Soy Medico y no la voy a matar por tener un Trastorno por Ansiedad como lo hizo con el pobre perrito Que le hubieran hablado a Cesar o algun otro entrenador
u realy should show the other half of this argument cas u cant judge victoria without seeing the whole argument. in the second half wendy diamond apologises for the way she was to victoria and victoria showed how much of a better person she is adn accepted
Fuck, victoria is an annoying untalented fake, she doesn't know shit and she sucks at what she pretends to be an expert at.. example.." I follow the very best in this country.." what the fuck does that mean, oh yah,.. it means she does her best at imitating the EXPERTS, too bad if you are as fucking unskilled as her following the very best in this country while trying to implement the same techniques in real time only MAKES YOU SUCK WORSE, fucking slut. :)
Science isn't always right. Like the scientis in the UK that helped banned the use of e-collars. The people that did that test grabbed a couple of dogs and put e-collars on them with the power all the way up and shoked the shit out of those poor dogs. just to prove that the e-collars were bad. If you use a e-collar to cause pain on the dog your using it the wrong way. Victoria Stilwell is a joke. Just because she's on tv doesnt make her a good trainer.
@isototalerok Thats why he gets bitten all the time. Good trainers do not get bitten by the dogs they treat. CM only knows how to suppress symptoms, he doesn't know how to address the root cause of problematic behaviour....what the shows don't tell you is the high incidence of failure with the dogs after he left.
I'm not sure what order they came in but Wendy stopped to chat on the red carpet of the film opening sisterhood of the travelling pants 2 and fully admitted she WASN'T a dog trainer, so who is she to (1) be judging on this show and (2) tell not only Victoria Stilwell but the rest of the dog training fraternity in America they're ridiculous? Lol priceless
This is what is wrong with the US. Some random media-whore gets to go on TV and dismiss the overwhelming weight of science from a position of equal credibility to that of an actual expert. Then the media packages it up as some kind of cat-fight. I don't know how Stillwell kept her temper as well as she did. This was exactly like watching a global warming denier.
VICTORIA U R SUCH A LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSER THE BIGGEST ONE OF ALL. CESAR MILLAN IS THE BEST. YOU HAVE NO IDEA ABOUT TRAINING GIRL HAHAHHAHHA U R HILARIOUS WITH UR TACTICS EVEN MY DOG IS LAUGHING WITH U LOSER.
VICTORIA U R SUCH A LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSER THE BIGGEST ONE OF ALL. CESAR MILLAN IS THE BEST. YOU HAVE NO IDEA ABOUT TRAINING GIRL HAHAHHAHHA U R HILARIOUS WITH UR TACTICS EVEN MY DOG IS LAUGHING WITH U LOSER.
VICTORIA U R SUCH A LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSER THE BIGGEST ONE OF ALL. CESAR MILLAN IS THE BEST. YOU HAVE NO IDEA ABOUT TRAINING GIRL HAHAHHAHHA U R HILARIOUS WITH UR TACTICS EVEN MY DOG IS LAUGHING WITH U LOSER.
@hiheyhello10 Dominance theory and rank reduction aren't a method...they are a serious mistake and can have serious consequences. Watch a video of Dr David Mech (Highest authority on wolves in present day) state how even wild wolves do NOT live in dominance hierarchies....so if wolves don't, we are people applying this to dogs? Reward based training isn't just one method either. There's a whole range of methods can be classed as reward based training to fit ALL dogs.
I agree with the one who supported positive reinforcement. It is the only way and people who say it doesn't work need to meet my Lucy. She is the best behaved dog in the world and I have never yelled at or dominated her before in her life :D
@isototalerok You are correct, unfortunately too many people think "alpha" means dominate by force. They bully thier dogs without ever training them. They think dogs should acutomatically know how to be "human". Leaders are great teachers and protectors, bullies are dictators who "control" with fear and brutality, not lead .
@crazydoofusuk Bad training makes fearful dogs, I train Assistance Dogs for the Disabled who absolutley adorethier handlers.Please read up on learning theory and dogs. Negative reinforcement does not mean pain or unfair.. It means taking away. Punishing a dog without him knowing what he did wrong is unfair and creates a dog afraid of the owner. Using positive reinforcement to teach and negative reiforceent (not punishment) to set limits creates a balanced dog and a great relationship.
@k9sue Incorrect. Negative reinforcement means to take away an aversive only once the dog gets it right so you have to hurt them to start with. Negative punishment would mean to take away something the dog likes. I think you may have gotten mixed up there. No reward based trainer uses negative reinforcement...prong collars and choke chains and sometimes even shock collars are classed as negative reinforcement...just as damaging as positive punishment.
@Canislupess You are making the mistake of mixing common definitions with Scientific ones. In Operant conditioning Negative means to remove - nothing more. Positive means to add. Reinforcement means to increase a behavior, Punishment means to decrease behavior. There is nothing that indicates pain (hurt) is used.
@k9sue I know the difference between positive and negative in scientific terms thank you. You are forgetting the "Reinforcement" part of the term which means that it is more likely to increase a behaviour. So, how can removing something good increase a desirable behaviour? Negative reinforcement means to remove something to increase a behaviour and you remove it once the behaviour is offered...this means that whatever you remove must be aversive to the dog for it to actually be reinforcement.
@Canislupess Just what I said. YOU said aversive means pain or "hurt". That is not true. The dog avoids an averisive, but what a dog finds aversive can vary from dog to dog. A good trainer reads the dog. The most aversive thing you can do to my working Border Collie is pull him off his stock. To Cavalier, it may be a slightly sterner tone of voice.
@k9sue Aversive - "Causing avoidance of a thing, situation, or behavior by using an unpleasant or punishing stimulus, as in techniques of behavior modification" From the dictionary.
If calling a dog has an aversion to being called back to you off the stock, there's something wrong. They might not love it but they don't have an aversion to it...especially as recalls should be taught with +R which the dog likes....not like with pain or intimidation. I would agree about the stern voice mind.
@Canislupess You cannot use a dictionary for a scientific term. Aversion is a stimuli a subject will avoid. Not everything is pain or "intimidation (not sure what you mean by that). There is not hing wrong with my high drive herding dog. +R is not going to work as Stock has a higher reward value than anything I can offer. It is called instinct - and he was bred that way. I simply command a down and go get him. Nor would I use -R or +P to try to overcome it. OC does not solve everything!!!
@k9sue I've had working line BCs all my life..I know how they are. I also know sheepdog trainers who have no problem calling their high drive dogs off the stock. A BC that wouldn't be called off the stock when required would not be desirable to farmers.
How do you think they train search and rescue BCs to ignore sheep? We have sheep that roam the mountainous areas here in the UK and this is where these dogs work...and out of sight of handlers too btw...
@Canislupess Now who can't read? I never said a Border Collie could NOT be called off of stock, only that they find it "aversive". My point is "aversive" to our dogs is what they will avoid, not just physical pain. Training and Behavior modification involves us manipulating their natural behaviors and instincts to our desires. -P can be more "painful" in terms of stress than -R. Depends on the dog's perspective, not the human one. A balanced trainer knows this.
@k9sue Where the heck did I say your BC couldn't be called off stock?
"Negative Reinforcement is the opposite of positive reinforcement. This involves a punishment for less than favorable performances and usually implies some kind of fear, pain or discomfort for the animal being trained. Training aids such as electrical shock collars or choke chains would fall under this category."
Tell me an instance of -R where pain/intimidation is not used.
@k9sue Also bear in mind that negative punishment happens to everyone every single day of our lives...it is a part of life and. believe it or not +R will not work without -P because they work in conjunction so don't try making -P out to be less humane than -R. All trainers who know what they are talking about know that isn't the case.
@Canislupess Guess what - -R and +P also happen to dogs everyday in "real life" and it is a natural way they learn. It is part of safety in many cases. A dog needs to learn how to avoid pain, discomfort, distress or danger. He learns it by -R and +P. An animal with no fear is a danger to himself and possibly others. A dog that has never been taught limits is unreliable and in some cases nuerotic. Yes, -R and +P can be abuse, when the stimulus is too severe or uncalled for.
@k9sue Things that happen to dogs by chance/accident etc...is one thing...for the owner to inflict it upon them is another completely. It erodes trust in the owner, ruins the bond between dog and owner and makes the dog learn to only offer undesirable behaviours when the owner isn't around...because they don't get punished then...this is why such techniques aren't much use for real training.
@Canislupess "All trainers who know what they are talking about know that isn't the case." What an egotistical statement. You know the minds of all trainers? I have news for you, all trainers do not think like you. I just reads a book by a dog trainer wth a PhD in Animal Behavior. She stated the opposite. Mental stress can be much more inhumane to a dog than mild physical discomcort. That has been proven in studies.
@k9sue Yes but where is the proof that -P is what causes most mental stress? How could +R work without also using -P? Do you reward your dogs whether they get something right or not...so that they never learn which is which...or do you not reward them when they get it wrong? THAT is -P and it is needed for the dog to be able to differentiate between the correct and incorrect behaviour...or it couldn't learn what we wanted at all.
@k9sue Plus, who's to say that I'm not in direct contact with behaviourists with PhDs, which I am, reading books by such people, which I currently am and have done etc....I know what they think because they've told me themselves. They don't use -R in training. They use +R and -P.
@k9sue I must have seriously good hearing then to be able to "hear" what you are typing.
You described a scenario and it wasn't actually -R and you didn't go into specifics regarding the +P in learning either...plus you talk like you just assume the dog hates the noise when you're not in a position to know that unless the dog acts scared of the noise.....plus I know it's easy to teach such a behaviour without the need for either +p or -R so why use them when you don't have to?
@Canislupess Again with the reading disability. I made no claim that the dog "hates" anything. The dog avoids the noise and that is an observable phenomena. "Afraid"?, you are making an asumption here. You cannot teach this without the noise, it is the stimulus, which by nature is unplesant. We do teach it without +P and do use +R as well.
@k9sue My hearing assistance dogs learn to "turn off" the annoying sound of a fire alarm they must go to their owner and lead them to the noise."
Here you imply that the dog finds the noise annoying (Aversive) and you also class the scenario as -R which would require the dog to find the noise unpleasant. There is no evidence at all that the dog finds the noise annoying or unpleasant and that it is trying to "Avoid" it. Thats like saying a dog tries to avoid the verbal cue "Sit" by sitting.
@k9sue Calling the dog off the stock would still not be classed as something the dog had an aversion to. At worst, it would be classed as -P which is taking away something the dog wants. I have already stated I have no issue with -P as well as using +R...plus I also stated yet again that I used CC with one of my dogs but yet you still keep going on that OP isn't the only way as if I didn't know.
Plus - if you can't use a dictionary for the definition of a term, what the heck can you use?
@Canislupess Scientific terms are defined in Textbooks and academic papers, not Webster's. Try using Webster's for "negative" "positive" or "punishment" as they are commonly defined compared to the OC definitions. The whole point of formal terminology is use only one standard definition for clarity. "Aversive" mean avoid and nothing more, that is the OC definition. Just like "negative" means to remove, positive means to add and "punishment" means only to reduce repetition of a behavior.
@k9sue Yes, I already know all that stuff but you tell me where you can implement -R with a dog that doesn't involve pain or intimidation? Don't tell me an instance of -P followed by +R.
@Canislupess My hearing assistance dogs learn to "turn off" the annoying sound of a fire alarm they must go to their owner and lead them to the noise. This is a life saying skill. It is taught with -R (sound stops with the behavior). The dog is also rewarded -+R at the completion. +P primarilyly is used in learning. -R is minimal but still important in reliability in much of service dog training. Nothing used ever hurts or causes pain to the dog.
@k9sue The dogs don't know automatically before training to lead the owner to the noise. The dog must be taught to actually do that by another means. Basically, the fire alarm is a cue just like a verbal "Sit" is a cue to put their bum to the floor. The whole thing can be taught via +R and -P. If the dogs don't act bothered by the alarm, who's to say that it is actually aversive to them?
@Canislupess That is pretty silly. No dog knows what you want before you show them. That is the purpose of training. Ever heard of shaping? -R can be use in shaping just as easily as +P. +P is almost always the best choice for the average dog. Did you know -R is the most resistant to extinction?
@Canislupess What? You need to read that chapter on reinforcement ratios again. Reinforcement schedules apply to all four quadrants of learning, not just +R. +P and -P both stop behavior. -R and +R both increase (teach). What behaviors do you reinforce (increase) and punish (stop) at the same time? -P is removing a desirable to stop unwanted behavior. +P is NOT withholding a treat until the dog gets it correctly, that is +R. Ratios are how often the reinforcer is applied..
@k9sue I never said that variable ratio didn't apply to all quadrants...I only referred to one. Where did I say it did NOT apply to all quadrants?
After speaking to another trainer/behaviourist about this conversation, they agreed that it is you who seems to be clueless about what you are talking about. Especially describing the assistance dog with the alarm sceneario as being -R when it is not even a quadrant, it is a response to a cue.
@k9sue " Do you reward your dogs whether they get something right or not...so that they never learn which is which...or do you not reward them when they get it wrong? THAT is -P "
That is what I put....so, where did I say that witholding a treat was +P? Seriously, you make stuff up as you go along. Witholding a reward is classed as -P...it;s still denying the dog something it wants, you don't have to actually take it away from the dog in the first place you know.
@k9sue "However, the strength of the aversive can only be judged by the recipient. What the trainer may consider to be mild may be seen by the trainee as blisteringly severe. Furthermore, since all negative reinforcement, by definition, includes a punisher, making a practice of using negative reinforcement puts you at risk for all the unpredictable fallout of punishment: avoidance, secrecy, fear, confusion, resistance, passivity, and reduced initiative, as well as spillover associations.....
" in which anything that happens to be around, including the training environment and the trainer, becomes distasteful or disliked, something to be avoided or even fled from. "
From an article at karen pryors clicker training website....unless you want to argue that too regarding -R.
@k9sue "Clicker trainers use negative punishment, which is the removal of something the dog wants. For example, ""penalty yards" (TM pending, Lana Horton)" is a common method used in teaching loose leash walking. The dog sees something it wants. As long as the dog walks nicely, the trainer lets it walk toward what it wants. However, if the dog pulls, the trainer walks the dog backwards....continued.....
@k9sue Continued....."Walk nicely; get what you want—positive reinforcement. Pull; lose what you want—negative punishment. This method is extremely clear to the dog, because getting or losing what it wants is controlled by the dog's actions."
Another article from the karen pryor clicker training site.
@k9sue Remember that super observers do not exist....the only one really inside a dogs head is THAT dog. Unless there are outward signs that a dog does not like the sound, you are not in a position to say they don't like it....and if there was outward signs, it would be very inhumane to force the dog to work under that kind of stress. Assistance dogs in the UK are taught via clicker training...they don't use +P and -R.
@Canislupess Assistance dogs here are clicker trained as well. Any +P or -R would come only in the distraction/duration building phases of impulse control. An assistance dog without impulse control is worthless. All "corrections" are minimal.
@k9sue Funnily enough, impulse control can easily be taught via +R and -P...Kikopup demonstrates this clearly in her tutorial videos on here and I have also taught my dogs plenty of impulse control exercises and none involved the use of +P or -R.
@Canislupess I can use negative reinforcement by simply using my leash to hold my dog until HE relaxes (no pain, just mild pressure). I can reward him with praise or a treat when he returns focus to me. Operant conditioning is not THE only way a dog learns.Dogs can benefit from knowing what NOT to do as long as you first teach them what TO do with reward. There is NEVER a reason or need to HURT a dog under any circumstances.
@k9sue It must still be aversive enough to the dog for him to feel "Relieved" once the pressure is taken away...if not, he will habituate and ignore it especially if the reward from the undesirable behaviour is too high. Humane training does not involve +P or -R.
+R and -P are all you need to actually train dogs and classical conditioning to change emotional responses.
@Canislupess Habituation takes place only when the dog finds the motivation higher value than the aversive. Trainers that allow a dog to self reward (continue pulling) while using an aversive creat habituation. That is why pinch and other severe collars fail, the owner continues to reward the pulling by letting the dog keep going. +R and -P are great if you want to train agility, flyball and tricks in a controled environment. Positive does not mean permissive! OC is not the only tool.
@k9sue I would have thought my post first mentioning habituation makes it clear I know how it works. I specifically stated that if the dog isn't bothered by the leash pressure and the reward of the undesirable behaviour is too strong, that would cause habituation....but it also happens even with harsher methods that work for a time but cease to work after so long because the dog gets used to it.
@k9sue I'd also like to add that I have used OC and classical conditioning for behaviour modification as well....works just as well as with tricks etc...
@Canislupess Classical conditioning is a every useful tool in an behaciorist's toolbag. This is not the place to discuss the enitre gambit of Learning, something I have been both learning and teaching for 35+ years. I have bben appling "theory" to application in the real world as a succesdul competiion dog trainer for as long. You want to oversimpfy the subject. What "works" best for the dog from HIS point of vies is my only concern as a trainer. 100% positive is not the complete answer.
@k9sue For heavens sake...have I not already stated that I also use CC? Look back through my posts and tell me that I haven't. Also look back through my posts and tell me where I stated OP is the ONLY way. You are obsessed with this OP is not the only way and CC is a vaulable tool and I never even disagreed about that in the first place...geez, try reading my posts!!! Pity your 35+ years of training haven't helped you get good at reading what other humans type.
@k9sue I wasn't the one keep repeating things like"OC isn't the only way", when I had already mentioned several times that I use/d CC.
My original argument was that you stated negative reinforcement doesn't involve pain/intimidation and I stated that you need to apply an unpleasant stimulus in the first place for you to them remove which is why chokers/prongs etc...are classed as -R. It was a simple correction of a description of a method but you seemed to drag all these other concepts into it
@Canislupess Yes, negative reinforcement does not have to involve pain. "Intimidation" is your word and has no clear definition. -R only involves something the dog will work to avoid. Pain is not nesessary.
@k9sue For a dog to learn to avoid it, it has to be directly unpleasant to them. Don't mistake instances of negative punishment for negatove reinforcement like you have been doing such as calling a dog off stock...thats not negative reinforcement, thats negative punishment.
@Canislupess I did not say calling a dog off of stock was -R, only that a high drive dog finds being removed from stock "aversive". OC only comes into play when you are trying to change behavior. I do not want to change his herding behavior at all.
@k9sue Still not in the sense that they would be afraid of it. That is the difference, feeling a bit disappointed and being afraid. My dogs might feel a bit disappointed when I put their balls away in my pocket after play and training...but they aren't afraid of me doing it. We all have things happen that aren't to our liking, it's part of life...but it's different scaring or hurting somebody/something. Methods that scare or hurt are generally whats used in -R.
@Canislupess Yes, some people do nasty things to dogs in the name of training. People do use methods that scare or hurt dogs. That does not mean all trainers use those levels of avoidance, or that -R and +P have no place in responsible, effective dog training. You can use +P and or -R without the extreme. Dogs who never know limits or consequences are not as reliable as ones that do. What is unfair is using too harsh of consequences or using them without any +P.
@k9sue If you look up Kikopup on here, she's a very good example that +P and -R are NOT needed in training....she doesn't use any at all and have posted plenty of videos to prove that you don't. I don't even think that the less harsh versions of +P and -R are necessary and, again, just create avoidance behaviours or external rewards outweigh the level of aversion in the +P/-R so the dog does it regardless...the number of times I've seen ppls dogs do that!!
@Canislupess Your logic fails here. I am sure there a many people who can train dogs with only +R and -P. I know hundreds of very poorly behaved dogs that use only +R and -P as well. That proves nothing. I also know trainers who use minimal +R and stil have reliable, enthusiiatic winnign performance dogs. That also proves nothing. Dog training is a skill, learned with education and experience with many types venues and conditions. There is no one "correct" method.
@k9sue My logic only fails in your eyes. Don't blame +R-P method though for people who are poor at utilizing it. I have heard that argument to try and justify +P and -R way too often.
@Canislupess Your logic fails in all ways. Some does not prove all. You cannot claim it both ways. You are accusing -R and +P of being "damaging" also based on people who abuse it. Effective and humane trainers do what is best for the individual dog in the individual setting and do not waste time setting absolutes in theory.
@k9sue I would also like to point out that the trainer/behaviourist I spoke to said there are NO studies proving that -P causes more stress than -R so I welcome you to provide links to some.....which I know you won't because there aren't any.
@Canislupess choke, pinch collars, ecollars (which should be illegal) and such can be used either for +P or -R. If I can't walk a dog on a flat buckle collar it is a training problem, not an equipment problem. Raising the severity of the aversion stimulus is not the answer. Proper training technique is the answer.
@k9sue Plus you spoke to me as if I had no idea what the 4 quadrants of OP were when it was you that mistyped and put -R and gave it the description that would be classed as -P.
@k9sue Well you must've just been wrong then rather than a mistype because you said that negative reinforcement didn't involve doing anything unpleasant to the dog but negative reinforcement works by removing something highly unpleasant so you have to add it in the first place. It is negative punishment that doesn't involve actual pain/intimidation.
@Canislupess Again - who can't read? I said -R does not have to involve pain!!!!! PAIN PAIN PAIN. Is that better? It does involve avoidance. Negative punishment can involve a lot of stress, in fact there are studies to prove it is be more stressful on a dog than actual PAIN!!!! Again with the not scientific word "intimidation". I do not know what you mean by that and I have never used it. I do not "intimidate" dogs or their owners at any time.
@k9sue The actual verbal/written definition of -R might not state pain but in order for it to take place, the dog needs to have a present aversive stimulus removed....and the only real stimuli you can control in a way to make it class as -R involve pain/intimidation. (Intimidation meaning to make the dog feel afraid that something bad will happen to them such as telling them off or threatening body language.)
-P happens ALl the time and there is nothing you can do to stop it anyway.
@Canislupess "The actual verbal/written definition of -R might not state pain but in order for it to take place, the dog needs to have a present aversive stimulus removed...."
At Last! We have come full circle. That is what I said in the first place! NO PAIN! Avoidance yes. What you follow that sentence with is totally untrue. Your opinion is not fact. Dogs will avoid many things that do not involve fear or pain. My dog will avoid my "ah, ah" which is neither painful nor threatening.
@k9sue "Ah Ah" is actually a form of intimidation....perhaps not in your opinion but if you dogs dislike it enough to avoid it, it must be to them....if it wasn't, why the heck would they try and avoid it?
Also, theory is one thing but in practise, the only real elements you can physically control in a fashion to make it -R are those that cause fear or pain....which is why -R is not generally recommended in training.
@Canislupess There you go trying to use an undefinable word. Again who is the super observer. How the hell do you know if my dog is "intimidated" by an "ah, ah"? I can call it trust and respect just as easily and I know my dog. I did not have to hurt her either. I means nothing more than refocus on me.
Who said -R was recommended in training? I sure don't and said so many times. +R is always the best method of training. I only said -R does not have to be painful or "damaging".
@k9sue Look up Alexandra Semyonova's work to find out what a 'Super observer' is.
If a dog wasn't intimidated by something, why would it avoid it? Makes no sense. If something didn't bother me, i wou;dn't care less whether it happened or not....if I was to learn to avoid it, it would be because I found it quite unpleasant. This is how I know your dog is intimidated by the Ah ah and, as I've seen it used, I know that dogs often respond with calming signals...however subtle to humans.
@Canislupess I am quite familiar with Alexandra's work and have corresponded with her on the Internet about dog behavior thank you. Again with the "intimidation" which you seem to think means fear. Annoyance is not fear, intimidation, pain or damaging. The dog avoids it is observable - one of my dogs avoids walking on wet grass, she neither fears, is intimidated nor "hates" it, but she does find it unpleasant or she would not avoid it. You do NOT know if my dog is "intimidated".
@k9sue Also, for somebody who's supposed to be familiar with Alexandra's work, you state that a term she uses quite a lot in her paper is an 'Undefinable' word......Laughable:P
@k9sue Wet grass causes an unpleasant sensation un the undersides of her feet obviously which is a physical sensation...as you are not a super observer, you are not in a position to be able to state how much she dislikes it. Only she can know that. She might seriously hate it but the grass doesn't chase her so she doesn't need to panic so to speak. Other than feeling even a little intimidated, where is the unpleasantness in a verbal cue? There isn't any other than a feeling of intimidation.
@Canislupess So now you can see across the Atlantic and read my dog's signals better than I can. Are you delusional or just insane? Quite frankly I find your self righteous, egotistical, narrow minded attitude not only insulting but quite unpleasant. I neither fear nor am I intimidated by you, but you are quite annoying. So your +P has worked on me, I will now avoid you. Have a great time with your dogs and their tricks. I will continue treating dogs with the respect they deserve.
@k9sue I don't need to see the dog purely because common sense itself says that a dog must find something unpleasant in order to avoid it. If it is not unpleasant why would the dog avoid it? You defy basic common sense, nevermind logic.
@k9sue I have had dogs myself all my life and made plenty of mistakes in the past that I learnt from and one of the things I learnt is that anything verbal that comes out of your mouth is NOT going to cause avoidance in dogs unless it is a prelude to pain or makes them feel intimidated in some way.
@k9sue "Using positive reinforcement to teach and negative reiforceent (not punishment) to set limits creates a balanced dog and a great relationship. "
This is what you said and if thats not recommending -R, I don't know what is.
@k9sue I would also point out the fact that as i use -P in conjunction with +R, it's hardly possible to accuse me of thinking 100% positive is the complete answer.
@Canislupess@Canislupess Classical Conditioning is an umbrella term that encoinpases a myriad of techniques. Aversion, pain and other avoidance stimulses fall into this catagory. Some pretty damn cruel experiments of the past were done on animals in the name of Classical Conditioning.
@Canislupess It is obvuious that you think you already know everything. So why do you keep arguing? When people say "I already know it all" is a sure sign that they have stopped learning.
@k9sue No thats you trying to be a super observer yet again. I continue to read up, work with my own dogs, talk with trainers and behaviourists. I am always looking to learn new things. I do know the difference between the 4 quadrants of learning theory though and can tell which applies in real life scenarios. Just because I claim to know that doesn't mean I claim to know everything so don't try using that one...it's pathetic.
@k9sue If he doesn't find the leash aversive, then the method would be better classed as -P because obviously something he wants has been taken away as a result of pulling, lunging..whatever...such as attention, freedom to move forward etc....people often mistake -P and -R with each other.
@Canislupess You seem to want to argie with me, but keep repeating what I just said.+R and -P can be working at the same. Am I reinforcing the loose leash walking or stopping the pulling? It is just a matter of semantics. My point is neither "hurts" the dog with pain.
@k9sue Thats true that +R and -P do not include pain or other aversives and work in conjunction with each other but, before, you were saying that about -R and with -R you have to take something away that the dog does not like....such as pain or intimidation because the taking away of pain of intimidation is the reinforcement in that method....unless you meant to say negative punishment instead of negative reinforcement.
@Canislupess I did mistype. -R and -P are often two sides of the same coin. Are you -R behavior - loose leash walking or decreasing pulling -P by taking away the reward (walking). Aversive is something a dog will avoid. My agility dog found the teeter aversive because the motion scared her. It did not hurt her. She avoided it at all costs. +R was useless as the fear was stronger than any reward. Desensitization and counter conditioning were required. +R and -P are NOT the only way.
@k9sue Don't you read what I put? Did I not say that I use both OP AND classical conditioning (Same as counter conditioning) for behaviour modification...check back again and you'll see that I did.
Funnily enough, one of my BC Sleet also had an aversion to the see saw as we call them over here. I used classical counter conditioning to change her emotional response to it and now she's fine. You still need something rewarding though for CC. I used treats and toys.
@Canislupess I am so happy that worked for you. One of many successful trainings methods. As a specialist in problem dogs I require many different techniques and +R, counter conditioning and extinction are the methods of choice. Every situation with the owners abilities can be as different as the dog problems themselves. +P and -R are rarely needed in normal conditions. There are limites times when avoidance is necessary. Limiting tools handicaps you. That is my final statement on the matter.
@k9sue +R still came into it though because she was clicked and given a treat for every step she made towards the see saw and then for stepping onto it and moving over it etc....so she was learning via +R that if she stepped onto the see saw and moved over it, she was rewarded but classical conditioning also took place because the treats were changing her emotional response to the see saw.
I used the same technique when she was scared of a burnt out car down the local fields. Worked in minutes.
I think there is an issue with peoples undestanding of "dominant" which we are educated to understand as being a negative term.
When Victoria talks of dominant she talks of bullying and violence, when cesar talks of dominant he means to be confidently in charge.
I "dominate" my dog but do not beat/starve etc her. I am just the boss, just like I am with my children. When they are naughty, they know they are in trouble and when they are good they know that too.
naughty for my partner and children. When they come in the house she jumps on them and is very hyper but she will not do the same to me. She will refuse to leave the room etc for my partner and kids but will go for me.
She doesnt do this because she is afraid, she does it because she knows that I am in charge, just like the other animals I work with (horses and livestock)
Dominate is not stilwells naive version, it is simply to take control.
All of you saying that Negatiive behavior training works faster then Positive are wrong because its not fixing the behavior it's just supressing it and eventually when all this supressed behavior builds up that dog could lash out with an aggressive response.
she doesn't say she's the best, but she knows what the best technique is. i've seen her shows and she observes the animals and gets down to the root of the problem which has a more lasting effect.
She doesnt what she says when the US female trainer says you are not god of dog training...victoria says "yes I am, because I follow the very best in this country!" ?
Wendy is 100% correct. We all don't wanna go with your way, Victoria! Wendy is right, he has his way, and she has her way, she needs to but out of business! You can't be all lovey dovey in training, you have to be like boot camp to them, and then they will listen! I hate people that baby their dogs. I HATE it.
@SWLHPro You're being ignorant. She doesn't "baby" dogs, she trains them only by rewarding them for positive behavior. That means there are no consequences for bad behavior, just rewards. This way works much better because it solves the dogs' problems, rather than suppressing them.
Lol she says dominant/submissive training is medieval, but did she ever see herself on tv? She's dressed and acts like an sm mistress! She's like the dominator of dominance!
go to hell victoria! if you followed the best in the industry, you would understand that positive training doesnt work with all dogs. cesar milan and other dog psychologists do not use "medieval" methods of training. do your research.
you know cesar have class this woman dont have any....
you can see the face of the dog owner? is like wtf...haha.
Cesar regardless the continues attack from this kind of people still is the number one dog behaviourist ...so VS please take a vicodin or something and comeback to teach "postive training" when your enrgy is calm and assertive :D
@putt7 that's very true. positive reinforcement is great to train. but as cesar once said, a dog in the red zone won't listen to a cookie. my friend had a problem with her rottweiler wanting to attack people. when she calmed it down and tried to give it a treat while people were around to associate people with positive feelings, it failed. he couldn't be distracted even. we finally had to subdue him and he never went wild again. and it's not like it physically hurts the animal. ur not beating it
The other woman did not begin the argument. Victoria overstepped her boundaries. She did not have to begin an argument, and she is NOT the God of dog training. I would love to see her work with a wolf or wolf hybrid - as Cesar has; then I will become impressed. Until then, I have not seen her as the cause of any dog being rehabilitated so that it could keep its home. I have never seen her work with a canine that was extremely aggressive. When has Victoria ever helped rescue dogs?
Honestly, I think Victoria's a great trainer but I also think, in some cases, Cesar's methods work as well. What bothered me was how obnoxious the other judge was during their argument. What a 5th grade method of argument on her part -- and so in that respect, I'm definitely on Victoria's side.
Victoria Stilwell can't even do proper marker training with dogs. Stop drinking the kool-aid people. Do some actual research and be open to other approaches before seeing an ACTRESS on TV incorrectly show you how to mark a response.
She is from the Animal Behaviorist College. She follows their teachings wholeheartedly and if you think that organization doesn't have a slant on their research, then you are sadly mistaken.
I pity the dogs who are trained by people like Cesar Milan. Those people are not trainers and they use very old fashioned harmful technique's.
A dog shouldn't listen to you because it is scared. It is far more difficult of making dogs happy en motivate them to do what you want them to do. If you can do that then you are a good trainer. You need a lot more skills and knowlegde for this, then if you are just supressing them.
Victoria is the BEST! I'm only 13 years old, but I've watched her videos sice I was 10. I learned from them. I've trained pratically ALL my friends' dogs and its really afftetive,a dn leaves the dog very happy.
Victoria is a pseudo-intellectual. SHe is clearly wrong and stupidly misunderstands JD and Galaxy's relation. How can she assert that JD trained by domination. We are never shown the history of any of these dogs' training. And how can she
Go victoria you rule your the best dog trainer ever
Raja7762 2 months ago
Tht woman tht is being mean to victoria is mean victoria good job!!
MrIlovesongs123 4 months ago
whaw, that was unpredictable, very unprofessional victoria...
Imnoonenumber1 6 months ago
Wendy Diamond sucks
Jmoric 9 months ago 2
Soy Medico y no la voy a matar por tener un Trastorno por Ansiedad como lo hizo con el pobre perrito Que le hubieran hablado a Cesar o algun otro entrenador
alejandro33505 9 months ago
i cant watch this wendy iamond winds me up
georgiabeastx 10 months ago
u realy should show the other half of this argument cas u cant judge victoria without seeing the whole argument. in the second half wendy diamond apologises for the way she was to victoria and victoria showed how much of a better person she is adn accepted
georgiabeastx 10 months ago
Fuck, victoria is an annoying untalented fake, she doesn't know shit and she sucks at what she pretends to be an expert at.. example.." I follow the very best in this country.." what the fuck does that mean, oh yah,.. it means she does her best at imitating the EXPERTS, too bad if you are as fucking unskilled as her following the very best in this country while trying to implement the same techniques in real time only MAKES YOU SUCK WORSE, fucking slut. :)
Burnz2much 11 months ago 3
Victoria's own dog is over weight. She's a joke
andysepul1 11 months ago 6
Science isn't always right. Like the scientis in the UK that helped banned the use of e-collars. The people that did that test grabbed a couple of dogs and put e-collars on them with the power all the way up and shoked the shit out of those poor dogs. just to prove that the e-collars were bad. If you use a e-collar to cause pain on the dog your using it the wrong way. Victoria Stilwell is a joke. Just because she's on tv doesnt make her a good trainer.
andysepul1 11 months ago 5
Galaxy at 0:47 was like "Wendy and Victoria, shut the f***in' hell up!!! I'm sooo tired, just judge it already!"
hoteliwinshowcases 11 months ago
victoris is the best by far!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1087toni 1 year ago
who wins?
bob225ish 1 year ago
And the "Goddess" of the Negative Reinforcement Training can say who lives or who Die!
Like Any one can Confirm that simply watch the 'positive' training of Victoria Stillwell
-It's the dog or me- season 3 ep.2 and season 2 ep. 1
on a clear case of Dominance and Pack Behaviour a dog, Benji, recibe Swift and Expedite Sentence of "positive training" BY PHONE...
"THAT DOG MUST BE PUT DOWN"
I'll say, She is the BUTCHER of the Negative Reinforcement Training!
starwarssuck 1 year ago
@isototalerok Thats why he gets bitten all the time. Good trainers do not get bitten by the dogs they treat. CM only knows how to suppress symptoms, he doesn't know how to address the root cause of problematic behaviour....what the shows don't tell you is the high incidence of failure with the dogs after he left.
Canislupess 1 year ago
Victoria is so totally the god of dog training!!
nastrocksxd18 1 year ago
I'm not sure what order they came in but Wendy stopped to chat on the red carpet of the film opening sisterhood of the travelling pants 2 and fully admitted she WASN'T a dog trainer, so who is she to (1) be judging on this show and (2) tell not only Victoria Stilwell but the rest of the dog training fraternity in America they're ridiculous? Lol priceless
huskamania 1 year ago
This is what is wrong with the US. Some random media-whore gets to go on TV and dismiss the overwhelming weight of science from a position of equal credibility to that of an actual expert. Then the media packages it up as some kind of cat-fight. I don't know how Stillwell kept her temper as well as she did. This was exactly like watching a global warming denier.
AngrySemite 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
VICTORIA U R SUCH A LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSER THE BIGGEST ONE OF ALL. CESAR MILLAN IS THE BEST. YOU HAVE NO IDEA ABOUT TRAINING GIRL HAHAHHAHHA U R HILARIOUS WITH UR TACTICS EVEN MY DOG IS LAUGHING WITH U LOSER.
orjanaen 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
VICTORIA U R SUCH A LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSER THE BIGGEST ONE OF ALL. CESAR MILLAN IS THE BEST. YOU HAVE NO IDEA ABOUT TRAINING GIRL HAHAHHAHHA U R HILARIOUS WITH UR TACTICS EVEN MY DOG IS LAUGHING WITH U LOSER.
orjanaen 1 year ago
Comment removed
orjanaen 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
VICTORIA U R SUCH A LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSER THE BIGGEST ONE OF ALL. CESAR MILLAN IS THE BEST. YOU HAVE NO IDEA ABOUT TRAINING GIRL HAHAHHAHHA U R HILARIOUS WITH UR TACTICS EVEN MY DOG IS LAUGHING WITH U LOSER.
orjanaen 1 year ago
that dog doesn't look scared or dominated
KrunchMonster1 1 year ago
Victoria is my Lady....
MrRottboss 1 year ago
Ceasr is god, you gadda beat yo dog, show it who's the boss !!!!
Teuli 1 year ago
It's more like a cat fight, LOL!
djudgata 1 year ago
... This woman needs a reality check. She ISN'T God... Why can't she accept that maybe her method doesn't work for everyone....
hiheyhello10 1 year ago
@hiheyhello10 Dominance theory and rank reduction aren't a method...they are a serious mistake and can have serious consequences. Watch a video of Dr David Mech (Highest authority on wolves in present day) state how even wild wolves do NOT live in dominance hierarchies....so if wolves don't, we are people applying this to dogs? Reward based training isn't just one method either. There's a whole range of methods can be classed as reward based training to fit ALL dogs.
Canislupess 1 year ago
I agree with the one who supported positive reinforcement. It is the only way and people who say it doesn't work need to meet my Lucy. She is the best behaved dog in the world and I have never yelled at or dominated her before in her life :D
trekkie441 1 year ago
@isototalerok You are correct, unfortunately too many people think "alpha" means dominate by force. They bully thier dogs without ever training them. They think dogs should acutomatically know how to be "human". Leaders are great teachers and protectors, bullies are dictators who "control" with fear and brutality, not lead .
k9sue 1 year ago
@crazydoofusuk Bad training makes fearful dogs, I train Assistance Dogs for the Disabled who absolutley adorethier handlers.Please read up on learning theory and dogs. Negative reinforcement does not mean pain or unfair.. It means taking away. Punishing a dog without him knowing what he did wrong is unfair and creates a dog afraid of the owner. Using positive reinforcement to teach and negative reiforceent (not punishment) to set limits creates a balanced dog and a great relationship.
k9sue 1 year ago
@k9sue Incorrect. Negative reinforcement means to take away an aversive only once the dog gets it right so you have to hurt them to start with. Negative punishment would mean to take away something the dog likes. I think you may have gotten mixed up there. No reward based trainer uses negative reinforcement...prong collars and choke chains and sometimes even shock collars are classed as negative reinforcement...just as damaging as positive punishment.
Canislupess 1 year ago
@Canislupess You are making the mistake of mixing common definitions with Scientific ones. In Operant conditioning Negative means to remove - nothing more. Positive means to add. Reinforcement means to increase a behavior, Punishment means to decrease behavior. There is nothing that indicates pain (hurt) is used.
k9sue 1 year ago
@k9sue I know the difference between positive and negative in scientific terms thank you. You are forgetting the "Reinforcement" part of the term which means that it is more likely to increase a behaviour. So, how can removing something good increase a desirable behaviour? Negative reinforcement means to remove something to increase a behaviour and you remove it once the behaviour is offered...this means that whatever you remove must be aversive to the dog for it to actually be reinforcement.
Canislupess 1 year ago
@Canislupess Just what I said. YOU said aversive means pain or "hurt". That is not true. The dog avoids an averisive, but what a dog finds aversive can vary from dog to dog. A good trainer reads the dog. The most aversive thing you can do to my working Border Collie is pull him off his stock. To Cavalier, it may be a slightly sterner tone of voice.
k9sue 1 year ago
@k9sue Aversive - "Causing avoidance of a thing, situation, or behavior by using an unpleasant or punishing stimulus, as in techniques of behavior modification" From the dictionary.
If calling a dog has an aversion to being called back to you off the stock, there's something wrong. They might not love it but they don't have an aversion to it...especially as recalls should be taught with +R which the dog likes....not like with pain or intimidation. I would agree about the stern voice mind.
Canislupess 1 year ago
@Canislupess You cannot use a dictionary for a scientific term. Aversion is a stimuli a subject will avoid. Not everything is pain or "intimidation (not sure what you mean by that). There is not hing wrong with my high drive herding dog. +R is not going to work as Stock has a higher reward value than anything I can offer. It is called instinct - and he was bred that way. I simply command a down and go get him. Nor would I use -R or +P to try to overcome it. OC does not solve everything!!!
k9sue 1 year ago
@k9sue I've had working line BCs all my life..I know how they are. I also know sheepdog trainers who have no problem calling their high drive dogs off the stock. A BC that wouldn't be called off the stock when required would not be desirable to farmers.
How do you think they train search and rescue BCs to ignore sheep? We have sheep that roam the mountainous areas here in the UK and this is where these dogs work...and out of sight of handlers too btw...
Canislupess 1 year ago
@Canislupess Now who can't read? I never said a Border Collie could NOT be called off of stock, only that they find it "aversive". My point is "aversive" to our dogs is what they will avoid, not just physical pain. Training and Behavior modification involves us manipulating their natural behaviors and instincts to our desires. -P can be more "painful" in terms of stress than -R. Depends on the dog's perspective, not the human one. A balanced trainer knows this.
k9sue 1 year ago
@k9sue Where the heck did I say your BC couldn't be called off stock?
"Negative Reinforcement is the opposite of positive reinforcement. This involves a punishment for less than favorable performances and usually implies some kind of fear, pain or discomfort for the animal being trained. Training aids such as electrical shock collars or choke chains would fall under this category."
Tell me an instance of -R where pain/intimidation is not used.
Canislupess 1 year ago
@k9sue Also bear in mind that negative punishment happens to everyone every single day of our lives...it is a part of life and. believe it or not +R will not work without -P because they work in conjunction so don't try making -P out to be less humane than -R. All trainers who know what they are talking about know that isn't the case.
Canislupess 1 year ago
@Canislupess Guess what - -R and +P also happen to dogs everyday in "real life" and it is a natural way they learn. It is part of safety in many cases. A dog needs to learn how to avoid pain, discomfort, distress or danger. He learns it by -R and +P. An animal with no fear is a danger to himself and possibly others. A dog that has never been taught limits is unreliable and in some cases nuerotic. Yes, -R and +P can be abuse, when the stimulus is too severe or uncalled for.
k9sue 1 year ago
@k9sue Things that happen to dogs by chance/accident etc...is one thing...for the owner to inflict it upon them is another completely. It erodes trust in the owner, ruins the bond between dog and owner and makes the dog learn to only offer undesirable behaviours when the owner isn't around...because they don't get punished then...this is why such techniques aren't much use for real training.
Canislupess 1 year ago
@Canislupess "All trainers who know what they are talking about know that isn't the case." What an egotistical statement. You know the minds of all trainers? I have news for you, all trainers do not think like you. I just reads a book by a dog trainer wth a PhD in Animal Behavior. She stated the opposite. Mental stress can be much more inhumane to a dog than mild physical discomcort. That has been proven in studies.
k9sue 1 year ago
@k9sue Yes but where is the proof that -P is what causes most mental stress? How could +R work without also using -P? Do you reward your dogs whether they get something right or not...so that they never learn which is which...or do you not reward them when they get it wrong? THAT is -P and it is needed for the dog to be able to differentiate between the correct and incorrect behaviour...or it couldn't learn what we wanted at all.
Canislupess 1 year ago
@k9sue Plus, who's to say that I'm not in direct contact with behaviourists with PhDs, which I am, reading books by such people, which I currently am and have done etc....I know what they think because they've told me themselves. They don't use -R in training. They use +R and -P.
Canislupess 1 year ago
@Canislupess You said ALL not some. You seem to be very good at hearing only what you want to hear.
k9sue 1 year ago
@k9sue I must have seriously good hearing then to be able to "hear" what you are typing.
You described a scenario and it wasn't actually -R and you didn't go into specifics regarding the +P in learning either...plus you talk like you just assume the dog hates the noise when you're not in a position to know that unless the dog acts scared of the noise.....plus I know it's easy to teach such a behaviour without the need for either +p or -R so why use them when you don't have to?
Canislupess 1 year ago
@Canislupess Again with the reading disability. I made no claim that the dog "hates" anything. The dog avoids the noise and that is an observable phenomena. "Afraid"?, you are making an asumption here. You cannot teach this without the noise, it is the stimulus, which by nature is unplesant. We do teach it without +P and do use +R as well.
k9sue 1 year ago
@k9sue My hearing assistance dogs learn to "turn off" the annoying sound of a fire alarm they must go to their owner and lead them to the noise."
Here you imply that the dog finds the noise annoying (Aversive) and you also class the scenario as -R which would require the dog to find the noise unpleasant. There is no evidence at all that the dog finds the noise annoying or unpleasant and that it is trying to "Avoid" it. Thats like saying a dog tries to avoid the verbal cue "Sit" by sitting.
Canislupess 1 year ago
@k9sue Calling the dog off the stock would still not be classed as something the dog had an aversion to. At worst, it would be classed as -P which is taking away something the dog wants. I have already stated I have no issue with -P as well as using +R...plus I also stated yet again that I used CC with one of my dogs but yet you still keep going on that OP isn't the only way as if I didn't know.
Plus - if you can't use a dictionary for the definition of a term, what the heck can you use?
Canislupess 1 year ago
@Canislupess Scientific terms are defined in Textbooks and academic papers, not Webster's. Try using Webster's for "negative" "positive" or "punishment" as they are commonly defined compared to the OC definitions. The whole point of formal terminology is use only one standard definition for clarity. "Aversive" mean avoid and nothing more, that is the OC definition. Just like "negative" means to remove, positive means to add and "punishment" means only to reduce repetition of a behavior.
k9sue 1 year ago
@k9sue Yes, I already know all that stuff but you tell me where you can implement -R with a dog that doesn't involve pain or intimidation? Don't tell me an instance of -P followed by +R.
Canislupess 1 year ago
@Canislupess My hearing assistance dogs learn to "turn off" the annoying sound of a fire alarm they must go to their owner and lead them to the noise. This is a life saying skill. It is taught with -R (sound stops with the behavior). The dog is also rewarded -+R at the completion. +P primarilyly is used in learning. -R is minimal but still important in reliability in much of service dog training. Nothing used ever hurts or causes pain to the dog.
k9sue 1 year ago
@k9sue The dogs don't know automatically before training to lead the owner to the noise. The dog must be taught to actually do that by another means. Basically, the fire alarm is a cue just like a verbal "Sit" is a cue to put their bum to the floor. The whole thing can be taught via +R and -P. If the dogs don't act bothered by the alarm, who's to say that it is actually aversive to them?
Canislupess 1 year ago
@Canislupess That is pretty silly. No dog knows what you want before you show them. That is the purpose of training. Ever heard of shaping? -R can be use in shaping just as easily as +P. +P is almost always the best choice for the average dog. Did you know -R is the most resistant to extinction?
k9sue 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@k9sue I have used shaping to teach my dogs hundreds of behaviours thank you...and I used only +R and -P in order to do this.
Variable ratio reinforcement is most resistant to extinction...and that involves a lower ratio of +R and a hifher ratio of -P...not -R.
Canislupess 1 year ago
@Canislupess What? You need to read that chapter on reinforcement ratios again. Reinforcement schedules apply to all four quadrants of learning, not just +R. +P and -P both stop behavior. -R and +R both increase (teach). What behaviors do you reinforce (increase) and punish (stop) at the same time? -P is removing a desirable to stop unwanted behavior. +P is NOT withholding a treat until the dog gets it correctly, that is +R. Ratios are how often the reinforcer is applied..
k9sue 1 year ago
@k9sue I never said that variable ratio didn't apply to all quadrants...I only referred to one. Where did I say it did NOT apply to all quadrants?
After speaking to another trainer/behaviourist about this conversation, they agreed that it is you who seems to be clueless about what you are talking about. Especially describing the assistance dog with the alarm sceneario as being -R when it is not even a quadrant, it is a response to a cue.
Canislupess 1 year ago
@k9sue " Do you reward your dogs whether they get something right or not...so that they never learn which is which...or do you not reward them when they get it wrong? THAT is -P "
That is what I put....so, where did I say that witholding a treat was +P? Seriously, you make stuff up as you go along. Witholding a reward is classed as -P...it;s still denying the dog something it wants, you don't have to actually take it away from the dog in the first place you know.
Canislupess 1 year ago
@k9sue "However, the strength of the aversive can only be judged by the recipient. What the trainer may consider to be mild may be seen by the trainee as blisteringly severe. Furthermore, since all negative reinforcement, by definition, includes a punisher, making a practice of using negative reinforcement puts you at risk for all the unpredictable fallout of punishment: avoidance, secrecy, fear, confusion, resistance, passivity, and reduced initiative, as well as spillover associations.....
Canislupess 1 year ago
@k9sue Continued....
" in which anything that happens to be around, including the training environment and the trainer, becomes distasteful or disliked, something to be avoided or even fled from. "
From an article at karen pryors clicker training website....unless you want to argue that too regarding -R.
Canislupess 1 year ago
@k9sue "Clicker trainers use negative punishment, which is the removal of something the dog wants. For example, ""penalty yards" (TM pending, Lana Horton)" is a common method used in teaching loose leash walking. The dog sees something it wants. As long as the dog walks nicely, the trainer lets it walk toward what it wants. However, if the dog pulls, the trainer walks the dog backwards....continued.....
Canislupess 1 year ago
@k9sue Continued....."Walk nicely; get what you want—positive reinforcement. Pull; lose what you want—negative punishment. This method is extremely clear to the dog, because getting or losing what it wants is controlled by the dog's actions."
Another article from the karen pryor clicker training site.
Canislupess 1 year ago
@k9sue Remember that super observers do not exist....the only one really inside a dogs head is THAT dog. Unless there are outward signs that a dog does not like the sound, you are not in a position to say they don't like it....and if there was outward signs, it would be very inhumane to force the dog to work under that kind of stress. Assistance dogs in the UK are taught via clicker training...they don't use +P and -R.
Canislupess 1 year ago
@Canislupess Assistance dogs here are clicker trained as well. Any +P or -R would come only in the distraction/duration building phases of impulse control. An assistance dog without impulse control is worthless. All "corrections" are minimal.
k9sue 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@k9sue Funnily enough, impulse control can easily be taught via +R and -P...Kikopup demonstrates this clearly in her tutorial videos on here and I have also taught my dogs plenty of impulse control exercises and none involved the use of +P or -R.
Canislupess 1 year ago
@Canislupess I can use negative reinforcement by simply using my leash to hold my dog until HE relaxes (no pain, just mild pressure). I can reward him with praise or a treat when he returns focus to me. Operant conditioning is not THE only way a dog learns.Dogs can benefit from knowing what NOT to do as long as you first teach them what TO do with reward. There is NEVER a reason or need to HURT a dog under any circumstances.
k9sue 1 year ago
@k9sue It must still be aversive enough to the dog for him to feel "Relieved" once the pressure is taken away...if not, he will habituate and ignore it especially if the reward from the undesirable behaviour is too high. Humane training does not involve +P or -R.
+R and -P are all you need to actually train dogs and classical conditioning to change emotional responses.
Canislupess 1 year ago
@Canislupess Habituation takes place only when the dog finds the motivation higher value than the aversive. Trainers that allow a dog to self reward (continue pulling) while using an aversive creat habituation. That is why pinch and other severe collars fail, the owner continues to reward the pulling by letting the dog keep going. +R and -P are great if you want to train agility, flyball and tricks in a controled environment. Positive does not mean permissive! OC is not the only tool.
k9sue 1 year ago
@k9sue I would have thought my post first mentioning habituation makes it clear I know how it works. I specifically stated that if the dog isn't bothered by the leash pressure and the reward of the undesirable behaviour is too strong, that would cause habituation....but it also happens even with harsher methods that work for a time but cease to work after so long because the dog gets used to it.
Canislupess 1 year ago
@k9sue I'd also like to add that I have used OC and classical conditioning for behaviour modification as well....works just as well as with tricks etc...
Canislupess 1 year ago
@Canislupess Classical conditioning is a every useful tool in an behaciorist's toolbag. This is not the place to discuss the enitre gambit of Learning, something I have been both learning and teaching for 35+ years. I have bben appling "theory" to application in the real world as a succesdul competiion dog trainer for as long. You want to oversimpfy the subject. What "works" best for the dog from HIS point of vies is my only concern as a trainer. 100% positive is not the complete answer.
k9sue 1 year ago
@k9sue For heavens sake...have I not already stated that I also use CC? Look back through my posts and tell me that I haven't. Also look back through my posts and tell me where I stated OP is the ONLY way. You are obsessed with this OP is not the only way and CC is a vaulable tool and I never even disagreed about that in the first place...geez, try reading my posts!!! Pity your 35+ years of training haven't helped you get good at reading what other humans type.
Canislupess 1 year ago
@Canislupes same to you...why do you keep arguing when you agree with what I said? They call it projection. I am bored with this circular discussion.
k9sue 1 year ago
@k9sue I wasn't the one keep repeating things like"OC isn't the only way", when I had already mentioned several times that I use/d CC.
My original argument was that you stated negative reinforcement doesn't involve pain/intimidation and I stated that you need to apply an unpleasant stimulus in the first place for you to them remove which is why chokers/prongs etc...are classed as -R. It was a simple correction of a description of a method but you seemed to drag all these other concepts into it
Canislupess 1 year ago
@Canislupess Yes, negative reinforcement does not have to involve pain. "Intimidation" is your word and has no clear definition. -R only involves something the dog will work to avoid. Pain is not nesessary.
k9sue 1 year ago
@k9sue For a dog to learn to avoid it, it has to be directly unpleasant to them. Don't mistake instances of negative punishment for negatove reinforcement like you have been doing such as calling a dog off stock...thats not negative reinforcement, thats negative punishment.
Canislupess 1 year ago
@Canislupess I did not say calling a dog off of stock was -R, only that a high drive dog finds being removed from stock "aversive". OC only comes into play when you are trying to change behavior. I do not want to change his herding behavior at all.
k9sue 1 year ago
@k9sue Still not in the sense that they would be afraid of it. That is the difference, feeling a bit disappointed and being afraid. My dogs might feel a bit disappointed when I put their balls away in my pocket after play and training...but they aren't afraid of me doing it. We all have things happen that aren't to our liking, it's part of life...but it's different scaring or hurting somebody/something. Methods that scare or hurt are generally whats used in -R.
Canislupess 1 year ago
@Canislupess Yes, some people do nasty things to dogs in the name of training. People do use methods that scare or hurt dogs. That does not mean all trainers use those levels of avoidance, or that -R and +P have no place in responsible, effective dog training. You can use +P and or -R without the extreme. Dogs who never know limits or consequences are not as reliable as ones that do. What is unfair is using too harsh of consequences or using them without any +P.
k9sue 1 year ago
@k9sue If you look up Kikopup on here, she's a very good example that +P and -R are NOT needed in training....she doesn't use any at all and have posted plenty of videos to prove that you don't. I don't even think that the less harsh versions of +P and -R are necessary and, again, just create avoidance behaviours or external rewards outweigh the level of aversion in the +P/-R so the dog does it regardless...the number of times I've seen ppls dogs do that!!
Canislupess 1 year ago
@Canislupess Your logic fails here. I am sure there a many people who can train dogs with only +R and -P. I know hundreds of very poorly behaved dogs that use only +R and -P as well. That proves nothing. I also know trainers who use minimal +R and stil have reliable, enthusiiatic winnign performance dogs. That also proves nothing. Dog training is a skill, learned with education and experience with many types venues and conditions. There is no one "correct" method.
k9sue 1 year ago
@k9sue My logic only fails in your eyes. Don't blame +R-P method though for people who are poor at utilizing it. I have heard that argument to try and justify +P and -R way too often.
Canislupess 1 year ago
@Canislupess Your logic fails in all ways. Some does not prove all. You cannot claim it both ways. You are accusing -R and +P of being "damaging" also based on people who abuse it. Effective and humane trainers do what is best for the individual dog in the individual setting and do not waste time setting absolutes in theory.
k9sue 1 year ago
@k9sue I would also like to point out that the trainer/behaviourist I spoke to said there are NO studies proving that -P causes more stress than -R so I welcome you to provide links to some.....which I know you won't because there aren't any.
Canislupess 1 year ago
@Canislupess choke, pinch collars, ecollars (which should be illegal) and such can be used either for +P or -R. If I can't walk a dog on a flat buckle collar it is a training problem, not an equipment problem. Raising the severity of the aversion stimulus is not the answer. Proper training technique is the answer.
k9sue 1 year ago
@k9sue Again, tell me something I don't already know.
Canislupess 1 year ago
@k9sue Plus you spoke to me as if I had no idea what the 4 quadrants of OP were when it was you that mistyped and put -R and gave it the description that would be classed as -P.
Canislupess 1 year ago
@Canislupess Intersting, since you were the one who replied to a post of mine telling me I was incorrect. The mistype was in a much later post.
k9sue 1 year ago
@k9sue Well you must've just been wrong then rather than a mistype because you said that negative reinforcement didn't involve doing anything unpleasant to the dog but negative reinforcement works by removing something highly unpleasant so you have to add it in the first place. It is negative punishment that doesn't involve actual pain/intimidation.
Canislupess 1 year ago
@Canislupess Again - who can't read? I said -R does not have to involve pain!!!!! PAIN PAIN PAIN. Is that better? It does involve avoidance. Negative punishment can involve a lot of stress, in fact there are studies to prove it is be more stressful on a dog than actual PAIN!!!! Again with the not scientific word "intimidation". I do not know what you mean by that and I have never used it. I do not "intimidate" dogs or their owners at any time.
k9sue 1 year ago
@k9sue The actual verbal/written definition of -R might not state pain but in order for it to take place, the dog needs to have a present aversive stimulus removed....and the only real stimuli you can control in a way to make it class as -R involve pain/intimidation. (Intimidation meaning to make the dog feel afraid that something bad will happen to them such as telling them off or threatening body language.)
-P happens ALl the time and there is nothing you can do to stop it anyway.
Canislupess 1 year ago
@Canislupess Plus, like I said, you need -P to make +R work and if you don't realise that, you don't understand the learning theory very well at all.
Canislupess 1 year ago
@Canislupess "The actual verbal/written definition of -R might not state pain but in order for it to take place, the dog needs to have a present aversive stimulus removed...."
At Last! We have come full circle. That is what I said in the first place! NO PAIN! Avoidance yes. What you follow that sentence with is totally untrue. Your opinion is not fact. Dogs will avoid many things that do not involve fear or pain. My dog will avoid my "ah, ah" which is neither painful nor threatening.
k9sue 1 year ago
@k9sue "Ah Ah" is actually a form of intimidation....perhaps not in your opinion but if you dogs dislike it enough to avoid it, it must be to them....if it wasn't, why the heck would they try and avoid it?
Also, theory is one thing but in practise, the only real elements you can physically control in a fashion to make it -R are those that cause fear or pain....which is why -R is not generally recommended in training.
Canislupess 1 year ago
@Canislupess There you go trying to use an undefinable word. Again who is the super observer. How the hell do you know if my dog is "intimidated" by an "ah, ah"? I can call it trust and respect just as easily and I know my dog. I did not have to hurt her either. I means nothing more than refocus on me.
Who said -R was recommended in training? I sure don't and said so many times. +R is always the best method of training. I only said -R does not have to be painful or "damaging".
k9sue 1 year ago
@k9sue Look up Alexandra Semyonova's work to find out what a 'Super observer' is.
If a dog wasn't intimidated by something, why would it avoid it? Makes no sense. If something didn't bother me, i wou;dn't care less whether it happened or not....if I was to learn to avoid it, it would be because I found it quite unpleasant. This is how I know your dog is intimidated by the Ah ah and, as I've seen it used, I know that dogs often respond with calming signals...however subtle to humans.
Canislupess 1 year ago
@Canislupess I am quite familiar with Alexandra's work and have corresponded with her on the Internet about dog behavior thank you. Again with the "intimidation" which you seem to think means fear. Annoyance is not fear, intimidation, pain or damaging. The dog avoids it is observable - one of my dogs avoids walking on wet grass, she neither fears, is intimidated nor "hates" it, but she does find it unpleasant or she would not avoid it. You do NOT know if my dog is "intimidated".
k9sue 1 year ago
@k9sue I am quite familiar with Alexandra's work and have corresponded with her on the Internet about dog behavior thank you.
So have I and I remember how she describes a super observer in her research paper whereas you obviously didn't.
You also can hardly compare wet grass to negative attention directed at them by yourself...duh!!
Canislupess 1 year ago
@k9sue Also, for somebody who's supposed to be familiar with Alexandra's work, you state that a term she uses quite a lot in her paper is an 'Undefinable' word......Laughable:P
Canislupess 1 year ago
@k9sue Wet grass causes an unpleasant sensation un the undersides of her feet obviously which is a physical sensation...as you are not a super observer, you are not in a position to be able to state how much she dislikes it. Only she can know that. She might seriously hate it but the grass doesn't chase her so she doesn't need to panic so to speak. Other than feeling even a little intimidated, where is the unpleasantness in a verbal cue? There isn't any other than a feeling of intimidation.
Canislupess 1 year ago
@Canislupess So now you can see across the Atlantic and read my dog's signals better than I can. Are you delusional or just insane? Quite frankly I find your self righteous, egotistical, narrow minded attitude not only insulting but quite unpleasant. I neither fear nor am I intimidated by you, but you are quite annoying. So your +P has worked on me, I will now avoid you. Have a great time with your dogs and their tricks. I will continue treating dogs with the respect they deserve.
k9sue 1 year ago
@k9sue I don't need to see the dog purely because common sense itself says that a dog must find something unpleasant in order to avoid it. If it is not unpleasant why would the dog avoid it? You defy basic common sense, nevermind logic.
Canislupess 1 year ago
@k9sue I have had dogs myself all my life and made plenty of mistakes in the past that I learnt from and one of the things I learnt is that anything verbal that comes out of your mouth is NOT going to cause avoidance in dogs unless it is a prelude to pain or makes them feel intimidated in some way.
Canislupess 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@k9sue "Using positive reinforcement to teach and negative reiforceent (not punishment) to set limits creates a balanced dog and a great relationship. "
This is what you said and if thats not recommending -R, I don't know what is.
Canislupess 1 year ago
@k9sue I would also point out the fact that as i use -P in conjunction with +R, it's hardly possible to accuse me of thinking 100% positive is the complete answer.
Canislupess 1 year ago
@Canislupess @Canislupess Classical Conditioning is an umbrella term that encoinpases a myriad of techniques. Aversion, pain and other avoidance stimulses fall into this catagory. Some pretty damn cruel experiments of the past were done on animals in the name of Classical Conditioning.
k9sue 1 year ago
@k9sue Tell me something I don't know...don't know why you're coming out with all this when I already know it anyway.
Canislupess 1 year ago
@Canislupess It is obvuious that you think you already know everything. So why do you keep arguing? When people say "I already know it all" is a sure sign that they have stopped learning.
k9sue 1 year ago
@k9sue No thats you trying to be a super observer yet again. I continue to read up, work with my own dogs, talk with trainers and behaviourists. I am always looking to learn new things. I do know the difference between the 4 quadrants of learning theory though and can tell which applies in real life scenarios. Just because I claim to know that doesn't mean I claim to know everything so don't try using that one...it's pathetic.
Canislupess 1 year ago
@k9sue If he doesn't find the leash aversive, then the method would be better classed as -P because obviously something he wants has been taken away as a result of pulling, lunging..whatever...such as attention, freedom to move forward etc....people often mistake -P and -R with each other.
Canislupess 1 year ago
@Canislupess You seem to want to argie with me, but keep repeating what I just said.+R and -P can be working at the same. Am I reinforcing the loose leash walking or stopping the pulling? It is just a matter of semantics. My point is neither "hurts" the dog with pain.
k9sue 1 year ago
@k9sue Thats true that +R and -P do not include pain or other aversives and work in conjunction with each other but, before, you were saying that about -R and with -R you have to take something away that the dog does not like....such as pain or intimidation because the taking away of pain of intimidation is the reinforcement in that method....unless you meant to say negative punishment instead of negative reinforcement.
Canislupess 1 year ago
@Canislupess I did mistype. -R and -P are often two sides of the same coin. Are you -R behavior - loose leash walking or decreasing pulling -P by taking away the reward (walking). Aversive is something a dog will avoid. My agility dog found the teeter aversive because the motion scared her. It did not hurt her. She avoided it at all costs. +R was useless as the fear was stronger than any reward. Desensitization and counter conditioning were required. +R and -P are NOT the only way.
k9sue 1 year ago
@k9sue Don't you read what I put? Did I not say that I use both OP AND classical conditioning (Same as counter conditioning) for behaviour modification...check back again and you'll see that I did.
Funnily enough, one of my BC Sleet also had an aversion to the see saw as we call them over here. I used classical counter conditioning to change her emotional response to it and now she's fine. You still need something rewarding though for CC. I used treats and toys.
Canislupess 1 year ago
@Canislupess I am so happy that worked for you. One of many successful trainings methods. As a specialist in problem dogs I require many different techniques and +R, counter conditioning and extinction are the methods of choice. Every situation with the owners abilities can be as different as the dog problems themselves. +P and -R are rarely needed in normal conditions. There are limites times when avoidance is necessary. Limiting tools handicaps you. That is my final statement on the matter.
k9sue 1 year ago
@k9sue +R still came into it though because she was clicked and given a treat for every step she made towards the see saw and then for stepping onto it and moving over it etc....so she was learning via +R that if she stepped onto the see saw and moved over it, she was rewarded but classical conditioning also took place because the treats were changing her emotional response to the see saw.
I used the same technique when she was scared of a burnt out car down the local fields. Worked in minutes.
Canislupess 1 year ago
One common mistake that people make is to confuse “training and obedience” with “leadership”. In my experience, they are different.
micrasheep 1 year ago
I think there is an issue with peoples undestanding of "dominant" which we are educated to understand as being a negative term.
When Victoria talks of dominant she talks of bullying and violence, when cesar talks of dominant he means to be confidently in charge.
I "dominate" my dog but do not beat/starve etc her. I am just the boss, just like I am with my children. When they are naughty, they know they are in trouble and when they are good they know that too.
My dog behaves for me, but is
micrasheep 1 year ago
naughty for my partner and children. When they come in the house she jumps on them and is very hyper but she will not do the same to me. She will refuse to leave the room etc for my partner and kids but will go for me.
She doesnt do this because she is afraid, she does it because she knows that I am in charge, just like the other animals I work with (horses and livestock)
Dominate is not stilwells naive version, it is simply to take control.
micrasheep 1 year ago
Victoria Stilwell is a bitch... she needs some Milan based corrections of her behaviour and I'm glad to help out. What a complete retard.
BasilHoneycup 1 year ago
All of you saying that Negatiive behavior training works faster then Positive are wrong because its not fixing the behavior it's just supressing it and eventually when all this supressed behavior builds up that dog could lash out with an aggressive response.
GalinaRalyn 1 year ago
@bluegama500
she doesn't say she's the best, but she knows what the best technique is. i've seen her shows and she observes the animals and gets down to the root of the problem which has a more lasting effect.
fantomroyale 1 year ago
@fantomroyale
She doesnt what she says when the US female trainer says you are not god of dog training...victoria says "yes I am, because I follow the very best in this country!" ?
WTF
micrasheep 1 year ago
@bluegama500
"bitch" probably can train any dog cases with better and longer lasting results....
fantomroyale 1 year ago
i can't very good speak English. What they say? Please write. I must understandt it with translator. It's the besy ;D
WhiteRabbitPL 1 year ago
haha it`s funny
WhiteRabbitPL 1 year ago
Wendy is 100% correct. We all don't wanna go with your way, Victoria! Wendy is right, he has his way, and she has her way, she needs to but out of business! You can't be all lovey dovey in training, you have to be like boot camp to them, and then they will listen! I hate people that baby their dogs. I HATE it.
SWLHPro 1 year ago
@SWLHPro
it's not "babying" it's positive training...
fantomroyale 1 year ago
@SWLHPro You're being ignorant. She doesn't "baby" dogs, she trains them only by rewarding them for positive behavior. That means there are no consequences for bad behavior, just rewards. This way works much better because it solves the dogs' problems, rather than suppressing them.
Prismer6 1 year ago
Lol she says dominant/submissive training is medieval, but did she ever see herself on tv? She's dressed and acts like an sm mistress! She's like the dominator of dominance!
sn3ax 1 year ago
get her!
AeronRotiart9 1 year ago
go to hell victoria! if you followed the best in the industry, you would understand that positive training doesnt work with all dogs. cesar milan and other dog psychologists do not use "medieval" methods of training. do your research.
CaislinnK 1 year ago
@CaislinnK
how do you know "positive training doesn't work with all dogs." that's an assumption... and actually she seems to do a lot of research!
fantomroyale 1 year ago
0:24 his face is priceless :P
Tyllica 1 year ago
Wendy Diamond's a bitch.
SrslyAnnoyed 1 year ago 2
damn i never seen victoria stilwelll bad side. that's my girl!!!!! you go girl
CLRaider 1 year ago 3
you know cesar have class this woman dont have any....
you can see the face of the dog owner? is like wtf...haha.
Cesar regardless the continues attack from this kind of people still is the number one dog behaviourist ...so VS please take a vicodin or something and comeback to teach "postive training" when your enrgy is calm and assertive :D
rockero1590 1 year ago
@putt7 that's very true. positive reinforcement is great to train. but as cesar once said, a dog in the red zone won't listen to a cookie. my friend had a problem with her rottweiler wanting to attack people. when she calmed it down and tried to give it a treat while people were around to associate people with positive feelings, it failed. he couldn't be distracted even. we finally had to subdue him and he never went wild again. and it's not like it physically hurts the animal. ur not beating it
darkchibicosmos 1 year ago
The other woman did not begin the argument. Victoria overstepped her boundaries. She did not have to begin an argument, and she is NOT the God of dog training. I would love to see her work with a wolf or wolf hybrid - as Cesar has; then I will become impressed. Until then, I have not seen her as the cause of any dog being rehabilitated so that it could keep its home. I have never seen her work with a canine that was extremely aggressive. When has Victoria ever helped rescue dogs?
jmchugh73 1 year ago
pimp slap that other lady victoria!
0thevushi0 1 year ago
Go Victoria.
allisoninouye 1 year ago
Go Victoria.
allisoninouye 1 year ago
i have to agree with the first person who talked. people have different methods and you have to deal with that.
PartyLily14 1 year ago
Honestly, I think Victoria's a great trainer but I also think, in some cases, Cesar's methods work as well. What bothered me was how obnoxious the other judge was during their argument. What a 5th grade method of argument on her part -- and so in that respect, I'm definitely on Victoria's side.
angrypizzagirl 1 year ago 3
wow catfight :p
rosa4523 1 year ago
Oh snap! I can imagine two dogs fighting aggressively as they bicker XD
XxPnuemaxX 1 year ago
I love Victoria Stilwell. :)
BradleyHowingtonYo 1 year ago
agree with victoria stillwell ... :)
ur awesome victoria!
AnimeLover5838 1 year ago
I don't like My Way or the Highway sense of things, they always muss things up.
I'm starting to think Ms. Stillwell isn't all she's cracked up to be...
Everybody has their own opinions. The dog was trained very well and proofed in it, not sure what's to argue.
CalvinWarbler 1 year ago
victoria for the win!
greatonisionfan 1 year ago
Victoria Stilwell can't even do proper marker training with dogs. Stop drinking the kool-aid people. Do some actual research and be open to other approaches before seeing an ACTRESS on TV incorrectly show you how to mark a response.
She is from the Animal Behaviorist College. She follows their teachings wholeheartedly and if you think that organization doesn't have a slant on their research, then you are sadly mistaken.
jcham979 1 year ago 2
Victoria is the best trainer ever but at least she is up on the latest research and studies.
CrueLoaf 1 year ago
I pity the dogs who are trained by people like Cesar Milan. Those people are not trainers and they use very old fashioned harmful technique's.
A dog shouldn't listen to you because it is scared. It is far more difficult of making dogs happy en motivate them to do what you want them to do. If you can do that then you are a good trainer. You need a lot more skills and knowlegde for this, then if you are just supressing them.
MsNadja1982 1 year ago
Victoria is much better than al the other trainers who use supressing methods to make their dogs obey.
MsNadja1982 1 year ago
LoL she's ridiculous indeed ^^
lightenlynx 1 year ago
Victoria is the BEST! I'm only 13 years old, but I've watched her videos sice I was 10. I learned from them. I've trained pratically ALL my friends' dogs and its really afftetive,a dn leaves the dog very happy.
kiwinam 1 year ago
GO VICTORIA !!!! victoria knows exactly what she is talking about the other lady is stupid and dumb
Pitbulllover171 2 years ago 4
Why would you want your dog to fear you? You want the dog to love you, if you don't want that dog to love you whats the point in owning one?
DontDoDrugsSmokeHERB 2 years ago
She's right. People like Cesar Millan take all the fun out of owning a dog.
LaLiLuLeLo1991 2 years ago
go vick
lrigyrtnuocyelyah 2 years ago
Victoria is a pseudo-intellectual. SHe is clearly wrong and stupidly misunderstands JD and Galaxy's relation. How can she assert that JD trained by domination. We are never shown the history of any of these dogs' training. And how can she