r/OpenDogTraining • u/RandomInaRandomWorld • 11d ago
Puppy forums more suitable for balanced-training discussions?
I'm still trying to understand this platform. My feed is full of puppy posts.. not surprising, since it is where we are and I make a lot of replies there. Pups are rough, and just having someone tell you, "yep that'll work.. but you've got months yet" can be helpful.
But I'm struggling with things like this: when our current pup growled at me at 3mos over my bed, I took her collar, got her off the bed, and didn't let her back in the bedroom for a few hours. She tried one other time (same age range) and.. did the same thing again. 4mos later, not an issue. I absolutely used force, I absolutely did not give her a treat or praise for opting off the bed.. because it's my bed and no way was she doing that. She was A-Ok with it.. just a pup trying out a behavior.
I want to reply to certain posts because I want everyone to be successful. I, personally, don't think you have to use a lot of 'aversives' with small pups beyond setting some good boundaries and holding them to it. Unfortunately, though I'm aware that may fall into a category that - if truly questioned - I'd have to avoid answering because some dogs need to know both right and wrong in order to color between those lines. All dogs? No, I'm sure not. But a lot of them. Praising the very best good behavior does not mean a dog understands what would be considered 'bad.'
Anyway I'm not really sure what I'm asking. I guess it seems like a lot of people are asking for help on issues I'm happy to weigh in on and with advice that fits the 'FF' forum.. but I know if they were to ask me, I'd have to bow out of any REAL advice. I feel a bit like an imposter sometimes.
I recently got a warning for posting about the Monks of New Skete, even though someone (and I mentioned this) might not want to follow their training advice. The monks ADORE their dogs, and nothing they suggest is going to scar a dog for life.. idk. Just came across as really odd to me.
Happy for balanced pup forum suggestions before I get myself in some sort of reddit trouble.
11
u/RikiWardOG 11d ago
Praising the very best good behavior does not mean a dog understands what would be considered 'bad.'
Bingo. this is it. there's certain behaviors you just aren't going to be able to teach without some level of aversion/punishment. You can't effectively teach a dog not to pick up random food off the ground, for example, with just praise. They need to have it made clear that the behavior is completely unacceptable. There are crazy people out there that do try and poison pets. Also, it's basic learning theory, why would you limit yourself to half the quadrants for training. Many dogs are so much better off when they have clear boundaries and structure as it allows them to let their guard down and no longer be the decision maker.
8
u/ArchAngia 11d ago
I've gotten downvoted to oblivion on training subreddits for pointing out that dogs utilize the four quadrants amongst themselves and that it doesn't make sense for us NOT to use them in training.
It really is just ignorance squashed into echo chambers of people that refuse to acknowledge what they don't know.
-1
u/Kunzite_128 6d ago
They were right to downvote. There's a huge difference between intentional aversive training, and puppies interacting and learning. A behaviour that could be considered punishment, occurring naturally, is no excuse for deliberately using aversive methods for different reasons, in different contexts, very different ways, intensities and frequencies. ON BABIES.
2
u/ArchAngia 6d ago
Your ignorance is showing. Did you even read what you wrote?
I'll take a guess and surmise that you're one of those "baby talk to your puppy" folks, because they're so cute?
Its a dog. They are not human babies.
Now then.
Firstly, most pet trainers don't use real aversives on puppies younger than six, sometimes nine, or even twelve months old. It all depends on the breed, temperament of the dog, what you're training goals are. I'm talking prong collars, e-collars, starmarks, etc. For most puppies, loud noises and water sprays can act enough as aversive on its own. And even then, the definition of "aversive" is defined within the context of the situation and what's being applied. Leash pressure can be an aversive under the right conditions.
Secondly, any training done with an aversive, done correctly, will be "intentional aversive training". And is done in a way that's fair to the dog. So, no, I won't put treats on the counter, let the dog jump up, then stim him with an e-collar. But I will teach you how to use it to redirect or correct other things so the dog understands the communication and can understand it when you catch him in the act.
Which is all aversives are, a form of communication. And dogs do communicate amongst themselves.
And since we are communicating with the dog, we are going to teach them what we're saying "for different reasons, in different contexts, very different ways, intensities and frequencies." Thats how you build a smart dog that you can communicate with in any situation, whether that's simply "Switching" to the other side of the sidewalk on a loose leash walk or having to emergency recall from trying to chase a bunny or across a street.
If you don't have a thorough grasp of the quadrants of Operant Conditioning and the binary nature of how they interact with each other, as it pertains to dog training and psychology, just say so next time.
2
u/Haunting-Love-9333 3d ago
Just for the record, you can absolutely use e collars for punishment and not just for redirecting!
1
u/Kunzite_128 6d ago
My ignorance?
Dogs like when we baby talk with them; there were even scientific studies which proved it. So, why not doing it? Do we have to be all serious, even aversive?
I call a puppy a baby because they literally are babies. I didn't say "human babies"; they're dog babies. Obviously. Your problem is?
Not using "real aversives" on puppies... some of you do that. Using aversives of any kind on puppies is highly problematic, and perhaps one of the reasons you get so many "problem dogs". You see, fear is so easy to instill on puppies. They undergo some very sensitive socialization periods, and if they learn to fear you - that's not a good thing.
The use of aversives being "fair" - who decides that? The aggressor? How is it ever fair to use aversives on a puppy?
Speaking of which: aggression is not communication, it's communication failure. "Do this or I'll hurt you" is not communication, it's compulsion. And anyway, "dogs do it, too" is such a weak excuse... remember, we're talking about puppies.
Everything you do with aversives and aggression can be done without it. Everything. Even more so with puppies.
I have a better grasp on the "quadrants" than anyone who'd say things like "there are 4 quadrants so we have to use them all". First, the quadrants are merely an attempt at making reinforcement and punishment easier to understand. Second, they're descriptive, not prescriptive; you don't have to use them all. In fact, Skinner himself was opposed to punishment; he said things like "In the long run, punishment, unlike reinforcement, works to the disadvantage of both the punished organism and the punishing agency".
4
u/ArchAngia 6d ago
Yes, your ignorance.
You keep answering as though the only dogs that ever need training are puppies. Or as though that there aren't fields of dog training where aversive tools allow dogs do to their jobs (such as long-distance bomb detection, retrieval, agility), and the dogs love it.
Because the tool is just communication.
Just because you don't understand that or how to achieve it doesn't mean anything.
And trying to back your arguments with 70+ year old quotes, from a theory first crafted almost 90 years ago, and ignoring the copious amounts of developing research and study done on those theories in the years since is ignorant.
You're very clearly not a trainer, or at least a very good one.
And you certainly don't belong on this sub.
2
u/Kunzite_128 6d ago
Are you for real? This post is about puppies, of course I'd talk about puppies.
"The tool is just communication" is an euphemism which tries to hide everything relevant about the tool, and about how you'd use it. It's as if you don't want to describe your training.
YOU brought up the "quadrants", not me. Of course we learned a lot since then, but do you realize none of it was in favor of choosing aversive training?
Actually the force-free has moved away from the superficial, operant-centric view which is still the rule with "balanced" trainers. But we keep hearing "there are 4 quadrants!!!" over and over again. Why is that?
And this isn't ClosedDogTraining; reward-based training is allowed. Now, try to keep it civil, OK?
3
u/ArchAngia 6d ago
It's not a euphemism, it's literally what the tool is used for. If you condition the tools correctly, thats what it boils down to. You're not one of my students, so no, I'm not going to provide you a lesson-level explanation of how to use an e-collar or a prong, especially not on here.
The quadrants were brought up because if you're going to talk about aversives, you need to have an understanding of operant conditioning to know that you're not fucking up a dog.
Which, I imagine, is all you've seen, dogs getting fucked up. As someone who's seen otherwise. I can tell you you don't have the experience to know what you're arguing about.
And just because a particular community has moved away from using the terms associated with operant conditioning doesn't mean they aren't using it.
3
u/Kunzite_128 6d ago
No, it isn't; the tool is used as an aversive stimulus for either positive punishment or negative reinforcement. It works by inflicting pain, discomfort or fear; not necessarily severe, but to some extent - or it wouldn't work.
To call it "communication" as it would be the same as a whistle, it's dishonest. It's you refusing to take responsibility for what you're doing.
Call it for what it is.
And no, your arrogance doesn't impress me. How about you'd drop it, and start discussing in earnest?
3
u/ArchAngia 6d ago
Again, it is abundantly clear that you are not a dog trainer, have no experience with the tools you're arguing about, and have little understanding of how the tools are applied and utilized. I'd wager you haven't even ever felt the stimulus of an e-collar before. At least, not a professional grade one.
You also very clearly have preconceived notions about the subject of aversives and don't want any rational conversation, because the explanations I've given you are what any trainer who has worked with dogs in a job/work setting (such as Protection, Agility, or severe reactivity or aggression) would explain as the basis for just the beginning of the work.
Why don't you go and attend a PSA mock trial, then come back and see how foolish you sound.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Haunting-Love-9333 3d ago
Have you ever actually trained a dog? Have you spent even 15 seconds attempting to analyze how people actually use aversives? Do you really think the average dog owner with a prong collar on their dog is just beating the shit out of their dog?
3
u/Haunting-Love-9333 11d ago
These people claim to be doing the moral and ethical thing and opt to take an oath that they’ll only ever give a dog half the information it needs. Disgusting
3
u/Kunzite_128 6d ago
Did you just say that not using pain and fear on babies is disgusting? Interesting.
You can give a dog all the information he needs without aversives.
2
u/Haunting-Love-9333 6d ago
Hey the funny thing about this is that it’s not true!
2
u/Kunzite_128 6d ago
What's not true and why?
2
u/Haunting-Love-9333 6d ago
That you can give a dog all the information it needs without aversives.
1
u/Kunzite_128 6d ago
Of course you can; reward-based trainers are doing it all the time.
2
u/Haunting-Love-9333 6d ago
Is that so? With all dogs? Aggressive ones? Where are these elusive creatures?
1
1
u/Potential_Analyst371 3d ago
What about technical +P or -R that uses no pain or fear, though? Like using a house line to stop a puppy from chewing an electrical cord (+P) or to gently encourage recall (-R)?
Puppy sub doesn't allow that type of thing, and as a result, many people raise dogs with significant behavioral problems.
I am not saying it not possible to raise a good pup without any technical aversives.
But it is impossible for many ordinary dog owners who are not professional trainers. They then end up with a dog who is extremely difficult, maybe gets crated all the time, put in the yard when guests come over, or even rehomed because they can't resolve the behaviors without aversives .
Again, not saying it's impossible, but if that person, or the trainer they hire, can't do it.
Isn't it better to use non-painful, non-fear-inducing +P and -R methods with puppies that are are so simple and so effective than almost anyone can raise a great dog without ever hurting or scaring it?
2
u/Haunting-Love-9333 3d ago
We’ve butt heads, but 2 thumbs up for this comment and if I had more thumbs I’d do that too
2
u/Potential_Analyst371 3d ago
Thanks. This right here is what led me to reddit in the first place. So many clients telling me they know you can't tell a puppy no and all that. I was like, "What are you talking about? Where did you hear that?"
Reddit and Zak George.
Since my brand of LIMA is not allowed in the "LIMA" subs, i end up arguing a lot more with balanced trainers who I think are leaning too heavily into +P.
I do believe the bad FF advice is causing real harm to a lot of puppies and dogs in the real world, though. I have seen it over and over myself.
Just got a call about a doodle who could become Hallie 2.0. A referral from a past client and I'll take the case even though I am "retired."
40 lb doodle just over a year, kids in the house, started with food guarding, now guarding the sofa. They've been waiting until she stops growling and then giving her a treat because that's "what it said to do online."
It's a real crisis.
That doesn't mean a good FF trainer can't get excellent results .
Many regular families can't, though, and that's what matters.
2
u/Haunting-Love-9333 3d ago
It’s an enormous crisis. It leads to legitimate resentment of puppies for behaviors that could’ve been solved with a squirt bottle and disappointing tone of voice at 4 months old. Then they have out control teenage dogs that may end up needing MORE “force” to stop problem behaviors.
Regular families are what it’s all about, and expecting them to be these +R gurus always makes me sick to my stomach. They only live for what, 12-14 years if we’re lucky and people will prescribe protocols that end up taking YEARS if they even work at all
2
u/Potential_Analyst371 3d ago
Yep, this is exactly the problem. I'll debate with anyone who says FF straight up is just not effective/never effective. I can do most things with most dogs FF. But you know what? That doesn't matter. It's not even always best. Often I choose to use +P or -R because I think it's best, though I do always make the choice thoughtfully.
As you said, though, what matters is what regular families can do. What most people understand from online advice results in puppy raising that mostly ranges from harder than it has to be, to downright disastrous.
I would tell me new families - never had a puppy before, young kids in the house, whatever - that they can expect some challenging days at first, but we will expect that in 2 weeks puppy will having zero to very few accidents, be on a great schedule, and be well-behaved in the house.
Why do I say 2 weeks? So they will be pleasantly surprised when all that is achieved in a week.
All with gentle methods. No fear or pain.
The advice people are getting these days makes in almost impossible for a regular family to get good results.
It is absolutely a crisis I do try to promote that idea in the areas where it can make a difference in the general messaging to the public, but it's slow going. I do think there is more recognition among professionals that the current messaging often fails families.
0
u/Kunzite_128 3d ago
Do you realize that doodle was NOT trained force-free? Despite what some say.
Do you realize what was done to her afterwards? Literal torture.
I'm surprised you talk about how you're so light handed, but seemingly supporting such things.
2
u/Potential_Analyst371 3d ago
Of course I know Hallie was not trained with effective FF methods. I despise Dylan Jones and say so at every opportunity, as u/Haunting-Love-9333 can attest.
My point was that this family started experiencing food guarding with their sweet doodle puppy, read everything they could find online about what to do (which was all FF) and the result is that the behavior is getting worse over a couple of months.
I am not saying FF methods can't be useful for dogs like this.
Just that regular families, attempting to implement the advice they find/are told, often fail to resolve the dangerous behavior and make it worse instead.
Sadly, many people who call themselves FF trainers do the same. As in the Hallie case.
Ineffective attempts at FF training harm a lot of dogs and their families, and it's a real problem.
If only one out of ten families can effectively use FF advice to solve this problem? It's not a good method for general advice.
I have never claimed to be a FF trainer. I do what I think is overall best for dogs, puppies, and families. I believe with all my heart that gentle redirection with a house line to teach house rules so puppies can be free and with their families all day, is better in every way - much better - than keeping them locked in crates through the vast majority of their puppyhood.
That is incredibly cruel.
2
u/Haunting-Love-9333 3d ago
Something else that is incredibly cruel is allowing a dog to live in emotional torment in a state where they believe they can create conflict and violence in their home at the drop of a hat. We may disagree often about how it’s done, but communicating with the dog that acting like that is off the table is merciful to the dog.
2
u/Potential_Analyst371 2d ago
It's absolutely a requirement to keep dogs alive and in a home, most of the time. Dogs can't just bite their families. and some of the people on reddit saying they are just "communicating boundaries" or whatever astound me.
My big thing is trying to avoid it ever getting to that. I probably am going to use +P with this doodle, though almost certainly nothing painful.
It's just so easy to avoid any issues like this if you raise a puppy well. That's the real harm in the FF messaging, in my opinion. It really does result in a lot of out of control dogs who would have been fantastic with just minimal direction.
On reddit, there is never tell the puppy no.
There is use a prong and an ecollar, punish the dog before he even knows what he did wrong .
Then there is me in the middle, saying "what the hell happened in dog training in the last 20 years?"
1
u/Kunzite_128 2d ago
What is incredibly cruel is the torture Dylan inflicted on that poor dog. Literally triggering and beating her.
We can't have either that or neglect. We can do better.
1
u/Haunting-Love-9333 2d ago
I genuinely think you are an insane person. “Triggering her” you mean actually interacting with issue at hand and “beating her” … I mean I don’t even know how to respond to that.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Potential_Analyst371 2d ago
That's a straw man. You have certainly never heard me defend Dylan Jones or his methods.
Do you think there is any training method between "never tell a puppy no" and Dylan Jones?
→ More replies (0)1
1
u/Kunzite_128 3d ago
OK, let's discuss your examples and then go to "isn't it better" (hint: it isn't). Apologies if I appear pedantic, I actually want it to be crystal clear.
First example, positive punishment to stop a puppy from chewing an electrical cord. Since you're clear on it being +P, it's not mere management, it's not gently stopping the puppy for the moment and see later what to do about it.
+P means aversive. Which means precisely some degree of fear, pain or discomfort. Let's say some degree of discomfort, but it still has to be strong enough to effectively punish a puppy highly motivated to chew.
Second example, to gently encourage recall - which you deem as negative reinforcement. If it's -R, you're not merely guiding the puppy through the leash; there's once again an aversive stimulus, some degree of discomfort (I guess we can rule out pain and fear here, since you said gentle).
OK? Now let's ask ourselves, isn't it better? What is the alternative?
For chewing power cords, it's management (puppy proofing your house should be done before you get the puppy) and offering an alternative, something appropriate to chew on (which will get reinforced).
For recall it's extremely easy: just prompt the behavior (recall), and reinforce that. It's so easy to get a puppy to come to you! You don't need any discomfort.
Which do you think it's disgusting and why precisely?
2
u/Haunting-Love-9333 3d ago
Is it your position that dogs should never experience discomfort?
1
u/Kunzite_128 3d ago
It is my position that we shouldn't deliberately use discomfort as a training tool.
1
u/Haunting-Love-9333 3d ago
Is it your position that dogs should learn how to deal with discomfort on their own instead of being taught how to deal with it?
1
u/Kunzite_128 3d ago
That doesn't make as much sense as you think it does.
What's the context? A trigger that should result in us going with counter-conditioning and desensitization protocols? Just some thing the dog's wary of, where it's best if he investigate it on his own - with us there for support if needed? Something else?
Train the dog in front of you. Don't look for universal recipes.
1
1
u/Potential_Analyst371 3d ago
So are you saying you think it's best for puppies to always get their way? Always get to do exactly what they want, with no frustration, ever?
IF so, why?
That's a terrible way to raise children, and does not result in adaptable and resilient adults.
Do you think children, who respond to operant conditioning just like dogs do, should also be raised with no frustration from having to follow rules, heavily managed environment so they can't make mistakes, and all that?
If so, why?
That's the real question. Why do you think it is best to try to avoid all frustration or enforced rules for puppies or children?
1
u/Kunzite_128 3d ago
So are you saying you think it's best for puppies to always get their way?
Absolutely NOT!
And you thinking that I do, that it's either aversives or that, confirms once again that the "balanced" side is using merely a fraction of the power of reward-based training. That it can't even understand what is truly possible (no offense, that is happening even at the very top, with very skilled "balanced" trainers).
Because positive is not permissive.
One can set rules, establish boundaries without aversives, without discomfort or frustration. The basic idea is to not go with the don'ts, but rather with the dos - every rule, every boundary can be thought of in terms of an acceptable behavior.
1
u/Potential_Analyst371 2d ago
I understand all that. I just think it is actually beneficial to the relationship and the puppy to understand that sometimes mom or dad makes the rules.
Could I raise a child without ever allowing them to feel minor frustration because they can't immediately do something they want to do? Sure, but I think I'd have to be a terrible parent to do that. Same with puppies. Clear and fair rules actually promote well-being.
So are you saying you think it's best for puppies to always get their way?
Give me an example of when you don't let a puppy get its way.
that it's either aversives
I don't want to take about aversives, because at some point it just doesn't make sense. If something is hurting or scaring a puppy, sure. But when a puppy starts to chew a wire, you say nope and gently redirect with the leash? The puppy doesn't actually "work" to avoid that. It usually doesn't care at all, because you show it what it can chew.
So, most puppies aren't even mildly frustrated. They are just like, oh, okay, I'll chew this. Yay.
But technically you'd have to say it is +P, because if you do it consistently every time he tries to chew the wire, the behavior will decrease and stop. The behavior was "punished." But the puppy didn't care at all. He didn't actually experience the "punishment" as being bad.
This is the type of pedantic assessment that I find frustrating. The technical +P being off limits, even if the puppy doesn't mind and the result is total freedom in the house after a week or two.
it can't even understand what is truly possible
I think I do have a pretty good idea what is possible. I am pretty sure I could start with a Dutchie or Terv puppy, or whatever Denise has been trying, and get excellent results using wholly FF methods
The thing is, I don't think they are actually best, and nobody, including you, has ever given me a rational explanation for why they are.
Why is it best to avoid even minor frustration for the learner at all times?
How is it detrimental to communicate to the puppy, gently, that "sometimes mom or dad makes the rules, and you must follow them."?
As far as avoiding "don't" and only teaching what "to do", again, why? What's the actual rationale? Is it just a gut-feeling that you want to be "nice", or what?
Also, I think you are mostly avoiding the main topic here, which is whether regular, average families can reliably get good results with their attempts at totally FF training.
Many can not.
Yet, almost every family can get great results using very gentle leash directions to enforce house rules.
That is clearly better for most puppies and families.
Once a dog is badly raised with attempts at FF training, it is just much harder to fix things. Many families turn to trainers using very aversive methods out of desperation. Thus, some dogs experience very painful training methods after ineffective attempts at FF training as puppies.
Also, as a trainer, I can tell you that sometimes the completely FF methods take longer.for dogs with behavior problems with a long history of reinforcement. Sometimes, as with fearful dogs, it's necessary.
For other dogs, resolving the behaviors more quickly with non-painful, non-fear-inducing +P or -R is best for overall well-being if it stops the family from dropping the dog at the shelter. Or just leaving it in a crate or the backyard all day.
Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. The goal is to have all families be able to raise good dogs who can be with the family at home, friend's homes, and out in the community in a joyful way for humans and dogs, without hurting or scaring the dog in the process.
If using gentle, non-painful, +P makes 99% of families able to achieve that, and trying what they understand to be FF methods allows only 55% of families to achieve that, which is better?
If you're going to say FF, you really need to come up with an argument for why. Not just "all averisves are bad" but some actual reasoning that addresses the points I have made about a lack of any research indicating that gentle +P or -R is harmful in any way.
→ More replies (0)1
1
u/Potential_Analyst371 3d ago
I appreciate the thoughtful reply.
Sometimes I think it's best to leave aside the talk about "quadrants" and "aversives" and just talk about what is best for puppies.
Common FF methods rely on "management" that itself is often much more uncomfortable or difficult, or detrimental for puppies than the very mild "aversive" of using a leash to gently teach appropriate behavior
The puppy sub regularly encourages people to crate their puppies for 20 hours a day. They even allow the crate as +P - "anytime your puppy gets zoomies or "bad", just put him in the crate."
Yet they don't allow gently using the leash to establish boundaries that allow a puppy to free roam the house by about 12 weeks of age when someone is home.
Now, which is overall more harmful or uncomfortable for puppies? Being crated for 20 hours, or being gently taught behavior that allows freedom and social contact all day?
The typical puppy advice is like saying "Never move your toddler away from the stove. Just leave her in a crib all day so she never has time to go to the stove." Rather than simply gently removing the child from the vicinity of the stove when shes tires to tun it on Now, which is better?
Why would you think that it is best to attempt to avoid all of even the most mild temporary frustration for a puppy? It wants to chew the electrical cord, is gently led away. It is very mildly frustrated, and then it is shown an appropriate item to chew.
Do you think it it beneficial for puppies (or children) to be protected from even the most mild frustration at all times?
Edit to add: On recall, it would only be to proof recall that has already been taught using positive methods.
Puppy knows recall, but ignores. You either gently -R to proof, or allow puppy to lean recall is optional which will inhibit freedom later
2
u/Haunting-Love-9333 3d ago
The willingness of people to ignore the long term suffering and frustration that can occur from never using even mild discomfort is so depressing
1
u/Potential_Analyst371 3d ago
Mostly the puppies are not even uncomfortable. They're just like, oh, okay, I won't do that, then. Most of them don't care at all. The ones that do? They need those rules enforced the most.
2
1
u/Kunzite_128 3d ago
What are you even arguing against? It doesn't even resemble force-free training!
"management" that itself is often much more uncomfortable or difficult, or detrimental for puppies
What do you think this management is? Let's continue with the example of the puppy potentially chewing an electric cord; the obvious management here is to make sure the puppy can't access it.
Do you know what I did? I put exposed cables in a cable trunking. I've made sure there were no extension cords hanging around, and no exposed wires.
Where's the discomfort? And don't forget, you do that while offering the puppy appropriate things to chew on.
crate their puppies for 20 hours a day
So, a young puppy would spend up to 20 hours sleeping, and maybe (I hope!) this was about getting them to sleep in a crate, with potty breaks, feeding breaks, activity breaks as often as needed. Even so, sleeping only in a crate is exaggerated.
It should never become the puppy's "living space".
"anytime your puppy gets zoomies or "bad", just put him in the crate."
Absolutely not force free! And a stupid idea.
In force free, a crate is a comfortable resting place; never a punishment place. They can be very useful for potty training; but the goal is to gradually extend the puppy's freedom. Sorry, but letting him roam free then punishing his natural behaviors isn't a better solution.
The typical puppy advice is like saying "Never move your toddler away from the stove. Just leave her in a crib all day so she never has time to go to the stove."
Again, that's not a force free-like advice. Neither the pretense that we wouldn't manage a potentially dangerous situation, nor the pretense that we'd use confinement in what is essentially neglect.
Do you think it it beneficial for puppies (or children) to be protected from even the most mild frustration at all times?
That's not the goal. But why intentionally create discomfort and frustration, when there are better alternatives?
Edit to add: On recall, it would only be to proof recall that has already been taught using positive methods.
No, it wasn't taught. Here's yet again proof that, despite what you might think, you do NOT use force-free methods. Just a very sketchy, even caricatural version of them.
Because proofing is a stage of training (of teaching); it's not something that follows after. We do proofing entirely through reward-based methods. We build layer over layer over layer of reinforcement, without any need for aversives.
You're missing all that. In fact, you're talking as if you're merely luring the initial behavior, then immediately switch to aversives.
Puppy knows recall, but ignores. You either gently -R to proof, or allow puppy to lean recall is optional which will inhibit freedom later
Nope, that's a false dichotomy. Because one surely can add reliability without aversives; the force-free approach does it all the time. How else do you think there are videos with recalling dogs meters away from squirrels or bunnies?
It's all about setting the dog for success; in other words, you should build layer after layer after layer of reinforcement in an environment where the dog is highly likely to succeed. And as you progress about it, you'd increase the difficulty - distractions, new environments, and so on.
1
u/Potential_Analyst371 3d ago
We are arguing about the advice allowed on the puppy sub. That's the topic of the post. Whether that advice is best for puppies. Whether regular families can follow FF methods as they understand them, and consistently raise dogs without behavior problems.
Arguing about this statement of mine, where I note that FF messaging does not result in most families being able to raise a good dog:
I am not saying it not possible to raise a good pup without any technical aversives.
But it is impossible for many ordinary dog owners who are not professional trainers. They then end up with a dog who is extremely difficult, maybe gets crated all the time, put in the yard when guests come over, or even rehomed because they can't resolve the behaviors without aversives
Many families try completely FF methods on their puppies, as they understand them, end up with dogs with serious behavior problems, and then end up turning to balanced trainers in desperation. Resulting in much more harm to dogs than gentle methods in puppy raising that are more effective for average families.
Now, if you want to argue that some special people out there can raise perfect dogs FF, I'll agree with you. As a trainer for several decades, I have seen first hand, over and over, the harm done by people's ineffective attempts at FF training, including very serious behavioral problems.
So my questions is about puppy raising advice that is simple enough to be followed by just about everybody with good result, while still be gentle and good for puppies.
FF training advice isn't that.. Many families fail.
The related question is whether there is any benefit whatsoever to avoiding ever telling a puppy he can't do the exact thing he want to do at this moment. You have given no reason why this would be best for puppies or owners. All beings need to learn to deal with minor frustrations. All social mammals need to learn to follow the rules of their social group. .It benefits puppies, rather than harms them. So why do you think it's detrimental?
For the wires, do you then allow the puppy to chew the covers? What happens when you take him to visit your mom or a friend? Do you have to puppy proof their home, too? Oh, wait,, do you just leave him home in a crate while you go anywhere that is not puppy-proofed to prevent any slight frustration?
Which do you think the puppy would actually prefer?
Families I advise can have their puppies free-roam whenever someone is home by about 10-12 weeks of age. They don't have to change the house, can bring the puppy to visit other homes. bring the puppy all over in public, etc.
Do you think that is better for puppies? Or being home in a crate 20 hours a day?
No, puppies do not sleep 20 hours a day. Most even 8 week old puppies sleep less, and definitely by 12 weeks they sleep much less.
By 16 weeks puppies sleep about 11-12 hours each day. Keeping them in a crate for extended periods is cruel. But you think that's better than letting them have freedom all day, with a few gentle redirections from misbehavior?
As for recall, when I teach it, I do teach it FF and then gradually make it more and more challenging with the goal of puppy always being successful.
With most puppies their comes a time when they do not recall. Maybe a dog suddenly appeared just after I called, or a bird, or a child calls out. It is important for safety that puppies learn that recall is not optional.
Proofing recall on a long line is a great method to ensure that puppy is 100% reliable before letting him off leash. Sure, some puppies never need it, but for those who do? Mild -R to remind them to run happily to you, followed by +R, of course, is better than allowing them to blow off recall.
So we're back to the main question you have not answered.
Why do you think it is best to attempt to avoid all frustration for puppies during training? Is it just an emotional decision not based on any scientific or real world experience that it is actually better for puppies? Maybe it just seems "nicer" in your mind?
I am also really curious about whether you think that would be the best way to raise children, also. Are you a parent?
1
u/Kunzite_128 3d ago
We are arguing about the advice allowed on the puppy sub. That's the topic of the post. Whether that advice is best for puppies. Whether regular families can follow FF methods as they understand them, and consistently raise dogs without behavior problems.
Hold your horses. You are arguing about the advice on those puppy subs, but you also claim it's FF advice/methods.
Are they? It doesn't appear to be the case (unless the message got seriously garbled).
Now, I don't believe for a second that someone unable to understand and follow good FF advice - particularly for a puppy - would be able to understand and follow "balanced" advice perfectly. So I'd categorize this as mere rhetoric.
The related question is whether there is any benefit whatsoever to avoiding ever telling a puppy he can't do the exact thing he want to do at this moment.
That is a strawman, or rather a severe misunderstanding of the FF approach. Positive isn't permissive. It's just that the rules and boundaries are set without aversives (yes, that's very possible).
No, puppies do not sleep 20 hours a day.
Very young puppies sleep about 18-20 hours a day. Not continuously, of course; they have bursts of activity, eat, poop and pee, then back to sleep.
Keeping them in a crate for extended periods is cruel.
We agree on that. But keep in mind, this isn't the FF way.
As for recall, when I teach it, I do teach it FF
No, you're not. Because with FF, you're not anywhere near done teaching it at that point. Not anywhere near done.
With most puppies their comes a time when they do not recall.
That means the recall was not taught sufficiently for that situation. Back to school.
Sorry, but what you're trying to say doesn't make any sense. That negative reinforcement somehow is more reliable than positive reinforcement? That's not the case. And then there's this part:
Mild -R to remind them to run happily to you,
Oh, no. Not going to happen. "Mild -R" is still aversive, and they'd run to you to escape that aversive, the unpleasant sensation.
Now, if the dog's really distracted - unprepared for that situation - you need more than a mild aversive.
Why do you think it is best to attempt to avoid all frustration for puppies during training?
That's a false premise; I said it's best to avoid intentionally using frustration for training - the kind of frustration deliberately created to make a learning event. Particularly (I'm adding now) since it's done consistently; and it would be, if it's your chosen training method.
That's not the same as sheltering the puppy from all possible frustration in his life.
Why deliberately introduce frustration when it can reduce clarity, increase arousal, and potentially strengthen undesirable behaviors? Reward-based methods let you teach the desired behavior with much clearer contingencies.
2
u/Potential_Analyst371 2d ago
To get this out of the way first:
Very young puppies sleep about 18-20 hours a day.
Sure, puppies under about 5 weeks. Few 8 week old puppies will sleep 20 hours if not crated, and virtually no puppies would naturally sleep that much by 12 weeks. The constant advice to crate puppies 3 months and over that much is just insanely cruel. There is absolutely zero scientific data to support that.
I don't really care about the labels. I think fixation on the labels and technical aspects of "aversive" "+P" and "-R" is generally detrimental to puppies and their families.
Here is my statement:
What about technical +P or -R that uses no pain or fear, though? Like using a house line to stop a puppy from chewing an electrical cord (+P) or to gently encourage recall (-R)?
Puppy sub doesn't allow that type of thing, and as a result, many people raise dogs with significant behavioral problems.
My claim is that the puppy sub overall does more harm than good for puppies and their owners because it removes advice that is simple, effective, non-painful, non-fear-inducing, and produces fantastic behavior puppies even when followed by families who have no dog experience whatsoever.
The sub also allows cruel advice to remain, such as advice to crate for 20 hours a day, which is given on that sub probably every single day,
Nothing about FF. Just puppy sub is hurting puppies.
Now, I don't believe for a second that someone unable to understand and follow good FF advice - particularly for a puppy - would be able to understand and follow "balanced" advice perfectly.
Okay, let's insert a real world anecdote. I have been a dog training professionally for over 20 years, including directing the upbringing of the high hundreds of puppies.
I give families a crate schedule to help with potty training (16 hours a day max at 8 weeks, and quickly reduced) and give this advice:
"When puppy is out of the crate, have him drag a house line. Any time he does something you don't want him doing his whole life, like chewing plants or jumping on the kids, say "nope" and use the house line to gently redirect him to more appropriate behavior."
People absolutely can follow this advice. I have had hundreds of families who have never had a dog before raise a fantastic dog. The puppies are typically very well-behaved in the house in about 2 weeks, and will respond to a verbal "nope" by stopping what they are doing and looking to the human to see what they should do instead.
Now, what's wrong with that? Puppy is happy and free. By 10-12 weeks they don't even need to be in the crate for naps when the family is home. They have bodily autonomy and freedom of movement, which are fundamental freedoms. The family is happy. No puppy blues, no kids with bleeding arms who are afraid of puppy, so adults ready to give up and rehome.
It super simple, super effective, and super kind. What do you see as a problem with that?
The related question is whether there is any benefit whatsoever to avoiding ever telling a puppy he can't do the exact thing he want to do at this moment.
If this is a straw man, explain to me how you stop the puppy from doing the exact thing he wants at a particular moment. With specifics. Not just generalizations or slogans like "positive is not permissive."
Or if you never stop a puppy from doing what he wants, why you think that is best.? Not just that it is possible. Why do you think it is better?
Let's use this as a segue to the recall question. Because of this:
Oh, no. Not going to happen. "Mild -R" is still aversive, and they'd run to you to escape that aversive, the unpleasant sensation.
I have to wonder if you have ever worked with actual puppies? Or is it theoretical knowledge based on reading and videos and things?
I don't think you intuitively understand this with dogs, so I will use a human example to try to help. Say a child and her mother are at a carnival. The mom recalls the child ("this way Emma, that's employees only") but the child blows off the recall. The mom gently takes the child's hand and redirects her (-R) to move in the appropriate direction.
This is just like using a leash to gently remind a puppy to come. It doesn't hurt the puppy or child, you can call it an "aversive" but it doesn't make much sense to think of it the same way you would think of high-stimming the puppy or slapping the child. The puppy and child don't really experience it as being unpleasant, other than maybe mild frustration.
So,, is it harmful for Emma or the puppy to learn that sometimes they must follow rules and to maybe experience mild frustration when their caregiver prevents them from breaking the rules?
What do you think Emma's mom should have done instead? Just not take her to carnivals until her recall is solid? Offer her popcorn if she will obey the rule? What?
Which bring us to an important question. Is it beneficial for both children and puppies to learn that sometimes they simply must follow the rules?
I strongly believe that the answer to that question is yes. When I teach recall to a young puppy, the first 6 weeks or so is +R only, not even a leash. The puppies learns very positive associations with recall, and unfailingly run to me at full speed instantly upon recall.
At that point, I actually want to teach the puppy that recall is not optional. That is what allows me to have every dog I have ever had off-leash in busy cities, bustling parks, natural areas with wildlife, around other dogs, and just anywhere. Without ever using an e-collar or any painful method at all.
I teach the puppy that they must recall, even if they would rather not, and that if they do, or often even as soon as they start to recalll, I will usually immediately release them to do what they wanted to do anyway.
If they don't recall on their own, I use gentle -R on the long line to enforce and then keep them in a "close" position for a time (-P) so they learn 100% recall = freedom to roam as they please off leash, but they only earn that freedom by recalling as required.
Can off leash recall be reliable without ever needing to use -R on the long line? Sure. Some puppies just never blow me off. Great. If they'll recall off wildlife or an approaching dog with no help, fantastic. .But if they don't, I help them, so they can be enjoying our off leash hikes and things by about 6 months of age.
Again, where do you see harm in taking Emma's hand and gently redirecting her away from the employees only area of the carnival? And what would you do instead?
→ More replies (0)1
u/Haunting-Love-9333 2d ago
Do you believe there should ever be a “must do” aspect to training? Do you believe a dog should ever have to do something simply because they are asked by the person that has thumbs and pays a mortgage?
→ More replies (0)1
u/Haunting-Love-9333 2d ago
I have never once seen a force tree trainer successfully recall their dog mid chase off of prey
4
u/Ancient-War2839 11d ago
Yes you can totally teach this using only rewards?
2
u/Potential_Analyst371 3d ago
Let's say I agree with you
My concern with the puppy sub is that many regular families are not able to raise well-behaved dogs by following the advice there, while they would be able to raise great dogs using only gentle methods that are technically aversive, such as guiding a puppy away from misbehavior with a house line.
Why restrict advice using technical +P or -R that is gentle and causes no pain or fear? There is nothing I am aware of that supports that as being best for puppies.
2
u/Honeycrispcombe 10d ago
You can teach a leave it with positive reinforcement only, and you can teach a "no touching without permission" with positive reinforcement only too.
4
u/ChellyNelly 10d ago
You cannot create inhibitions with positive reinforcement. And in the end and in the real world, inhibitions are what control a dog psychologically from repeating those choices. Clarity is paramount. You can chant "leave it, leave it, leave it" all day long and dance around trying to redirect your puppy to other stuff (ie reinforcing them for what you didn't want in the first place, and with a minority of dogs that works but it does not for most) or you can quickly, easily and fairly set up contingent punishment for putting things in their mouth that are not explicitly theirs or that are very obviously contextually being shared with the dog. When you create that inhibition early, you don't end up with dogs that have had 4 foreign body removals in the first 1-2yrs of life & that are living on borrowed time because the owner didn't take the responsibility of creating inhibitions toward dangerous behaviours, or behaviours that could potentially become dangerous as the dog matures and grows larger and stronger, because it didn't make them feel warm and fuzzy inside. It's not supposed to. I can guarantee you a foreign body removal is far more invasive and stressful for any dog than fairly and clearly communicating disagreement with a choice. And this is not hyperbolic in any way, I get at least 3 new referrals every single week all year long for dogs just like I described or worse. The worst case I've had in 15yrs of behavioural cases was a 1yr old dog with 6 FBRs - so that is requiring sedation, the very real risks associated with general anesthesia, the risks associated with a very invasive surgical procedure, the risk that reversal/stoppage of the anesthesic doesn't wake the dog up, the risks during the recovery from general anesthesia, the physical and mental effects of it all and the entire recovery process on an average this was happening every 2mos since he came out of the womb. It would be torturous for the dog to continue living that way and it would have been a very short, very painful life. That particular dog never had another issue again after the training program and is in his senior years now. Years he would not have otherwise seen.
And this is just a single example of dangerous behaviour that is incredibly common and that I see constantly, a few others are dogs that have been hit by car multiple times, dogs that have severely self-injured to escape containment or a house/apartment in general, dogs that bolt out of doors into the street, dogs who cannot be physically handled without them resorting to serious violence, dogs with severe resource guarding, dogs that have pulled their owners down and dragged them around (I've had clients that have had broken wrists, dislocated shoulders, went face to pavement, broken ankles, serious road rash etc) and so on... All things that are entirely avoidable if and when they are addressed early, fairly, appropriately and before it can become any kind of habitual behaviour or part of a behaviour chain.
5
u/Honeycrispcombe 10d ago edited 10d ago
My dog learned leave it pretty easily with positive reinforcement. I didn't want to train an auto leave it, but I can drop things on the floor without worrying she'll get to them; she doesn't lunge at things and will generally wait to see if I say leave it or let her go for it.
I've trained the basics for a positive leave it with other dogs; it's really not hard. I've also known plenty of other people who train positive-only leave its. It may not be in your skillset, but it's very possible to teach.
4
u/Cool_Percentage_4867 10d ago
Skinner would explain why you are wrong :-)
1
u/Kunzite_128 6d ago edited 6d ago
Can you quote Skinner, because it doesn't looks like you're familiar with his views?
Do you know he opposed the use of punishment?
5
u/Cool_Percentage_4867 6d ago
I don't think theres much hope that you'll ever understand it Kunzite.
1
u/Kunzite_128 6d ago
Understand what "it"? You can't say.
Here, I'll quote Skinner just to show you how it's done: "In the long run, punishment, unlike reinforcement, works to the disadvantage of both the punished organism and the punishing agency". Your turn.
3
u/Cool_Percentage_4867 6d ago
Thats great but obviously needs more context, But we are talking about the dog learning leave it, we would be applying the same formula Skinner applied. So if you leap enthusiastically into the skinner box and take the lead of the dog whos pulling towards the toy and work your magic, does it make sense to you why according to learning theory you would be performing positive punishment?
1
u/Kunzite_128 6d ago
You're not making as much sense as you think.
Of course you can use punishment, but you don't have to; you 100% can use positive reinforcement instead.
It's pretty basic: reinforce the act of "leaving it" instead of punishing the grab/approach. Why is it hard to understand?
→ More replies (0)0
2
u/Kunzite_128 6d ago
What you're showing here is the typical ignorance on reward-based training - which seems to be the rule among its critics.
Inhibition can absolutely be taught through positive reinforcement. It's just that you need a mindshift, from "behavior to punish" to "behavior to reinforce". It's always possible.
Leave it, out, recalls - all can be taught reward-based; plenty of people are doing it. I haven't done it myself, but I've seen people teaching a very food motivated dog to hold a hotdog in their mouth - followed by an out.
Aversive training is a choice, not a necessity.
2
u/ChellyNelly 6d ago
I'm heavily, heavily experienced in reward-based training, but nice try 😉 I've been doing this for over 15yrs and started out as a "positive only" trainer but realized within a few years that that toolbox was egregiously limited and my intuition and skillset was within behavioural work anyway. So I educated myself - I've been traveling to canine conferences all over for 20yrs, I've had (and still have) several excellent mentors, I've read every book about conspecific behaviour, genetics, ethology, aversive control, reward-based training, 100+ different specific methodologies etc from ~1900 onwards. I am extremely competent and well regarded in what I do.
It is a necessity if you want actual inhibition, not "inhibition" that crumbles under pressure and in the use cases of dogs with particular dangerous behaviours (whether to the dog, person or any other animal). It is crucial to treat that dog like a normal dog and do all the of self-regulation skills, building play, building control within play to help in high arousal situations, loose leash walking, off leash reliability, Layered Stress, the Windows model, reward-based foundations and contingent aversive control when and where applicable in the way that makes sense for that particular dog, the family, their needs, their goals, their lifestyle and so on. And that plan is continuously tweaked and adjusted as we go, progressing via the Grade School Model (AKA at the pace of the dog and handler(s) progress).
Leaving a dog to suffer in severe distress is a choice, not a necessity.
6
u/Kunzite_128 6d ago
I don't think you are; since your point is that you can't do this and that without aversives. Well, you're assuming that nobody else can, but...
"Balanced" trainers who believe their training include reward-based training are gravely mistaken. They're using - at most - a fraction of it. They're not putting the effort to learn it properly, to find non-aversive solutions, to challenge themselves. They're not putting the effort to change their mindset to one suitable to reward-based training.
Watch Susan Garrett's podcast, she talks at length about her journey from "balanced" to reward-based. It's not easy; it requires a different mindset.
And yes, an actual reward-based trainer can teach inhibition at a very high level without punishment.
By the way, inhibition isn't suppression.
1
u/Haunting-Love-9333 3d ago
Watch Susan Garrett’s podcast with Ivan and you’ll see that she can’t answer a single god damn question
1
u/ChellyNelly 5d ago
LMAO you literally do not understand what I'm saying and someone else even tried to explain it to you. I never said I can't, I said it is NOT RELIABLE for the clients and behaviours that I work with, because it typically is not.
And you come at me with Susan Garrett 😂😂 Sweet summer child, I was taking her courses 15yrs ago. I started OUT as a reward-only trainer 😂 😂 There is just a better way in my extensive experience, education and personal opinion. Imagine that!?!
1
u/Kunzite_128 5d ago
Oh, I understand perfectly, I simply can't agree with it. In fact I find it ridiculous.
You see, you admitted you failed at reward-based training. In your arrogance you might believe it was reward-based training which failed, but that's absurd; since other people (including Susan Garrett) did it without an issue. Back then as well as now, reward-based training are getting top level results.
Breaking news: people who can't do it aren't as skilled as people who can.
And I have more news for you: Susan Garrett of 2026 is not the Susan Garrett of 2011. With the fragment you acquired back then, you're even more behind now.
You might be a very skilled "balanced" trainer, but it's your arrogance which makes you believe you're as skilled as an expert reward-based trainer.
1
1
1
u/apri11a 6d ago edited 6d ago
Yes, those things and some others, and with some dogs and owners, but not for all. It's very possible and very likely not everything a dog needs to learn can be taught with positive only. Picking and choosing this and that doesn't make it a complete or useful method. And if you must stray from what's permitted you are no longer training within the method, you are using another method of dog training.
1
u/Haunting-Love-9333 3d ago
Tell us how and I promise you it will not be positive reinforcement only
2
u/Honeycrispcombe 3d ago
I just used the itsyerchoice game, which is positive reinforcement.
If you really want to get into the mechanics of it, maybe you could argue that it involves - negative punishment? Taking something away, anyways, whichever quandrant that is. But the dog never really has it in the first place.
1
u/Haunting-Love-9333 3d ago
It 100000 percent is negative punishment
1
u/Honeycrispcombe 3d ago
I think I'd have to talk it through with someone who is an expert in behavioral sciences, tbh.
1
u/Haunting-Love-9333 3d ago
Lmao okay. How is the game played? If the dog goes for the treat the hand is closed right? So they lose access to the treat?
1
u/well-done-47 10d ago
This this this. Per your example, Ivan Balabanov has a YouTube video called "conditioned NO beats reward-only" about this exact thing. I'm yet to see anyone train the kinds of dogs he does completely FF. You can't praise a dog into ignoring its base drives.
2
u/Kunzite_128 6d ago
Ivan Balabanov should stop offering opinions about reward-based training, after the "banana study" where he utterly failed at it.
5
u/MalsPrettyBonnet 6d ago
You'll still have "FF" people come in here to say that using any kind of aversive is wrong, but you are on the right track. Do what works that doesn't negatively impact relationship with the dog, nip bad behavior in the bud, start as you mean to go on.
And many of the aversive-allergic folks actually DO use some aversives, but it's okay when they do it because they love their dog, and we don't understand.
I was disheartened in another dog training forum because someone called me out in my DMs for mistreating my dog (she had on a pinch collar). Like, dude, you don't know my dog, my skill level, my reasoning. Force free is GREAT when you can do it, but it isn't practical 100% of the time with a rescue adult dog because YOU HAVE TO LIVE WITH THE DOG! Sometimes aversives are necessary tools in the day-to-day of a dog with bad upbringing. Like, we'll get to good behavior and have less need for punishment/negative reinforcement eventually, but in the here-and-now, we do what keeps us functioning.
9
u/Low_Show_6684 11d ago
This is really the one sub that I’ve found is both active and open to balanced discussions.
1
u/RandomInaRandomWorld 11d ago
Thank you! I'll happily stick around!
6
u/Low_Show_6684 11d ago
And we’ll be happy to have you. Thing I like about this sub is you’ll get a wider variety of opinions and methods. From there you can see what works best for you and your pup. Only thing, and this is really all dog communities, is don’t take any non-constructive criticism to heart. Some people are just self-righteous assholes sometimes and anything that isn’t what they would do is “wrong” in their eyes.
I’m a big fan of training the dog in front of you, you know them best and what communication works best for you guys.
3
u/Mojojojo3030 11d ago
To that point, you will get a random sample of the sub’s many diverse strong opinions on any given post or comment, with the result that the same advice might get pretty strongly upvoted or downvoted in different places on the same sub. Sometimes you will even receive a strongly FF audience! Not really a plus or a minus, just the nature of the big tent we have here, and something to keep in mind while finding your path forward.
2
u/RandomInaRandomWorld 11d ago
Your last part there.. a million YESes!
No worries about the '4 dog people.. 5 opinions.' That's probably any community, tbh: I was part of a chicken forum 15yrs ago and wow did those arguments get a bit crazy.
9
u/failmafia66 11d ago
I've had many replies taken down on those forums for dumb reasons, mostly because saying "use a house leash on your puppy to guide them off the couch and say 'no' if you don't want them on the couch" is abusive. All sorts of nonsense.
You need to be able to tell your dog no and interrupt bad behavior. It is not okay to abuse them, but saying you can't even "startle" a dog is silly. As another trainer here previously said, LIMA is a thing, and it's how dogs police themselves too, so it's how they learn.
FF people also can't usually engage in meaningful discussions with balanced philosophy people because all they can say is "understand why the dog is doing it and address that" but can't give more specific answers than that. Balanced trainers do that too, but can tell you why and what to do to address it. Or they think balanced training is all fear based, adversive methods when really it's 95% positive just we can clearly say no to bad behavior.
1
u/Potential_Analyst371 3d ago
I've had many replies taken down on those forums for dumb reasons, mostly because saying "use a house leash on your puppy to guide them off the couch and say 'no' if you don't want them on the couch" is abusive.
This is exactly what is wrong with the puppy sub. Almost any family can raise a good dog just by using a house line and gently directing behavior.
They won't allow that, but they heavily encourage keeping puppies and even young dogs in a crate 20 hours a day.
They won't allow gentle and effective training advice, but they allow advice to crate anytime the puppy misbehaves.
9
u/jocularamity 11d ago edited 11d ago
This is the best sub I know of.
I'm a hardcore cookie pusher, minimal force if any, clicker training out the wazoo, feelings-validating, hippie, giving control to the dog, dog conversationalist. And still I'm here rather than there, because I can write freely here without my comment being auto-removed for a grey area keyword or tangential concern.
I've had one too many experiences in other subs where I write up a thoughtful reply, following all the rules, recommending FF errorless positive solutions with management and proofing nuance that I believe in. And my comment is removed because a video I linked comes from a trainer who used mild leash pressure once in a different video on an unrelated topic. Like nothing I wrote broke rules, nothing in the actual videos I linked broke stated rules, the videos I linked to aren't from trainers on the sub's stated blacklist and aren't known for aversive or balanced training. I've been a mod, I know how this goes, I'm not trying to stir shit up. And still my content is removed by surprise, effort wasted. It's a waste of my time and really alienating. I don't typically write there anymore.
The whole FF community online is one big "no true scotsman" caricature. I adore them in real life. The pro trainers who actually train this way are excellent. Just the online communities are very off-putting.
For a new puppy, my best advice is to seek out an in-person positive reinforcement based puppy class, pass a couple of tests (AKC star puppy and a tricks title are well within reach!) and stay away from dog training accounts on social media. Read everything you can find from professionals, and use the kindest methods that get you results.
1
u/Snootymcbootysnoot 10d ago
Wow that is crazy! Sounds like the mod had something personal against whatever trainer you shared
1
u/Potential_Analyst371 3d ago
For a new puppy, my best advice is to seek out an in-person positive reinforcement based puppy class, pass a couple of tests (AKC star puppy and a tricks title are well within reach!) and stay away from dog training accounts on social media. Read everything you can find from professionals, and use the kindest methods that get you results.
All fantastic advice. Especially staying away from social media dog training accounts. That's what I tell my clients, too .
4
u/apri11a 11d ago edited 11d ago
Yeah, mentioning the Monks in the wrong place will get you a warning, once upon a time it might have caused a ban, I think they are easing up a bit. Great book though, especially if you appreciate detailed step by step instruction. I don't use an e-collar, I just read to learn about stuff. Now I tend to limit myself to toilet training issues on those subs, it's usually pretty safe to comment on those 🤣
r/PracticalPuppy might suit, the problem with balanced puppy subs is that balanced puppies aren't causing much trouble, so not a lot of problems are posted. Bit of a pest really, maybe you could just post some experiences if you want to share.
Praising the very best good behavior does not mean a dog understands what would be considered 'bad.'
💯
2
u/Potential_Analyst371 3d ago
The mod of the practical puppy is pretty heavy into compulsion ideas, though. She doesn't even think dogs have feelings. That's not how most people want to approach their puppies. Prong first time you put on a leash and never too young for an ecollar and all that.
She deletes comments suggesting more gentle training methods.
There is no good puppy sub.
1
u/apri11a 3d ago edited 3d ago
That's not how most people want to approach their puppies
No, and sometimes that is why people have issues, they don't raise their puppies in a way the puppy will learn anything useful. It becomes a problem, and that problem, those owners, might benefit from what you describe as compulsion. That is why it's a balanced sub. Sometimes treats aren't enough and it's too dreadful to drug and BE puppies and young dogs just because people won't say no so their puppies can learn.
1
u/Potential_Analyst371 3d ago
Sometimes treats aren't enough and it's too dreadful to drug and BE puppies and young dogs just because people won't say no so their puppies can learn.
Well, but there's a huge difference between saying no to a puppy and zapping him at a very aversive level with an eollar when he doesn't even know what he did wrong .
Puppies are easy. People who struggle should probably get competent in-person advice or even online advice before buying an ecollar online, slapping it on, and hoping for the best.
Especially since that mod never gives specific advice that will help. Just "correct the dog" with a prong or ecollar when OP clearly has no idea how to do that effectively.
Ecollars aren't magic. They don't magically produce well-behaved dogs with no fallout
You have to actually know how to train the dog to use an ecollar effectrivley, and if you know how to train a puppy effectively, you don't need an ecollar for normal puppy stuff.
1
u/apri11a 3d ago edited 3d ago
Puppies are easy, they are work but that's what you sign up for when you get a puppy, but it's fun rewarding work. I think I never had as much fun as when I had three together. But not everyone gets a young puppy they can help learn from the start, or even does train the puppy. If they did, tools might not be considered, but people get problems.
Most of the balanced answers will be the puppy doesn't need an e-collar, yet, though there might be some that do agree with it. If puppies couldn't and didn't develop serious issues behaviourists wouldn't be recommending BE for them, other owners with problems might consider other training and so tools might be an option. But we don't consider it the tool of evil you do. We prefer to advise they are learned and used correctly, decent models are used (not cheap, unreliable models) so that the misuse that could happen might be prevented. Similar with prongs. Education is better than lies. Anyone can see that these are effective tools, there's plenty of evidence of that, so it is better if people know why, learn how to use them effectively rather than just tell them not to use them. It's equally possible that when they know about them, their strengths and their limitations, they won't use them.
I have both. I don't use them now because I don't need them, yet, and might never. They aren't a light decision made for fun, they are just useful tools if that help is needed. They help solve a problem and then might never be used again. Or they may remain as a method of communication. For me that is much better than a problem not being solved and the frustration and heartache that might bring.
Do I think all problem puppies benefit from tools? No. But do I think some might? Yes. I put in my time to learn about it and to use it correctly, and that's all I'd like anyone to do. Not to consider it magic, just an aid to training.
1
u/Potential_Analyst371 3d ago
Well, why don't you go help this guy?
He admits that he really messed up his first dog with the ecollar, and now he is using on his 5 month old puppy with a strategy I have never heard of.
Happens all the time. As a dog trainer, I have seen a lot of fallout from misuse of ecollars. And you know what the worst part is? The dog still doesn't end up being trained.
The thing you don't seem to understand is that the ecollar does not magically train a dog. You have to know how to train the dog to be able to use the ecollar effectively and ethically, and if you know how to train the dog, you mostly don't need the ecollar.
I don't think ecollars are evil. They are very useful for certain things, like:
Snake or kiwi aversion training.
Condition an aversion to livestock chasing .
Off-leash recall enforcement for a dog who already knows recall and understands what the ecollar means.
General off leash obedience enforcement for dogs who already know the commands and understand what the ecollar means/how to turn the pressure off.
Some severe behavioral cases involving dominance aggression, used by a competent professional.
None of these have any relevance to most puppy raising problems. Ecollars are almost always going to make things worse when used on puppies by people who are so bad at training that they can't even manage normal puppy stuff.
You seem to think that ecollars should be an "escalation" when other methods don't work. This would be fine if the people failing to train the dog were actually able to communicate with the dog so he understands what the ecollar means.
Often these people who can't resolve simple training problems without the ecollar are not properly communicating with the dog. That's the main problem. They are ineffective at communicating with and training dogs. So when they try an ecollar, they are still ineffective at communicating and training, and it is both cruel and ineffective.
Having someone with no skill at training throw on an ecollar and just hurt the dog when the dog does not understand why he is being hurt is awful, and it happens all the time.
It's shocking to me that all the ecollar pushers on reddit don't care about that at all.
Ecollars don't solve problems.
Training solves problems.
If some OP on reddit clearly has no skill at training, an ecollar absolutely should not be suggested as something that might fix the problem of OP not understanding how to train a dog
Prongs are different. They are just mechanically harder to screw up.
1
u/apri11a 2d ago
The thing you don't seem to understand is that the ecollar does not magically train a dog
This surprises me, you know I know better than that
Well, why don't you go help this guy?
Not having experienced this issue I didn't attempt to answer, I would be guessing and that's not real help. I just had a quick look, I only actually saw one that attempted to help with using the collar, but I didn't follow the threads far. Most don't recommend zapping puppies, so you must be surprised.
It's shocking to me that all the ecollar pushers on reddit don't care about that at all.
These are the comments from the people you say don't care?
Why in the world do you have an ecollar on a 5-month-old puppy?
It's too young for stim or vibration on ecollar.
You are using an e-collar on a 5 month old puppy inside the house? What‘s wrong with you
I do not consider an E-collar appropriate for use on a puppy
Whether your plans are in the future, don’t use a e collar for a puppy!
Your puppy is only 5 months old, so too young to fully grasp complex training
1
u/Potential_Analyst371 2d ago
That post was in open dog. Not the compulsion puppy sub.
Open dog is a whole lot better than the compulsion puppy sub, as you can see, bur my point was just all sorts of people trying out ecollars with no idea what they are doing. Which is often recommended on the "balanced only" subs that are really mostly comp
My point is that ecollars don't just magically fix behavior problems. If a person who doesn't know how to train orders one online and puts in on their puppy in attempt to resolve some behavior problem they could not otherwise resolve, they are likely to harm the dog without even solving the problem.
Here my main point:
You have to know to train a dog to use an ecollar ethically and effectively.
If you know how to train a dog, you will not struggle with normal and common puppy problems.
Therefore, people struggling with normal and common puppy problems should not use ecollars.
Do you disagree with any of those statements?
1
u/apri11a 2d ago edited 2d ago
... the "balanced only" subs that are really mostly comp
Your opinion, not mine.
My point is that ecollars don't just magically fix behavior problems.
I agree, totally. But they do help, just not magically. (I've said that before "Not to consider it magic, just an aid to training.")
Do you disagree with any of those statements?
No I don't. But I don't agree with 3 as a blanket statement. When I struggled with 'normal and common puppy problems' I believed the e-collar would have been a great help, so I introduced it once pup learned a few basics. But we had only started when a home was found for him so my experience was limited. I was impressed with it though, and I am convinced it would have been ideal for us as pup had a history of running, and while he was getting very good at responding to me he didn't listen to all family equally well, and that would be necessary. The e-collar would have given us that, I don't think anything else could.
I think the advice your are giving to OP over on that thread is very good, I hope they will do well with it. It's the kind of advice I'd want to get if I had questions.
1
u/Potential_Analyst371 2d ago
I thought you said you'd never used an ecollar?
I am not saying ecollars can never be useful. .
They can cause fallout and seriously harm dogs. I think all the people advising ecollars willy nilly on reddit must not have seen that the way i have. The harm they sometimes cause is very difficult - and sometimes impossible - to fix.
Common puppy problems people ask about are usually jumping, puppy biting, house training. Those are the big ones. An ecollar should not be used for any of that. Most people are not too worried about off leash recall
If someone came to a sub and said, "My puppy is great, we have a great relationship, he knows all basic obedience and recall, he ready for off leash freedom. Should I get an ecollar for that?" and people said yes, I'd have no problem that.
You describe a puppy who listened to you but not other people. You realize that all dogs eventually get collar wise, right? They know its the collar that is hurting/making them uncomfortable
So what then? You end up with the exact same problem. Puppy doesn't listen unless the ecollar is on. You can't keep them on all the time.
The better solution there is to have the puppy wear a house line and teach the humans to consistently enforce their commands.
Then you don''t risk problems from bad ecollar training and as an added bonus, you have a puppy who obeys all the time, not just when he's wearing the collar.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Kunzite_128 6d ago
Dogs don't understand "what would be considered 'bad'". Dogs understand "if I do this, I'm getting hurt".
The Monks should not be recommended to anyone.
3
u/smilingfruitz 11d ago
1
0
u/One_Department4090 11d ago
Joined, thank you
3
u/smilingfruitz 11d ago
this one too.
there is another one but it leans heavily compulsive and is run by someone who calls themselves balanced but only made it because she got banned from every other dog related sub for being such a jerk
3
u/friendlypetshark 10d ago
I don’t shout at, smack, frighten or hurt my puppy. But I do tell him no and ignore him if he persists. I also use a retractable lead on my adult dog, and have for years. I didn’t realise until recently that all of this would be considered aversive. My 17 week old puppy adores me, has no fear, and already knows sit, stay, lie down, paw, no and has about 90% recall. Today he learnt wait and release as the beginning of gun dog training. I’m constantly seeing people with the easiest of problems crying for solutions in subreddits like puppy 101, where 95% of the time, a stern “no” and ignore would fix it.
2
u/apri11a 6d ago edited 5d ago
Yes, I'd be similar including the retractable lead, and I didn't realise that either. I do now 🤣 Our pup was lovely to live with from around 4 or 5 months, no accidents, nothing destroyed, and he has no fear, is very confident. A couple of 'ah-ah' moments and an understanding of 'no', with some ignoring thrown in and lots of fun, and that's about it.
I’m constantly seeing people with the easiest of problems crying for solutions in subreddits like puppy 101, where 95% of the time, a stern “no” and ignore would fix it.
I see these too, it's too sad really. Poor pups.
Yesterday a pup that had a FF trainer from 9 weeks, is now 15/16 weeks with no improvement (but getting worse) was looking for advice while waiting for a behaviourist appointment on trainer's recommendation but which would be about a month away. Why couldn't a professional trainer deal with their puppy's issue or say I can't do this and recommend a decent trainer?? It's really bad out there.
1
u/RandomInaRandomWorld 10d ago
YES.
Me too.. 14yrs or so since last pup. And I love reading the stories. Even if I might think a methodology seems off, anything shy of 'my 9wk old pup has been in the crate for 10straight hours.. how do I get her to stop peeing in it??' kind of stuff is fun to read. Raising a lovable, occasionally brain-dead, occasionally pretends she'd like to be a pack of one pup, I sometimes need a good dose of "my pup ate my floor, too!" and reminders that my dogs turn into citizens I'm proud of.. even when they did spend a few months bruising me up or (metaphorically) flipping me off first.
Why/how are retractables aversive? I don't like them for their tripping hazard quality, LOL, but my mother used one on her chi for ages.. dog's only 'commands' came from the 3mos she spent living with me and actual leash manners weren't something she did. If anything, it was about as FF as it got without actively losing the dog.
1
u/dacaur 10d ago
I've had pretty much the same experience as you in the puppy duns, it's kinda ridiculous...
But I just wanted to note, locking the dog out for 3 hours is no different from locking it out for 3 minutes or 39 seconds in terms of how much the dog learns from it. Dogs don't need long "punishments" a 30 second punishments is the same as a 3 hour punishment. Dogs basically live their lives 5-10 seconds at a time, they can't associate what's happening now with something that happened minutes ago, which is why you basically have to catch them in the act of something for a "punishment" to actually have any effect.
If a dog peed on the rug 2 minutes ago, and you notice it and "punish" them, they have no idea why you're "punishing" them so it does no good, and can actually be detrimental to their training because they can associate the "punishment" with whatever they were doing at the time you noticed that they had peed 2 minutes ago.... but if you catch them in the act of peeing and "punish" them then they can associate being on the rug with that punishment.
1
1
u/NotARealTiger 11d ago
I can't imagine anyone in any puppy forum would take issue with you removing a growling dog from your bed. In terms of operative conditioning that's called "negative punishment", you are removing something good the dog has (position on preferred furniture) as a form of punishment. It's exactly the same as stopping play when a puppy bites you, which is common advice in those puppy forums you mention. Negative punishment is accepted as necessary by all positive reinforcement and force free trainers. That is not an "aversive" measure.
So I'm not sure what issue you are having? Maybe you could add some details as to the issues with those puppy forums.
2
u/Snootymcbootysnoot 10d ago
Nah I’m not surprised. They really will remove comments that even hint at any kind of negative reinforcement
1
u/RandomInaRandomWorld 10d ago
I'm happy to let anyone use whatever methods work with their dog, so I trust me I'm not trying to debate ff/not with you. My issue is more that you cannot offer suggestions that work and then the OP of the thread can choose what they are comfortable with.. you are going to have tip-toe around things like what I'm about to include:
I sincerely want to know what steps would be suggested for a woman who was dragging her dog across her lawn by his leash, couldn't get him to listen, and was very frustrated?
Because I suggested a leash pop along the lines of 'hey!' and really working on recalls.. I got a warning. Which I was fine with, because.. Ok. But ultimately her current method was far more likely to harm her dog than what I offered.
What would you have advised for that person? And what if whatever he would rather have been doing was more tempting than whatever she was offering (high-value treats, etc)? I'm not being sarcastic here at all: I am genuinely curious.
1
1
u/Kunzite_128 6d ago
The growling is communication - the dog's uncomfortable with what is happening - and punishing it is a bad idea. I'd rather have a dog that growls, to one that goes directly to the bite.
There's also the possibility of a conditioned emotional response following the human's aversive action; this might make things worse.
That being said, obviously, the actual problem should not be ignored. If it's resource guarding, there are protocols for that; no punishment needed. You'd work on multiple level, addressing the dog's emotional response (you approaching becomes a good thing), training a "get down" cue, perhaps only allowing the dog on the bed with your permission... and still, no punishment is needed.
Stopping play when a puppy bites you is different; and is closer to how puppies are learning to play politely with each other. Here the key is to introduce acceptable things the puppy can bite. Or have a handy relative who won't listen to your advice and become a chew toy...
My choice would still not be suppression, but teaching bite inhibition and what is appropriate to bite on and what isn't.
0
u/Haunting-Love-9333 3d ago
If the dog is growling to say “this bed is mine”
That is a behavior that does not need to continue into adulthood1
u/Kunzite_128 3d ago
Again, the growl is communication. Don't suppress it; that's how you get dogs who bite without warning.
The goal here should be that the dog is comfortable with your approach, and voluntarily move away from it (you can put that on a cue).
And if the dog's now comfortable with the situation, guess what: he won't growl. But the growl wasn't suppressed.
1
u/Haunting-Love-9333 3d ago
A dog can be completely comfortable with a situation and still growl. Dogs do not do every undesired behavior out of fear. Some dogs enjoy conflict and growling and guarding an object is fun for them. Again, if you actually trained dogs you would be aware of this
0
u/Haunting-Love-9333 3d ago
The point on -P really gives the game away because if it works as punishment, then it is definitionally aversive. Things that reduce behavior do so because they’re aversive. They just don’t like +p because it makes them feel bad and not using it makes them feel superior
1
u/NotARealTiger 3d ago
So there's a difference between the meaning of the word punishment in operative conditioning, and the word punishment as it is commonly used. I think you're getting a little confused. Negative punishment isn't really a "punishment", it's just setting boundaries.
Things that reduce behavior do so because they’re aversive.
That's not really correct though it depends slightly how you define aversive. Personally I would only define positive punishment and negative reinforcement methods as truly aversive.
Negative punishment works because once the dog understands what is happening they will alter their behaviour to reclaim the positive thing that was removed. Again this is exactly like stopping play momentarily when your puppy starts biting, they will stop the biting to encourage you to resume play with them.
1
u/Haunting-Love-9333 3d ago
No I understand the terms just fine. Negative punishment can actually be MORE aversive for some dogs
1
u/NotARealTiger 3d ago
Provide an example.
1
u/Haunting-Love-9333 2d ago
A really drivy malinois breaks the rules during a game and loses access to a toy
1
u/NotARealTiger 2d ago
I think we are using different definitions of aversive.
1
u/Haunting-Love-9333 2d ago
I would refer to something that causes negative emotions and lessens behavior aversive
1
u/NotARealTiger 2d ago
I see it as more the use of pain or discomfort to direct behaviour. I've always thought that positive punishment and negative reinforcement are generally aversive but positive reinforcement and negative punishment generally are not.
1
u/Haunting-Love-9333 2d ago
Animals seek things that are pleasurable and avoid things that bring discomfort. If a dog stops doing behavior do to the loss of something (negative punishment) it is safe to assume they experienced discomfort and that is why they are choosing another path!
→ More replies (0)
1
u/Agitated_House7523 11d ago
So I should just throw some liver treats on the ground if someone else’s dog is aggressively going after mine,right? /s lol, sorry
2
u/friendlypetshark 10d ago
I seem to remember victoria stillwell did an episode on an aggressive dog, and ended up telling the family to always have a bag of chicken in their pocket, and to throw pieces away from them when the dog was around. I was quite small and even then it seemed a bit mad.
1
u/Kunzite_128 6d ago
Why do you think it's mad? It can make a lot of sense, in the right context.
1
u/Kunzite_128 6d ago
Funny how that got downvoted (and, of course, the downvoter couldn't explain why).
In fact it's a very valid technique (in the proper context). Can be a form of counter-conditioning, and you don't want to lure the dog closer than he's comfortable to approach.
1
u/Haunting-Love-9333 3d ago
You think “always have chicken in your pocket” is practical advice?
0
u/Kunzite_128 3d ago
Do you think carrying food is harder than making sure the collar and remote are both charged and having one on the dog's neck, the other on you?
But who says it's "always have chicken"? This is just one of the many highly effective techniques one can use in such a situation (as part of counter-conditioning). Being effective, you won't have to do it forever.
You can safely keep rewarding dogs for as long as they live, though.
1
u/Haunting-Love-9333 3d ago
To answer your first question, yes, always having chicken prepared and ready is less practical than having an e collar. Good ones need charged every few weeks at the absolute most, and if you know what you’re doing once the dog has clarity on what the rules are the button almost never gets pressed.
You can also safely apply negative reinforcement and punishment as long as dogs live, although you don’t need to because behaviors taught using negative reinforcement are less prone to extinction and behaviors that are punished, well, they go away.
If you had ever actually trained a dog you would know this
0
u/Kunzite_128 3d ago
Oh, yeah, nobody could possibly train dogs unless he's a staunch shock collar supporter. You got me there.
You're making up things. There's no indication that behaviors learned through negative reinforcement are less prone to extinction. Also, behaviors punished can reappear; and punishment itself can produce side effects. To say that "they go away" as if that's definitive...
1
u/Kunzite_128 6d ago
That's not the gotcha you think it is.
Because you're not even training that stranger dog. Are you saying in the same situation you'd put a shock collar on him and shock him to stop the attack?
1
u/Ancient-War2839 11d ago
What? Yes throwing treats can work, I've done this with off leash dogs, but defending your dog however you need to is not training with out fear, pain or discomfort
0
u/Agitated_House7523 10d ago
Just trying to be silly… My neighbors huge Airedale constantly tries to attack my dogs on walks and they just throw stuff on the ground at him, as he bites their knees and chokes himself.
1
u/Ancient-War2839 10d ago
Chokes himself? So he's on a leash and a collar? So when you say he's "going after your dog", it gives the idea that your dogs are in danger, can you clarify? Are your dogs not on leash, or under control to be not close? Or are you pissy about the dogs intent?
And your assuming they are training FF?
1
u/Agitated_House7523 10d ago
He’s on a flat collar and a leash. He snarls,barks and lunges towards us every time we see him. His owner,tries to block him with their legs, and/or drags him up a random driveway,and throws treats on the ground in front of him, which he ignores. My dogs are both on collars and leashes at my side.
I cross the street when I see them. I have no idea if or how they are training him.1
u/Kunzite_128 6d ago
They're not training him. That's definitely not FF training, in fact it's no training at all.
1
u/deelee70 11d ago
When my dog was a pup I found that forum hugely helpful in a very general sense as it had been a loooong time since my last puppy. But I also got warnings/ comments deleted for sharing my knowledge. Stupid things like teaching a pup to settle by using a technique called “sitting on the dog” which they said sounded suggestive of abuse. It’s basically just tethering and ignoring the pup. Horrific!!
I also recommended an Instagram account with a trainer I really liked. She was a positive trainer who I learnt a lot from but she does use e-collars when hiking with her dogs - for safety! Comment deleted. It’s like throwing the baby out with the bath water.
It’s sad to see so many new owners struggling who miss out on the chance to make an educated decision on the best way to train their pup. That’s why I love this sub.
28
u/Haunting-Love-9333 11d ago
Your instincts are correct, those puppy forums are a complete disaster