively train each given circumstance. I don't even use all these techniques for every dog and every situation, and often am also using other techniques to work on producing the desired behavior simultaneously, but I just selected a few things I use that are broadly considered acceptable within the positive reinforcement, force free, LIMA, etc. wheelhouses. This is, by the way, why I hate talking about quadrants in practical training settings, because it gets really confusing and freaks people who are new to this type of training out because "P+ bad R+" good is waaaay too oversimplified for real life situations.

Anyway, a lot of techniques, even those used by force free/positive reinforcement/etc. focused trainers, are going to have aversive elements when you really break them down; it's enormously difficult to avoid entirely. So just to clarify, I'm assuming you are asking about aversive training that uses handler-initiated physical corrections, and uses it as a primary, deliberate training technique, rather than as a side effect/moving part in a technique. Is that correct?

 

[LMH1012]

Kind of depends on how you want to define aversives? By the strict definition, I do do things in training that would fall under the 'aversive' category. I stop when a dog surges ahead on leash, allowing them to hit the end of the lead (technically P+). I apply body pressure (no contact, just getting into the dog's space) when I need them to move out of the way or return to their station when they've broken a stay, and release the pressure as soon as the dog goes where I want (technically R-). I ignore a dog who is barking for attention (P-), then keep ignoring until they're quiet and possibly sitting (R-).

Ftr, these are just highlighting little parts of a technique or training process, not saying that using any of the above as written are a complete 'how to' of how to effectively train each given circumstance. I don't even use all these techniques for every dog and every situation, and often am also using other techniques to work on producing the desired behavior simultaneously, but I just selected a few things I use that are broadly considered acceptable within the positive reinforcement, force free, LIMA, etc. wheelhouses. This is, by the way, why I hate talking about quadrants in practical training settings, because it gets really confusing and freaks people who are new to this type of training out because "P+ bad R+" good is waaaay too oversimplified for real life situations.

Anyway, a lot of techniques, even those used by force free/positive reinforcement/etc. focused trainers, are going to have aversive elements when you really break them down; it's enormously difficult to avoid entirely. So just to clarify, I'm assuming you are asking about aversive training that uses handler-initiated physical corrections, and uses it as a primary, deliberate training technique, rather than as a side effect/moving part in a technique. Is that correct?

Good point. What we may not consider aversive, the dog might.

 

[Deacon.dog]

Well,

You want to chatter about training? Ok.

You haven't said whether you use aversives or not, but I'm pretty sure I know the answer to that. Can you give me a more specific example of how / when / why you use them? and maybe we'll go from there.

Just a word of caution.... don't expect agreement.

Depends, What am I working on? Whats the dogs temperment? Where are we? How long has the dog known the command/sequence I am asking for?

I will say, I haven't picked up a prong collar in over 8 months, but I still use aversive training on the DAILY, thats as simple as walking out of the room when my puppy wont stop eating my shirt, and turning around and not letting my dog see what he wants/go where he wants because he's not being polite on the leash.

 

[GSD_and_Mal]

I use them. My dog wears an e-collar and a prong collar whenever we are training outdoors. I am training her in IGP.

 

[petpeeve]

I will say, I haven't picked up a prong collar in over 8 months, but I still use aversive training on the DAILY, thats as simple as walking out of the room when my puppy wont stop eating my shirt, and turning around and not letting my dog see what he wants/go where he wants because he's not being polite on the leash.

If you're using these techniques DAILY, I'd strongly say to you that they're just not working. In other words, they're ineffective, unproductive, inefficient, however you want to put it. Your dog is not learning. The undesired behaviours are continuing to occur regularly, because you're not teaching your dog what you actually want him to do. Simple as that.

For example, the 'turning around' as an aversive measure. I've never really been a fan of that method for leash manners, mainly because it fails to give the dog an opportunity to make the right choice. Which ultimately falls on your shoulders for failing to provide that opportunity. Turning around is basically a fruitless endeavor; it's merely damage control at best. It has no end-goal or long-term aspect to it. In my opinion something like L.A.T. , perhaps in conjunction with 'choose to heel' or similar, would be a much better, much more productive option for you and your dog.

There ARE ways to lessen, if not virtually eliminate commonly-used aversives from your training regimen. However, it will require that you remove your mind from the quagmire of punitive-style training, first of all. And a knack for creativity is often times a virtue here.

 

[Deacon.dog]

If your dog is behaving perfectly every day, I'll highly question if its even a dog and not a Robot.

I also think you are failing to understand that I own a 8 month old poodle who is in hardcore teenage phase... yeah he needs to be told off like every 5 seconds because he's a puppy

 

[Deacon.dog]

I use them. My dog wears an e-collar and a prong collar whenever we are training outdoors. I am training her in IGP.

Lovley! My poodle just recently got his BH, hoping to take it further soon c:

 

[GSD_and_Mal]

Lovley! My poodle just recently got his BH, hoping to take it further soon c:

That's awesome! I've never seen a poodle in IGP here, would love to see one in action one day!

 

[Sugar & Latte]

If your dog is behaving perfectly every day, I'll highly question if its even a dog and not a Robot.

And if your dog doesn't listen everyday then maybe you can change tactics? Perhaps your dog does not know what you want from him or maybe he does not know how to work through distractions. These are things you can work through using non aversive methods.

 

[Deacon.dog]

That's awesome! I've never seen a poodle in IGP here, would love to see one in action one day!

Look it up on youtube! there are a TON of them! They aren't as "intense" as the mals and german shepherds but mine does a wonderful job c:

 

[Deacon.dog]

And if your dog doesn't listen everyday then maybe you can change tactics? Perhaps your dog does not know what you want from him or maybe he does not know how to work through distractions. These are things you can work through using non aversive methods.

the difference here is that I am SEEING progress, but my dog isn't perfect and he never will be.

 

[petpeeve]

I also think you are failing to understand that I own a 8 month old poodle who is in hardcore teenage phase... yeah he needs to be told off like every 5 seconds because he's a puppy

What, exactly, do you mean by "told off" ? and while you're at it could you explain why he "needs" to be subjected to it .... well, let's just say ... very frequently.

If "told off" is what I think it might be, that would seem to indicate either A) a relationship deficiency ie: respect, or B) a training skill deficiency ie: lack of clarity in conveying your wishes, or C) a combination of the two.

I don't really believe in the whole 'puppy teenage phase' thing. For the most part I think it's merely an excuse that some people use to compensate for their own deficiencies, frankly speaking. I've raised A LOT of puppies during my years, and have NEVER witnessed this .. phantom phenomenon. Do puppies experiment in order to discover where the boundaries lie? sure. But good, solid, positive-based training techniques along with gentleness, compassion and understanding have proven to put that whole myth to bed, in my mind's eye and in my experience.

But. Your pup. Do as you will. I'm just sayin' there are ways to eliminate or at least greatly reduce aversives in daily training. That's all.

 

[Deacon.dog]

told off, told no. I am very confused by you mean why he needs it... How does one never tell their dog no? You talked about allowing your dog to make the right choice, but I'm not sure how the dog learns if its not told no at least once when training something.

Such as a dog in the trash, being in the trash is just as good a getting food and praise from me (no matter the relationship).. being told no is the only way a dog will learn no getting in the trash, because simply ignoring the wrong, to the dog is the same as doing the right

literally everybody I've ever met has gone through a period of their dog simply not listening around 6-8 months.. aversive and positive trainers. Your puppies must of been magic, or you are simply lying.

 

[BKaymuttleycrew]

If your dog is behaving perfectly every day, I'll highly question if its even a dog and not a Robot.

I also think you are failing to understand that I own a 8 month old poodle who is in hardcore teenage phase... yeah he needs to be told off like every 5 seconds because he's a puppy

No dogs behave "perfectly" at all times - no one ever said that they did, or even that they should. What I'm failing to understand is that you somehow justify this as a reason to use aversive methods? Why are you "telling off" your puppy constantly? If you are actually having to correct/reprimand him numerous times every day, doesn't that say that what you're doing isn't working? You see results? but then why are you still having to tell him off constantly? I'm honestly confused.