This is a placeholder text
Group text
by beast on 12 September 2010 - 01:09
Hans, as a lurker on this board I can say that my impression of you is varied.
However, on this topic you're being completely sensational.
Have you ever held a clicker in your hand?
Ever examined one?
If so, perhaps you've noticed it's simplistic design. Or maybe you can recollect the inexpensive plastic they're usually made of. Considering these facts, do you sincerely believe the clicker companies are out to make money off of their equipment? Why wouldn't they produce flashy, unique clickers, made of stainless steel complete with fancy little skins and accessories much like your average cellphone.....
If they're after money, they sure have a funny way of marketing their products.
Something else you mentioned and please, forgive me for summarizing:
1+1 = 2, irregardless of equation.
If this is the case, why would one not opt for the least confrontational method available?
If you could accomplish the same thing without ever having to use coercion, what would stop you from choosing this over more forceful training. Does a tough dog need a tough handler? Can you not handle strong, working line dogs with the same fundamentals as any other dog? (Please, do not take this out of context, or course working dogs cannot be treated like your average Golden.....).
I believe people are adverse to +R out of pride.
However, on this topic you're being completely sensational.
Have you ever held a clicker in your hand?
Ever examined one?
If so, perhaps you've noticed it's simplistic design. Or maybe you can recollect the inexpensive plastic they're usually made of. Considering these facts, do you sincerely believe the clicker companies are out to make money off of their equipment? Why wouldn't they produce flashy, unique clickers, made of stainless steel complete with fancy little skins and accessories much like your average cellphone.....
If they're after money, they sure have a funny way of marketing their products.
Something else you mentioned and please, forgive me for summarizing:
1+1 = 2, irregardless of equation.
If this is the case, why would one not opt for the least confrontational method available?
If you could accomplish the same thing without ever having to use coercion, what would stop you from choosing this over more forceful training. Does a tough dog need a tough handler? Can you not handle strong, working line dogs with the same fundamentals as any other dog? (Please, do not take this out of context, or course working dogs cannot be treated like your average Golden.....).
I believe people are adverse to +R out of pride.
by beast on 12 September 2010 - 01:09
The reason people do not typically suggest using a verbal marker for un-established commands is timing.
As humans, we cannot match the speed and precision of a clicker. Having impeccable timing is a real asset in dog training. The clicker enables us to train more effectively then if we were to rely on ourselves.
As humans, we cannot match the speed and precision of a clicker. Having impeccable timing is a real asset in dog training. The clicker enables us to train more effectively then if we were to rely on ourselves.
by Myracle on 12 September 2010 - 01:09
Many animals are trained through very complex routines without ANY correction. Think SeaWorld.
Actually, the whales at SeaWorld perform for one thing, and one thing only:
food.
This is the problem with never proofing your work:
www.youtube.com/watch
by beast on 12 September 2010 - 01:09
Training a high drive dog without EVER having to issue a physical correction? Now THAT is real dog training. That is true skill!
(Eagerly awaits the overzealous protest of those who insist it's not possible)
(Eagerly awaits the overzealous protest of those who insist it's not possible)
by Myracle on 12 September 2010 - 01:09
I think its absolutely possible.
Depends on the dog. There are probably enough dogs out there that are biddable enough, and driven enough for the reward, that no distraction, no amount of stress or fatigue, would ever cause them to non-comply.
Some of us just don't have those dogs.
Does that mean those dogs shouldn't be trained?
I use positive training methods to teach.
And train. And then I proof the commands once I know they are learned. I need to know that not only does the dog understand the command, it also understands it isn't optional.
Does that mean I need to beat the crap out of my dog? Nope.
I abandoned the prong collar over a year ago. It doesn't take much; but my dog, and many others, need both black and white.
Some dogs can't live in a world of all white. The darkness gives the light meaning.
Depends on the dog. There are probably enough dogs out there that are biddable enough, and driven enough for the reward, that no distraction, no amount of stress or fatigue, would ever cause them to non-comply.
Some of us just don't have those dogs.
Does that mean those dogs shouldn't be trained?
I use positive training methods to teach.
And train. And then I proof the commands once I know they are learned. I need to know that not only does the dog understand the command, it also understands it isn't optional.
Does that mean I need to beat the crap out of my dog? Nope.
I abandoned the prong collar over a year ago. It doesn't take much; but my dog, and many others, need both black and white.
Some dogs can't live in a world of all white. The darkness gives the light meaning.
by beast on 12 September 2010 - 02:09
While I certainly agree that not all methods work for every dog and obviously, my latter statement is not directed towards the average dog/handler team.....
I do disagree that "darkness gives meaning to light", while this may be true when addressing humans, I hardly think this is an ethical justification for physical corrections in dog training. SURELY their are reasons to physically correct a dog. DO NOT think I'm a bleeding heart AR activist. I'm not. But, I don't believe coercion has ANY place within basic OB or the initial establishment of commands. If anything, the use of coercion is an indication of the trainers inability to communicate with dogs and/or, a poor understanding of canine body language.
I do disagree that "darkness gives meaning to light", while this may be true when addressing humans, I hardly think this is an ethical justification for physical corrections in dog training. SURELY their are reasons to physically correct a dog. DO NOT think I'm a bleeding heart AR activist. I'm not. But, I don't believe coercion has ANY place within basic OB or the initial establishment of commands. If anything, the use of coercion is an indication of the trainers inability to communicate with dogs and/or, a poor understanding of canine body language.
by Myracle on 12 September 2010 - 02:09
NO no no, you misunderstand me entirely.
You don't *correct* a dog to teach it something.
The dog learns through positive means. There's no need to yank on a dog to teach it anything. Its a poor trainer who has to bully a dog into anything. Motivate the dog, teach the dog, encourage the dog.
Corrections should occur only for willful non-compliance with learned commands. Not for confusion. Not for a fundamental inability to understand the command.
Corrections should be used to teach one thing, and one thing only: I meant that command. You know that command. You have a choice between the command you know, or my correction. The bottle stands before you, dog.
You don't *correct* a dog to teach it something.
The dog learns through positive means. There's no need to yank on a dog to teach it anything. Its a poor trainer who has to bully a dog into anything. Motivate the dog, teach the dog, encourage the dog.
Corrections should occur only for willful non-compliance with learned commands. Not for confusion. Not for a fundamental inability to understand the command.
Corrections should be used to teach one thing, and one thing only: I meant that command. You know that command. You have a choice between the command you know, or my correction. The bottle stands before you, dog.
Correction, from the Latin corrigĕre 'to make straight (again)', is an action to rectify, to make right a wrong.The dog can't be wrong, if he hasn't first been taught how to be right. Thus, there can be no correction if the dog doesn't know how to perform the command. If the dog doesn't know, all that yanking isn't correction- its abuse.
by michael49 on 12 September 2010 - 02:09
Clickers work best for some people verbal markers work just as well for others, the key is in marking the behavior at the precise time and delivering the reward immediately. The clicker is a very useful tool for those that are unable to mark verbally in the same tone with the same word consistently.Trainers will never be in complete agreement on the use of training tools and techniques, never have, never will, use whats best for you and let the other person use whats best for them, nobodys right, nobodys wrong. I will say this, many words and many tones come from the human mouth, but only one sound and tone from any given clicker. I do not believe that it is possible to reliably train a high drive dog to perform without compulsive training at some point.
by beast on 12 September 2010 - 02:09
YES
We're on the same page. I agree X10000!
We're on the same page. I agree X10000!
by beast on 12 September 2010 - 02:09
That was to Mudiwick. btw
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top
