German Shepherds Forum banner
101 - 120 of 132 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,341 Posts
Discussion Starter · #101 ·
I forgot all about this thread. Based on Zola22's comments it did not looks as she'd (making an assumption about gender here) read the article. Since, it's now several months later, she's not responded, and she only has two posts on this forum, both of them in this thread, it's obvious that these were "hit and run posts," and that she's not interested in learning anything, only in spouting her own opinion. So I'll address her comments directly.

Experts have definitively concluded that our old assumptions about wolf behavior are erroneously drawn from the observation of WOLVES IN CAPTIVITY, who, in this unnatural state, exhibit exaggerated displays of dominance and submission. But wolves in nature exist in extraordinarily loyal family groups: The father and mother remain together until one or the other dies. They have cubs and care together for the cubs. When one generation grows up, they help their parents to care for the next generation of cubs.
Yep, this is true. But it has nothing to do with the article that started this discussion as anyone who has actually read it knows. If one read anything much beyond the title and the first couple of paragraphs would know.

They do not eat before the cubs. On the contrary, the father (and the mother if she can, and the older cubs) come back to the den and regurgitate their food so that the youngest can eat, and they eat first.
The act of regurgitation tells us that the older dogs have eaten BEFORE the puppies. We don't know how much of what they've eaten, that they regurgitate for the puppies, but chances are that it's not ALL of what they consumed. If it was, they'd have to immediately go hunting again for themselves. Fact is that they DO eat before the puppies and then they share some of what they've eaten with them. When the puppies are old enough to join in the hunt everyone feeds at about the same time, in a cooperative effort. Here's some video of Wild Dogs of Africa sharing in a kill. (BTW 'Wild Dogs' is their proper name, not a description of them as not being domesticated).

WARNING: This video is graphic. It shows a pack of Wild Dogs feeding on a downed kill.




Some things to notice in the video. There's some nervousness in the pack, probably due to the photographers being so close. And so they drag the kill away and into the bushes. It may even be that this is some scavenging, not a fresh kill. As the video progresses, some very young puppies appear. They are probably too young to have taken part in the kill, but they are there for the feeding. Notice that they are not shown any special deference. Then more of the pack takes part in the feeding. At about 0:10 one of the dogs disciplines another dog and chases him off the kill. At about 0:36 one dog commits some transgression (I can't tell what it is) and another dog quickly chastises him, but he uses only body language. The submissive dog immediately submits and it's over. They both go back to feeding.

Of course our pets are not Wild Dogs but this does show how one wild group of canids interacts. Note that there is none of the dominating by physical aggression that some talk about.

The young always remain loyal and defer to their parents, even when the parents enter their declining years. They are extraordinarily loyal and devoted family units. That is how wolves in the wild actually behave. It is a fact, confirmed by observation.
Just about anytime someone makes such an absolute statement, they're going to be wrong. While many, if not most puppies may "remain loyal and defer ..., " many will not.

Dogs are like this too, except that they have literally learned to regard their human caretaker as their adoptive PARENT, even though they recognize that this adoptive PARENT belongs to a different species, a distinctly primate species.
We know that many dogs do not defer to their "adoptive parent." There are many threads here about dogs that try to dominate, heck, some even have bitten their "adoptive parents."

Dogs, like wolves, thrive in loyal families that look after one another. They always regard their caretaker as a parent.
Here's another one of those absolute statements.

Just as a good parent will not spoil his or her children but rather will give them the structure, guidance and sometimes the discipline that a child requires in order to be raised well, so too a good adoptive parent will treat his or her dog this way.
We know that not everyone is going to be a "good parent." Some WILL spoil their dogs. Some WILL apply too much discipline.

The biggest difference is that dogs require INSTANTANEOUS instruction: You cannot tell a dog what he did in the past that was wrong, or what you want him to do the next time around. You have to catch him in the act and say, NO. More important, you have to catch him in the act of doing the right thing and reward him in that very moment with "YES," "GOOD BOY", etc. Eventually your dog will learn what you want him to do, and if he loves and trusts you he will do it. In the meantime do not let him practice bad habits.
While these things are true, they have nothing to do with this article.

And for God's sake do not develop fantasies about how you must dominate him or else he will dominate you.
This is pretty much what the article says. Somehow, Zola22 missed that message.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
860 Posts
I forgot all about this thread. Based on Zola22's comments it did not looks as she'd (making an assumption about gender here) read the article.

This is pretty much what the article says. Somehow, Zola22 missed that message.
I dont know which article you are referring to...

She does not refer to any article in particular...
She just makes very generalised statements...

These statements are often used by All positive dog trainers...
They are usually referring to the work of Dr. L. David Mech.

In any case it is a flawed view that is often a consequence of selective reading in what Mech was saying.

Also I just wanted to add that Wild Dogs are as closely related to the domesticated dog as it is to the walrus and the giant panda...
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,341 Posts
Discussion Starter · #104 ·
I dont know which article you are referring to...
This thread started with my article entitled "Establishing Dominance." In rewrites I now call it "Establishing Leadership" because that is more descriptive.

She does not refer to any article in particular...
What do you suppose she meant by her opening statement, "This topic is WRONG?" Don't you think that posts should have something to do with the post that starts the thread?

She just makes very generalised statements...
She does "make very generalized statements," but she's talking about what I wrote. I'll ask you the same question I asked of Zola22. "Wondering [Lykoz], did you read anything beyond the title of the thread? " Did you read the article that starts this thread?

These statements are often used by All positive dog trainers...
They are usually referring to the work of Dr. L. David Mech.

In any case it is a flawed view that is often a consequence of selective reading in what Mech was saying.
Mech has said that there were flaws in his original thesis. But it should not be completely discarded. In the video I supplied, (wondering, did you watch that?) there are TWO instances where a dominant dog chastises a more submissive member of pack. Care to comment on what's going on there?

Also I just wanted to add that Wild Dogs are as closely related to the domesticated dog as it is to the walrus and the giant panda...
"[T]he walrus and the giant panda" are two unrelated species. About the only thing they have in common is that they both are mammalian grazers. They live in completely different physical environments and have completely different instincts. They are genetically completely different.

Domestic dogs and Wild Dogs are both DOGS. They can live in the same physical environment and they have similar instincts. Both dogs are predators/opportunistic feeders/scavengers and grazers as the situation warrants. Genetically the Wild Dogs of Africa are nearly identical to today's domesticated dogs. And they share many of the same instincts. Many pets have had most of their instincts bred out of them but they still respond to the techniques described in the article.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
860 Posts
This thread started with my article entitled "Establishing Dominance." In rewrites I now call it "Establishing Leadership" because that is more descriptive.
Yes, correct.. I would consider more a post than an article... Didn't have many references. But well written none-theless.

What do you suppose she meant by her opening statement, "This topic is WRONG?" Don't you think that posts should have something to do with the post that starts the thread?
Based on what she wrote: She ascribes to all positive dog training mentality... They often refer to: Dr. L. David Mech research (Albeit Incorrectly) that dogs like wild wolves (as opposed to captive wolves, which previous research was based on) do not establish rank or hierarchy.. the alpha does not exist....

I completely disagree with her... But based on her interpretation of Mech's work, it completely negates what you wrote, in your post... i.e. positive trainers dont believe in any form of dominancy, or structural heirarchy... You would have to spend time with all positive trainers, and read some of their literature to pick this up...

Personally I think your initial post is very high quality, and was a very nice read. All positive trainers however wont heel even to the slightest suggestion of dominant behaviour.. Even though you talk against physical dominance... They dont subscribe to the idea of being Alpha at all.. This includes any form of posturing, or what they consider "intimidating body positioning to dogs".

She does "make very generalized statements," but she's talking about what I wrote. I'll ask you the same question I asked of Zola22. "Wondering [Lykoz], did you read anything beyond the title of the thread? " Did you read the article that starts this thread?
Yes I read the article in full. I enjoyed it. Well written.. I am saying she disagreed with it completely based on a falsified way of thinking.

"[T]he walrus and the giant panda" are two unrelated species. About the only thing they have in common is that they both are mammalian grazers. They live in completely different physical environments and have completely different instincts. Domestic dogs and Wild Dogs are both DOGS. They can live in the same physical environment and they have similar instincts. Both dogs are predators/opportunistic feeders/scavengers and grazers as the situation warrants. Genetically the Wild Dogs of Africa are nearly identical to today's domesticated dogs. And they share many of the same instincts. Many pets have had most of their instincts bred out of them but they still respond to the techniques described in the article.
They are genetically completely different.

The Walrus share common ancestral lines to the wild dog some 20 million years ago... They share caniform ancestry..

The Giant panda share Ursidae ancestry also +- 20 million years ago..

The Wild dog shares ancestral lines to wolf and domesticated dog, some 4-8 million years ago...

These are hardly close relatives... An African Wild Dog, and domesticated dog, are very different. They can not produce offspring... The dog is closest to the grey wolf.. It is also closer to foxes and jackals... It shares almost nothing with African Wild dogs..

The closest thing between a african wild dog and a domesticated dog, is that they both have 78 chromosomes... Then Again so does a chicken have 78 chromosomes......

Relationship of African Wild Dogs to other Canids

In the video I supplied, (wondering, did you watch that?) there are TWO instances where a dominant dog chastises a more submissive member of pack. Care to comment on what's going on there?
Watched a bit for entertainment.. Didnt give much attention to it...
4-8 million years in evolutionary differences makes that video completely irrelevant in this conversation.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,341 Posts
Discussion Starter · #106 ·
Yes, correct.. I would consider more a post than an article...
It's been published in quite a few dog magazines. But I really don't care what you call it.

Didn't have many references. But well written none-theless.
Thanks for the kind words. It's not intended as a scientific piece, but as a how−to for dog owners who are having problems with their dogs not seeing them as leaders or for people who have been counseled to use "old school" methods of physical force to establish dominance.

I completely disagree with her... But based on her interpretation of Mech's work, it completely negates what you wrote, in your post... i.e. positive trainers dont believe in any form of dominancy, or structural heirarchy... You would have to spend time with all positive trainers, and read some of their literature to pick this up...
I'm well acquainted with these folks, their methods, their literature, and how they think. I picked all of those things up from Zola22's post.

Personally I think your initial post is very high quality, and was a very nice read.
Thanks again.

All positive trainers however wont heel even to the slightest suggestion of dominant behaviour.. Even though you talk against physical dominance... They dont subscribe to the idea of being Alpha at all.. This includes any form of posturing, or what they consider "intimidating body positioning to dogs".
Yes, I know. It's one thing that makes them so wrong about training and living with dogs.

Yes I read the article in full. I enjoyed it. Well written.. I am saying she disagreed with it completely based on a falsified way of thinking.
Well, I'm confused. Earlier you wrote, "She does not refer to any article in particular... " And now you're saying that she disagreed with my article.

They are genetically completely different.

The Walrus share common ancestral lines to the wild dog some 20 million years ago... They share caniform ancestry..

The Giant panda share Ursidae ancestry also +- 20 million years ago..

The Wild dog shares ancestral lines to wolf and domesticated dog, some 4-8 million years ago...

These are hardly close relatives... An African Wild Dog, and domesticated dog, are very different. They can not produce offspring... The dog is closest to the grey wolf.. It is also closer to foxes and jackals... It shares almost nothing with African Wild dogs..
Relationship of African Wild Dogs to other Canids

Going by this chart that you gave us and your statement that, "Wild Dogs are as closely related to the domesticated dog as it is to the walrus and the giant panda..." I'll have to disagree. Anyone can take a look at where "dogs, Wild Dogs, walruses and pandas" are on the chart and see for themselves that you're wrong. But I'm not a geneticist, and I don't care about such things, I'm just a po' dog trainer. The fact is that highly driven dogs have the same or similar drives as those of the Wild Dogs and they are far from the drives of either the walrus or the panda. The very comparison is absurd. As I said, "Domestic dogs and wild dogs are both DOGS ... and they share many of the same instincts."

Earlier I wrote,
In the video I supplied, (wondering, did you watch that?) there are TWO instances where a dominant dog chastises a more submissive member of pack. Care to comment on what's going on there?
Watched a bit for entertainment.. Didnt give much attention to it...
You also "didn't give much attention" to the questions I asked about it.

4-8 million years in evolutionary differences makes that video completely irrelevant in this conversation.
I'll disagree. The video shows interaction between members of a pack of dogs. Dogs of all species, especially those with relatively high levels of drive, relate to us, in very similar ways.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
860 Posts
Thanks for the kind words. It's not intended as a scientific piece, but as a how−to for dog owners who are having problems with their dogs not seeing them as leaders or for people who have been counseled to use "old school" methods of physical force to establish dominance.
Again I love your piece. It is a very applicable. Its great. Just like we have overly all positive trainers.. We still have some very old school abusive trainers who havent accepted many new advancements.

Well, I'm confused. Earlier you wrote, "She does not refer to any article in particular... " And now you're saying that she disagreed with my article.
When disproving your article she said: Based on "Scientific Evidence"... She was referring to other literature to disprove your article (even though she didnt even refer to anything in particular).... She disagreed with the whole idea of it.. Does not mean she didn't read it... Quite frankly she is just WRONG. Your article is just very well written and applicable. You were referencing your article against itself to disprove her... Your article is an informative piece... But it cant be referenced to in order to prove anything.
[/url]


Relationship of African Wild Dogs to other Canids

Going by this chart that you gave us and your statement that, "Wild Dogs are as closely related to the domesticated dog as it is to the walrus and the giant panda..." I'll have to disagree. Anyone can take a look at where "dogs, Wild Dogs, walruses and pandas" are on the chart and see for themselves that you're wrong. But I'm not a geneticist, and I don't care about such things, I'm just a po' dog trainer. The fact is that highly driven dogs have the same or similar drives as those of the Wild Dogs and they are far from the drives of either the walrus or the panda. The very comparison is absurd. As I said, "Domestic dogs and wild dogs are both DOGS ... and they share many of the same instincts."
I slightly over-exgarated, however the point was clear.... My point is that you can not make scientific, observations and infer characteristics from one species to another, with significantly over 4 million years of evolution separating them...

People are arguing about weather wolves, the recent cousin of the dog, can be inferred to for observable behaviour in the dog.. There is about 14 000 years of seperation between some Wolves and the first domesticated Dogs... Sometimes, we still have hybridisation... And certain lines have included them in the more recent genetic make-up...

You surely can see that 4,8 or 10 MILLION years of seperation (for the Wild dog) is a BIG deal compared to around 14 000 years for with the wolf (likely much less - 14 000 is an estimate of first domesticated dogs..)

If they have any similar traits... It is complete co-incidence... You CAN NOT use a video of african wild dogs... To infer behavioural traits in the domesticated dog... It is simply bad scientific practise...
Yes you can observe similar behaviours... But you cant Justify a behaviour in a domesticated dog because it happens in african wild dogs.

I just mentioned that Walrus and giant pandas... Are also a form of an ancient Canid...
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,341 Posts
Discussion Starter · #108 ·
Again I love your piece. It is a very applicable. Its great. Just like we have overly all positive trainers.. We still have some very old school abusive trainers who havent accepted many new advancements.
Thanks again.

When disproving your article she said: Based on "Scientific Evidence"...
I hardly think she "disprove[ed]" my article. She came in with a closed mind, and left the same way, having learned nothing, having taught nothing. She didn't have the courage of her convictions to stick around and support her position.

She was referring to other literature to disprove your article (even though she didnt even refer to anything in particular).... She disagreed with the whole idea of it.. Does not mean she didn't read it...
I think it's pretty good evidence that she did not ready any further than the title and perhaps the first few paragraphs, but I have no proof of this. She joined the forum in May of this year. She wrote her first post here on May 3 and her second, that same date, about an hour later, after a very senior member pointed out a huge error she made in the first sentence of her first post. Then she disappeared and has not written any more on this forum. It's what's called a "hit and run post" that is typical of someone who has their mind made up and doesn't want to be confused by the facts.

Quite frankly she is just WRONG. Your article is just very well written and applicable. You were referencing your article against itself to disprove her... Your article is an informative piece... But it cant be referenced to in order to prove anything.
It's not intended to prove anything. As I said, it's not a scientific piece, it's a "how−to for dog owners who are having problems with their dogs not seeing them as leaders or for people who have been counseled to use "old school" methods of physical force to establish dominance."

I slightly over-exgarated, however the point was clear.... My point is that you can not make scientific, observations and infer characteristics from one species to another, with significantly over 4 million years of evolution separating them...
You keep talking about things like "making scientific observations" and I keep talking about dog training. We're not in a college classroom, a laboratory or even having a discussion about the science behind dog training. The article is in the "Training & Behavior of the GSD" section of the forum and it's about training.

In any case, it makes no difference how far apart domestic dogs and Wild Dog of Africa are in the evolutionary scheme of things. Drives are drives no matter how far apart are the animals exhibiting them. Prey drive still has to do with the hunting−finding−flushing−catching−and killing of prey. It makes no difference if it's your cat hunting a mouse, a Wild Dog bringing down an Impala, or your dog hunting for possum in your back yard. The relationships between any kind of wild canid is associated with the one between the owner of a domestic dog and that dog.

People are arguing about weather wolves, the recent cousin of the dog, can be inferred to for observable behaviour in the dog.. There is about 14 000 years of seperation between some Wolves and the first domesticated Dogs... Sometimes, we still have hybridisation... And certain lines have included them in the more recent genetic make-up...

You surely can see that 4,8 or 10 MILLION years of seperation (for the Wild dog) is a BIG deal compared to around 14 000 years for with the wolf (likely much less - 14 000 is an estimate of first domesticated dogs..)
And yet, the relationship within the packs of both groups have many similarities. Perhaps, more similarities than differences.

If they have any similar traits... It is complete co-incidence...
Oh c'mon. There's a reason that they are all classified as Canids. There are many similarities between their inter-dog relationships and their food gathering habits. These are not merely coincidence. Coming from a common ancestor has a lot to do with this.

You CAN NOT use a video of african wild dogs... To infer behavioural traits in the domesticated dog... It is simply bad scientific practise...
Again, I'm not a scientist, I'm just a po' dog trainers. There ARE MANY similarities between the "behavior traits" of domestic dogs and the Wild Dogs, because they have the same drives.

Yes you can observe similar behaviours... But you cant Justify a behaviour in a domesticated dog because it happens in african wild dogs.
I'm not "justify[ing]" anything. I’m giving dog training advice. People can follow it, ignore it, or poo poo it as they like. Those who follow it, however, have found rapid, remarkable changes in how their dog relates to them, especially if they've been using force to try to establish leadership.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
860 Posts
LouCastle:

I am done trying to infer what she said... Quite frankly it does not matter...

I dont even approve of what she said...
Also when I said when she was 'disproving your article' I meant her attempt to.. Lets make that clear... I thought based on all my responses you understood that.. At the end of the day she tried to discredit you based on "scientific research"... And she quoted none of it.. And what I think she was referring to is not applicable anyways..

As for scientific reasoning...
This is one of my pet hates and pet loves with efficient practical dog trainers like yourself.
Great:
1) You do what practically works.. i.e. you don't alleviate certain training tools like the Ecollar based on a skewed sense of moral considerations (it is abusive etc)... Its the way you use it.. The tool is not abusive if used correctly... Same with everything in life.
2) I respect what i call 'practical' dog trainers because they are on the field every day... They are achieving high quality trained dogs.. IPO certifications. Championships etc... All positive trainers are not, in spite of talking a big game.
3) Dogs are with us every day... Best place to learn about training dogs.. Is from the actual dogs... Why quote wolf articles when have much more exposure to dogs anyways.

Not So great:
a) Lack of scientific and critical analysis.
b) This is a problem because if you cant distinguish how relevant something is, it is more likely that you are going to receive inaccurate information.
c) There is relatively little progress... We needed the all positive guys to get most old school trainers on board with clicker training for example... A lot of them were more late than they needed to be...


I agree with you wholeheartedly with most things.. However you obviously had very competent mentorship, at some point, by the right people.. You obviously also have a lot of practical experience...

However your inference from outside material is shocking.. Your insistence that African Wild Dogs can be used as a model to infer behaviours of domestic dogs is absolutely ridiculous... You do this because they are Canids? So is the Walrus ancestrally.. That means nothing...
Lions can also exibit some similar behaviours to a pack of wild wolves...

You cant refer much from behaviour of one species to the other, that is not very generalised... i.e. they are hungry, so they hunt... Principles of Opperant Conditioning due to the work of skinner.. I.e. his work: The Behaviour of Organisms...

One last thing... I am not attacking your ability to train dogs.. Or that your advice is not good.. Everything you said makes sence..

I just feel we need people with a bit more scientific reasoning... No matter what your profession is... If you can not evaluate material critically, you're professional development is stunted...
I find it highly displeasing that you cant get your head around the fact that 10 million years of separation IS A BIG DEAL!

You were justyfing what you wrote about dogs... By the use of a video. Showing wild dogs behaviour. that is an attempt at justification to me...
You cant do that.

I am here to learn to..
Why you cant pick up this small message is beyond me...
It seems fairly obvious and rudimentary.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,341 Posts
Discussion Starter · #110 ·
LouCastle:

I am done trying to infer what she said... Quite frankly it does not matter...
I know. If she's not going to speak up for her own posts, I have no idea why anyone else would. Now I realize that you were not supporting her comments, but at first it seemed that you were.

As for scientific reasoning...
This is one of my pet hates and pet loves with efficient practical dog trainers like yourself.
I’m not doing any scientific reasoning. Although what I do has with an eye towards the science that's involved with training animals.

Great:
1) You do what practically works.. i.e. you don't alleviate certain training tools like the Ecollar based on a skewed sense of moral considerations (it is abusive etc)... Its the way you use it.. The tool is not abusive if used correctly... Same with everything in life.
2) I respect what i call 'practical' dog trainers because they are on the field every day... They are achieving high quality trained dogs.. IPO certifications. Championships etc... All positive trainers are not, in spite of talking a big game.
To be accurate – I'm no longer "on the field every day." I'm retired now and only occasionally do I do seminars or take on private clients. Most of my work these days is one on one with either SAR or LE K−9's.

3) Dogs are with us every day... Best place to learn about training dogs.. Is from the actual dogs... Why quote wolf articles when have much more exposure to dogs anyways.
Because it's a great model for much of what I do. I referred to the supplied video of the Wild Dogs to discredit Zola22's statement that in the wild the puppies eat before the adult dogs. There were some other things going on in that video that spoke to the issue of establishing leadership, so I asked you about them. You had no response except that you "Didn't give much attention to it."

Not So great:
a) Lack of scientific and critical analysis.
If I was working in a lab or preparing papers for peer review, this might be a valid criticism, but I’m not, I'm on a field training dogs, doing what works. And so it's irrelevant.

b) This is a problem because if you cant distinguish how relevant something is, it is more likely that you are going to receive inaccurate information.
I receive very little information from scientists these days. There's not much new under the sun as regards 'big thoughts.' By that I mean things like, what's the best way to get a police dog to find hiding humans, or contraband. What's the best way to get SAR dog to be obedient without interfering with their instinct to hunt. Or what's the best way to get a police dog to release a bite without inhibiting the rest of his work. There's lots of minutiae being done in the lab, but I'm not concerned with it.

There is a bit of activist study going on recently. An example is the Schilder study, a POS study done to oppose the use of Ecollars. But most of it is very poorly done and it's based on an agenda.

c) There is relatively little progress... We needed the all positive guys to get most old school trainers on board with clicker training for example... A lot of them were more late than they needed to be...
I'm not much of a fan of clicker training or training that is based on handler supplied rewards except for what I call "tricks." This term is not meant to diminish that work, it's just that I only use it very little. I prefer to work with the dog's drives directly and channel them to get him to do what I want.

I agree with you wholeheartedly with most things.. However you obviously had very competent mentorship, at some point, by the right people.. You obviously also have a lot of practical experience...
Some of the best in the industry.

However your inference from outside material is shocking.. Your insistence that African Wild Dogs can be used as a model to infer behaviours of domestic dogs is absolutely ridiculous...
That's some pretty strong language right there, "shocking" and "absolutely ridiculous." That's pretty freaking rude! If I was some fly by night trainer making wild promises and never delivering, you might have a point. Since I'm fairly successful, people on this forum who have been to my training or used the methods on my website, recommend me quite a bit, I'll just say that you're very far off−base.

I guess you missed my comment regarding prey drive? It seems that you are a scientist and that all your training is based on science. Almost universally the use and study of drives has fallen from favor in that group. Dog trainers are just about the last group of trainers that are still talking about them. Many, if not most, have gone over to the OC model and that's a shame. It's fine for pets and for working dogs that are in effect pets, although reliability is a problem with any handler supplied reward system, but for working dogs like those who search for people, and substances for real, not for sport, or as a game, it's a poor second choice.

You do this because they are Canids? So is the Walrus ancestrally.. That means nothing...
No. I do it because they are dogs.

Lions can also exibit some similar behaviours to a pack of wild wolves...
Yes they can and when we're talking about drives, he behaviors are nearly identical, differing mainly due to the species strengths and weaknesses. Dogs are good at stamina, pursuing game over long distances, while lions for example, since you brought them up, are good at short but intense bursts of speed. A single lion can bring down the largest of their usual food, very large antelope, but mostly it takes a pack of dogs cooperating to bring down the largest of their usual food. This cooperation is analogous to the cooperation that is necessary between, for example a police officer and his dog that are hunting a criminal. There, each species has their own skills, but they must work together to make the find and take the crook into custody.

You cant refer much from behaviour of one species to the other, that is not very generalised... i.e. they are hungry, so they hunt... Principles of Opperant Conditioning due to the work of skinner.. I.e. his work: The Behaviour of Organisms...
I'm sure that you're familiar with the work of Keller and Marion Breland, particularly their article, "The Misbehavior of Organisms." There they wrote of their discovery of how food gathering behavior (drive behavior) interfered with the OC based training of their subject to such a degree that they COULD NOT overcome it. They called it "instinctive drift."

Here are some of their findings:

However, in this cavalier extrapolation, we have run afoul of a persistent pattern of discomforting failures. These failures, although disconcertingly frequent and seemingly diverse, fall into a very interesting pattern. They all represent breakdowns of conditioned operant behavior.

These egregious failures came as a rather considerable shock to us, for there was nothing in our background in behaviorism to prepare us for such gross inabilities to predict and control the behavior of animals with which we had been working for years.

The examples listed we feel represent a clear and utter failure of conditioning theory. They are far from what one would normally expect on the basis of the theory alone. Furthermore, they are definite, observable; the diagnosis of theory failure does not depend on subtle statistical interpretations or on semantic legerdemain - the animal simply does not do what he has been conditioned to do.

It seems perfectly clear that, with the possible exception of the dancing chicken, which could conceivably, as we have said, be explained in terms of Skinner's superstition paradigm, the other instances do not fit the behavioristic way of thinking. Here we have animals, after having been conditioned to a specific learned response, gradually drifting into behaviors that are entirely different from those which were conditioned. Moreover, it can easily be seen that these particular behaviors to which the animals drift are clear-cut examples of instinctive behaviors having to do with the natural food getting behaviors of the particular species.

It seems obvious that these animals are trapped by strong instinctive behaviors, and clearly we have here a demonstration of the prepotency of such behavior patterns over those which have been conditioned.

We have termed this phenomenon "instinctive drift." The general principle seems to be that wherever an animal has strong instinctive behaviors in the area of the conditioned response, after continued running the organism will drift toward the instinctive behavior to the detriment of the conditioned behavior and even to the delay or preclusion of the reinforcement. In a very boiled-down, simplified form, it might be stated as "learned behavior drifts toward instinctive behavior."
One last thing... I am not attacking your ability to train dogs.. Or that your advice is not good.. Everything you said makes sence..
Thanks again.

I just feel we need people with a bit more scientific reasoning... No matter what your profession is... If you can not evaluate material critically, you're professional development is stunted...
MORE rudeness! IN THIS LINK I refute a scientific paper, the Schilder study that I mentioned earlier. Take a look and you'll see that seem to be able to "evaluate material critically."

I find it highly displeasing that you cant get your head around the fact that 10 million years of separation IS A BIG DEAL!
And "I find it highly displeasing that you can't get your head around the fact that" prey drive is prey drive no matter what species is exhibiting it.

You were justyfing what you wrote about dogs... By the use of a video. Showing wild dogs behaviour. that is an attempt at justification to me...
I don't need to justify anything to you. My theories on this (stolen from some of the true giants in the industry) have stood the test of time and training over and over.

You cant do that.
Just did.

I am here to learn to..
It seems to me that you're only interested in the science of dog training. It seems to me as if you're not interested in learning at all in how drives interplay with what dogs do, why they do it, and how they interact with humans. The Brelands ignored the drives of the animals they trained, to their detriment, and those drives were not as strong in those animals as they are in many GSD's. Not everything that happens to dogs happens in the laboratory. And what works in the laboratory does not translate directly to what happens in the real world.

Why you cant pick up this small message is beyond me...
It seems fairly obvious and rudimentary.
Ditto.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
452 Posts
As difficult as it was to stay quiet on this thread, I was eating a rare New York Strip Steak and watching the wild dog video, so my hunt drive is very active at this moment.

The OP is an acquaintance and we chat all the time about different subjects. One story that always comes to mind is the e-collar K-9 GSD without a lead walking through a congested area so the officer has both hands free.

My post here would certainly be biased so I am just stopping by to say hello and give the nod of acceptance to the LACPCA and their dedicated police dog handler's who on an daily basis, challenge the bad guy, work with the dogs who are always, "ready to serve" and "ready to fight."

For those of you who do not know.... Lou Castle started & was the founder of the "Los Angeles County Police Canine Association." His expertise is "imo" superior to Ed Frawley.

Old school, new school. It's school !!!!

Oops I did it..

Every May they give a Police K-9 demonstration. I suggest if your close by, you put this on your calender.

Thank you for your lifetime dedication to protecting the citizens of Los Angeles County, CA

SGCSG
Dec. 2014
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
860 Posts
I would rather reply in whole, rather than break up the argument, for fluidity and better message transferal. Also to not misquote out of context. This is not just a reply to your last message, but rather a more generalised response on our area of disagreement.

Sorry if I was rude in any way.. I posted in a bit of a hurry, and prematurely, and didn't manage to edit the post in the allowable 10 minutes.
I usually try use more tact.

I would firstly like to thank you for your time. My intention is not to be rude.. Infact I find this exchange rather stimulating. Even if we never agree on this one philosophical issue (wild dog transferal to domestic dogs), I believe it will stimulate people to think and question more.

Either way I feel strongly on drawing conclusions about dog training on dogs from other species. Wolves are the closest relatives.. And some will argue that Wolves are not dogs. Its a matter of correct scientific reasoning I have an issue with, and not so much with your conclusions.

(I believe your conclusions are based on your vast experience on dogs.. And you are finding similarities in Wild dogs... So what you say is inherently correct anyways.. Its just that you are using reverse reasoning in that initial post.. By saying watch the wild dogs: This tells us X about dogs. When in fact what you are really doing is applying your vast knowledge about dogs... And observing similarities in wild dogs.)

This may be a subtle difference for most, but is of major importance in correct scientific reasoning.. But like you said you are not a trying to be a scientist...

However I think any professional should base some of what he does on good science...

But I can understand what you are saying....In a Boxing perspective: To put it in a different way A academic would never be able to manage Mike Tyson the same way as "Cus" D'Amato... "Cus" D'Amato was one of the greatest coaches in boxing.. And had no history in any form of Academia.. But we also cant deny.. And Mike Tyson says it too.. The athletes of today (irrelevant that the heavyweight division is in shambles, this is a different discussion altogether) are faster, stronger.. They are on more scientific diets.. They cut weight better... Exercise science has progressed substantially, and the results are undeniable. Professional sports have made huge leaps with correct use of science. And todays managers and trainers rely heavily on the latest scientific principles... Athletes are smashing 100m records and doing things that were impossible some years ago.

Dog training, IPO, World Championships in dogs, even training working dogs is of course years behind compared to professional sport in humans (This is undeniable, weather dog trainers want to accept it or not) There just isnt the same breadth of literature and professionals involved.... And the only people trying to utilise an acedemic style are the all positive dog trainers.. Yet they have a flawed set of hypothesis to begin with.. i.e. they assume abussiveness.. So they ignore entire segments of studies, just to be able support their arguments. They set scientific constraints and don't objectively observe what is happening. I.e. The huge undeniable difference in results between a trainer of your caliber and that of a purely positive trainer, simply because they chose to ignore many of the tools and proven methodology that has been proven to work through passing down of knowledge in practical applications...

Dog trainers, especially old school guys have incurred knowledge through mentorship and passing on what they learnt, and are less interested in new developments and pushing boundaries. This unfortunately slows things down a bit... What I call 'better trainers - more realistic trainers" like yourself (I acknowledge that fully) have one flaw.. They often refute scientific papers... But never really produce any. I am not saying you have any responsibility to do this... Personally you dont.. I am just saying it would be nice to see a study where all the parameters are not rigged, so that the all positive methodology comes out on top. I am talking about the community of professionals as a whole. As an individual with some academic background (Not in dog training).. I see right through these low quality studies.. Your refutal was a very nice read. Great work. It is however not a replacement for well set scientific study. Disproving the first, with allocated parameters.

(You must understand as an individual trying to sort out facts from fiction, and 100's of different opinions (everyone has an opinion on dog training), seeing things scientifically has a vast amount of benefit in how to approach a subject as diverse as training dogs)... The fact that I can honestly ascertain that based on the things you post, you know what you are talking about... Instead of listening blindly to the highly popularised Zack George (All positive - look him up on youtube... All rubish... yet has more following than even Leerburg, the marketing genius..)

I have made myself as clear as I possibly can on this matter. I will not reply again on the particular topic of wild dogs vs domestic video. If you would like to reply to this post, and have a last word. I will definitely read it and try absorb everything you have to say.

Instead I would rather like to go into learning mode... I would like to pick your brain on what you said about clicker/Marker training... Don't reply to clicker/marker training comment... I wont bring up my questions right now... I have already written too much that you might want to critique. So if you have the time and are willing, I would like to ask some questions, either in this thread or a new thread.

Again thanks for your patience and time...
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
860 Posts
In previous post: I talked about Zack George... with thousands of views... And big followings... Here is a video to piss you off a bit :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vR7ObDLUN4

I can say good scientific reasoning brought me to follow people like you instead of him... It would be much easier to just fall in the trap, and follow popular culture like Zack George... In fact these guys with their terrible advice is winning the WAR by a long shot in how to train a dog...

They are probably putting grey hairs on your head... Trying to justify your training methods and people calling you abusive....
When in fact you know how to use the tools correctly... And he has no idea what he is saying...

Its "efficient trainers" flaw that they dont engage more scientifically in combatting these types of trainers... At the end of the day professionals like yourself are the ones being shunned...

As someone from what i gather, that deals in law enformecement.. It probably does not effect you as much...

But the bigger market for you guys is normal pet owners... And these guys are painting you as the enemy and winning..

At the end of the day you cant win the war without good scientific reasoning.. This includes good referenced papers...
i.e. Result driven.. Some of these statistics would be easy for guys like you to come by...
One example is two groups of dogs being trained in your methods vs being trained in all positive methods.. Who performs better in IPO... Or BH.. Or some other agreed upon behavioural intervention.

Which dogs display more fear.. etc.. By how much.. With proper parameters. The dogs ofcourse would enter the groups with no prior training...

Maybe some professional trainer on the forum can issue Zack George a challenge :)
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,341 Posts
Discussion Starter · #115 ·
Sorry if I was rude in any way.. I posted in a bit of a hurry, and prematurely, and didn't manage to edit the post in the allowable 10 minutes.
I usually try use more tact.
Apology accepted. I've read that half of the communication that takes place in a face−to−face conversation is in tone of voice, facial expressions, and body language. Since we don't have any of that here, the exchange of ideas is not as clear and sometimes there are misunderstandings.

I would firstly like to thank you for your time. My intention is not to be rude.. Infact I find this exchange rather stimulating. Even if we never agree on this one philosophical issue (wild dog transferal to domestic dogs), I believe it will stimulate people to think and question more.
You're welcome. I rarely hope to change the mind of the folks who are directly involved in these discussions. But there are many who have not made up their minds and who are on the fence. It's those people that I mainly write for. Along the way, I learn better ways to phrase things so that people can better understand the concepts and theories. Later, when I'm teaching, the words come out better.

Either way I feel strongly on drawing conclusions about dog training on dogs from other species. Wolves are the closest relatives.. And some will argue that Wolves are not dogs. Its a matter of correct scientific reasoning I have an issue with, and not so much with your conclusions.
I understand that wolves are closer to dogs than are Wild Dogs. But they're all dogs. They have similar instincts, and in the wild, they do similar things. And so inferences can be drawn from one to the other. I know that when domestic dogs go feral they don't form packs and behave in the same way as wild canids do. I think that's because many of the instincts of wild dogs have been bred out of them and so, they're not as efficient hunters. Rather they become scavengers as can be seen from any pack of dogs in any inner city. But the dogs that I work with need to be the most efficient hunters that they can be. They are bred and then selected especially for that kind of work. They have pronounced levels of the drives necessary for that kind of work. And so they are much closer in nature to the wild canids than is the average pet. Along the way, the average pet still has enough instinct left in him, that the techniques described in the article that started this thread work.

(I believe your conclusions are based on your vast experience on dogs.. And you are finding similarities in Wild dogs... So what you say is inherently correct anyways.. Its just that you are using reverse reasoning in that initial post.. By saying watch the wild dogs: This tells us X about dogs. When in fact what you are really doing is applying your vast knowledge about dogs... And observing similarities in wild dogs.)
I don't think so. I had this theory about interactions between dogs very early in my K−9 training career. As the article here states, I took a chair and a video camera to the zoo and videotaped hours of the interaction between wild canids, mostly wolves and coyotes. Rather than playing with a ball or a tug toy as humans mostly think of playing with their dogs, I saw that dogs at play with each other, were quite physical. "They run, they bump shoulders, they throw hips into one another." When I started interacting with my own dog and those that I trained like this, the dynamic changed dramatically. Before that, I'd been trained, as was in vogue then, to dominate my dog with physical corrections, Alpha Rolls, and physical force. Suddenly I was getting dramatically better results, and I never looked back. When Clicker Training came along I jumped on it, thinking that it was going to improve my work even more. I joined half a dozen lists, read a dozen books and attended some classes put on by the early leaders in that field. I quickly learned the limitations of that sort of work and how dependent much of it was on the quality of the handler. One of the biggest strengths of the system that I use now is that it matters little, if at all, how good is the handler. He's removed to a great extent from the basic work. The System involves selecting the right dog, invoking the drives you want/need and then getting out of the way.

However I think any professional should base some of what he does on good science...
I think anyone who owns a dog "should base some of what he does on good science." Especially the average pet owner (whatever that means) who is only interested in having a well behaved, obedient, and compliant pet. The basics are quite easy. Reinforce what you want repeated and punish that which you don't.

But I can understand what you are saying....In a Boxing perspective: To put it in a different way A academic would never be able to manage Mike Tyson the same way as "Cus" D'Amato... "Cus" D'Amato was one of the greatest coaches in boxing.. And had no history in any form of Academia.. But we also cant deny.. And Mike Tyson says it too.. The athletes of today (irrelevant that the heavyweight division is in shambles, this is a different discussion altogether) are faster, stronger.. They are on more scientific diets.. They cut weight better... Exercise science has progressed substantially, and the results are undeniable. Professional sports have made huge leaps with correct use of science. And todays managers and trainers rely heavily on the latest scientific principles... Athletes are smashing 100m records and doing things that were impossible some years ago.
I think, as this related to dog training, you're talking apples and oranges. The science of physical training, especially diet and exercise is completely unrelated to the science of Operant Conditioning, or for that matter a drive training system. They're not making use of the drives of the boxers, they're just making them better athletes. The use of video has improved the techniques to some degree in boxing, but basically little else has changed in the physicality of what's going on.

Dog training, IPO, World Championships in dogs, even training working dogs is of course years behind compared to professional sport in humans (This is undeniable, weather dog trainers want to accept it or not) There just isnt the same breadth of literature and professionals involved.... And the only people trying to utilise an acedemic style are the all positive dog trainers..
If you're going to say, as I think you are, that "all positive dog train[ing]" exists, we're going to have a very basic and wide disagreement. It is IMPOSSIBLE to train a dog using only reinforcement. Punishment, at some point MUST enter the picture. They are opposite sides of a coin and there aren't any coins with only one side. But perhaps you're using the term differently than I understand it so I'll await your definition before continuing in this vein.

Yet they have a flawed set of hypothesis to begin with.. i.e. they assume abussiveness.. So they ignore entire segments of studies, just to be able support their arguments. They set scientific constraints and don't objectively observe what is happening. I.e. The huge undeniable difference in results between a trainer of your caliber and that of a purely positive trainer, simply because they chose to ignore many of the tools and proven methodology that has been proven to work through passing down of knowledge in practical applications...
If these things were being done out of a lack of knowledge, I might be able to forgive it. But in most cases it's not. It's a deliberate turn of the head to pretend that things that they don't like, simply don't exist. I've had dozens of arguments with these folks, pointing out their fallacies and over and over again going to see their work, only to wind up pointing out that they don't have reliability in the face of high level distractions.

Dog trainers, especially old school guys have incurred knowledge through mentorship and passing on what they learnt, and are less interested in new developments and pushing boundaries. This unfortunately slows things down a bit...
Many people subscribe to an ethos that says, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

What I call 'better trainers - more realistic trainers" like yourself (I acknowledge that fully) have one flaw.. They often refute scientific papers... But never really produce any.
I don't think that I have never seen a single scientific paper put out by a professional dog trainer, no matter what theory they subscribe to. The people putting them out are scientists first, and they happen to use dogs in their labs. Often they have an agenda.

I am not saying you have any responsibility to do this... Personally you dont.. I am just saying it would be nice to see a study where all the parameters are not rigged, so that the all positive methodology comes out on top. I am talking about the community of professionals as a whole. As an individual with some academic background (Not in dog training)..
In virtually EVERY study that I'm aware of it's fairly easy to see where the deck is stacked. This should, to anyone with a degree of honesty, completely devalue those studies.

I see right through these low quality studies.. Your refutal was a very nice read. Great work. It is however not a replacement for well set scientific study. Disproving the first, with allocated parameters.
Thanks again. The problem is that in order to do a scientific study one needs a background in science. I don't know of any professional dog trainers with a background in producing papers for peer review. And even if they exist, I don't know any who are interested in bothering. We're too busy training dogs.

(You must understand as an individual trying to sort out facts from fiction, and 100's of different opinions (everyone has an opinion on dog training), seeing things scientifically has a vast amount of benefit in how to approach a subject as diverse as training dogs)... The fact that I can honestly ascertain that based on the things you post, you know what you are talking about... Instead of listening blindly to the highly popularised Zack George (All positive - look him up on youtube... All rubish... yet has more following than even Leerburg, the marketing genius..)
Having a following because you are popular does not mean that he is a good dog trainer. There's a dog trainer with a large following who started selling franchises to trainers who he schooled in his system. He's messed up more PSDs (Police Service Dogs) than any other trainer that I know of. Being good at marketing, does not a good trainer make. And so I'm happy for these folks, but I know where their real skills lie.

Instead I would rather like to go into learning mode... I would like to pick your brain on what you said about clicker/Marker training... Don't reply to clicker/marker training comment... I wont bring up my questions right now... I have already written too much that you might want to critique. So if you have the time and are willing, I would like to ask some questions, either in this thread or a new thread.
I don't think that this thread would be a good place for such a discussion. If you'd like to start that discussion somewhere else, I'll be happy to take part. Please link back to it in this thread or PM me with its location.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,341 Posts
Discussion Starter · #116 ·
In previous post: I talked about Zack George... with thousands of views... And big followings... Here is a video to piss you off a bit :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vR7ObDLUN4
That doesn't "piss [me] off." I just laugh at those people. His vast ignorance of what he thinks Ecollar training is, "dominating through submission" is just stupid and ignorant. Years ago, such stupidity might have been successful, but today there are too many people who know that it's a lie and that there's more to training a dog than just having a relationship with him. That's vital, but it's not all there is. But such folks who preach nicey nice training will always have a following. As the phrase goes that's widely attributed to PT Barnum (although he probably wasn't the one who said it) "There's a sucker born every minute."

I can say good scientific reasoning brought me to follow people like you instead of him... It would be much easier to just fall in the trap, and follow popular culture like Zack George... In fact these guys with their terrible advice is winning the WAR by a long shot in how to train a dog...
I don't think they're winning the war. They are probably winning some battles. If you read the forums frequented by those folks you REPEATEDLY see threads that begin with something like "He never did this before but ..." and they continue to describe some horror show where their dog got distracted by a squirrel or a deer or something else, and wouldn't recall. Sometimes these dogs get hit by cars. Sometimes they disappear into the woods, never to be found. Sometimes they aren't found for days. Usually they appear hours later, worn out from the chase and they happily obey commands, now that the distraction has disappeared. These folks sometimes realize that what they thought was a trained dog, really isn't unless everything falls properly into place. When that strong distraction shows up, their control goes out the window. I've traveled to see what people insisted on the Net was perfect OB. NOT ONCE did anyone actually show it to me. But they had plenty of excuses, ranging from the test wasn't fair to the sun was in their dog's eyes. I spent so much money doing this that I set up some challenges with a $1,000 reward to people who could demonstrate what they claimed. But there was a catch. (There's always a catch, right?) If they could not support their claims with their dog's behavior, they paid my expenses in getting to their location AND they paid me $1,000 for the training that I'd just given them. When put to these terms in about 15-20 years (differing for the various challenges) NOT ONE PERSON, and the challenges have been seen by thousands, even TRIED to claim the prize. One of them is for 100% reliable OB. Another is for someone who claims that their dog can trail someone who's riding in a car. Another is for someone who can point me to a PSD that has been trained ONLY with positive methods.

They are probably putting grey hairs on your head... Trying to justify your training methods and people calling you abusive....
My hair started turning grey when I was 16 years old. It started falling out when I was 21. Lol. The longest running argument I've ever been involved in went on for years, and came out of the UK, where there's little knowledge about modern Ecollars OR their use. I got dozens, maybe hundreds of converts and became a much better teacher because of it.

The "abusive" attack, just rolls off my back, because it says more about the complete arrogance and ignorance of those making the claim, than it does about my training. That sort of argument only works where people don't know how modern Ecollars can be used. When a couple of very brave people (brave enough to go against the majority of members, who often are horrible bullies) speak up, their argument starts to circle the toilet.

When in fact you know how to use the tools correctly... And he has no idea what he is saying...
Ignorance at this level can only exist in a vacuum. And as the saying goes, "horror vacui, Nature abhors a vacuum." When facts appear to fill that vacuum, these folks try to carry on their argument, usually resorting to name calling and other ad hominem attacks, and their ignorance is shown. They lose lots of followers. Nowadays, because of enlightenment, they're relatively rare. But there still are some forums where they occur over and over. Zealots (and I include myself in that group) never rest. And there's no shortage of ignorance in this field. On some forums, anyone who can get their dog to sit in the kitchen with a cookie in their hand, thinks that makes them a dog trainer and they have an opinion about how dogs should be trained. One of the horrible things about the Net is that it gives a complete novice the same voice as experts who have been 'doing it' for decades. This is seen on any topic you care to name, not just dog training.

Its "efficient trainers" flaw that they dont engage more scientifically in combatting these types of trainers... At the end of the day professionals like yourself are the ones being shunned...
LOL. As a retired police officer, I've never been interested in being popular. Dog training has never been a popularity contest. The ONLY thing that counts is "RESULTS, achieved humanely."

As someone from what i gather, that deals in law enformecement.. It probably does not effect you as much...
Yep. Lol.

But the bigger market for you guys is normal pet owners... And these guys are painting you as the enemy and winning..
Not in the long run. People discover that having a good relationship by shoving treats at a dog all day just does not work. They discover, often it takes "an incident" to show them that Fido really doesn't recall, if the distraction is strong enough. And when they discover this, they discover that they've been fed a lie. I have more work than I want. I turn away more work than I take these days for pet training and when I do work, I can't believe that people will pay my (very high) rates. But I deliver. Something that these folks don't guarantee. As far as I know, I'm the only dog trainer who offers a MONEY BACK guarantee if the client is not satisfied with the results. Others, offer things like 'unlimited classes' but if their training didn't work the first time, it's probably not going to work just because it's repeated.

At the end of the day you cant win the war without good scientific reasoning.. This includes good referenced papers...
I don't think that this is part of the war.

i.e. Result driven.. Some of these statistics would be easy for guys like you to come by...
One example is two groups of dogs being trained in your methods vs being trained in all positive methods.. Who performs better in IPO... Or BH.. Or some other agreed upon behavioural intervention.
The problem is that's not scientific. There are just too many variables and not enough controls and it takes too long to show results. But we do have some evidence of the success of these "scientific methods." It's very rare that anyone who uses these methods exclusively stands on the top of the podium at high level competitions at most types of competition. There are some exceptions of course, but if these methods were as superior as some claim those folks would be DOMINATING at ALL these competitions. But they're not.

Which dogs display more fear.. etc.. By how much.. With proper parameters. The dogs of course would enter the groups with no prior training...
People who believe in gold at the end of the rainbow, will not be persuaded by scientific studies, trial results, or proof that's shown to them. They prefer to believe in unicorns than what they see with their own "lying eyes." Many of them are making an emotional response, rather than one based on logic, reason, and facts.

Maybe some professional trainer on the forum can issue Zack George a challenge
I've done that many times. (Not with Mr. George) but with many others. When they're shown to be wrong, they just move the goalposts. This is nearly a religion to some, and few are ever going to stop believing.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
860 Posts
Thanks for the responses....

Do you think it would be possible to start a thread based on this: Obviously i should get your permission before starting a thread based on what you said...

"When Clicker Training came along I jumped on it, thinking that it was going to improve my work even more. I joined half a dozen lists, read a dozen books and attended some classes put on by the early leaders in that field. I quickly learned the limitations of that sort of work and how dependent much of it was on the quality of the handler. One of the biggest strengths of the system that I use now is that it matters little, if at all, how good is the handler. He's removed to a great extent from the basic work. The System involves selecting the right dog, invoking the drives you want/need and then getting out of the way."

Lou Castle
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
860 Posts
I also would like to discuss this in a second thread: I agree very much with what you said here about dogs playing with each other in these primal ways instead of with toys... We should be enganging in this with our own dogs... I always have:

" I had this theory about interactions between dogs very early in my K−9 training career. As the article here states, I took a chair and a video camera to the zoo and videotaped hours of the interaction between wild canids, mostly wolves and coyotes. Rather than playing with a ball or a tug toy as humans mostly think of playing with their dogs, I saw that dogs at play with each other, were quite physical. "They run, they bump shoulders, they throw hips into one another." When I started interacting with my own dog and those that I trained like this, the dynamic changed dramatically. Before that, I'd been trained, as was in vogue then, to dominate my dog with physical corrections, Alpha Rolls, and physical force. Suddenly I was getting dramatically better results, and I never looked back."

LouCastle

Obviously i should get your permission before starting a thread based on what you said.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,341 Posts
Discussion Starter · #119 ·
Feel free to start threads based on either or both statements. Please post links to them if you do.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
860 Posts
101 - 120 of 132 Posts
Top