From: crs@beta.lanl.gov (Charlie Sorsby)
Newsgroups: rec.pets.dogs
Subject: Re: Motivational Methods
Date: 28 Sep 92 15:57:45 GMT
Article-I.D.: newshost.1992Sep28.155745.3849
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory

In article <23728@alice.att.com> rhh@alice.att.com (r hardin) writes:
= 
= 
= >>In my opinion, truly good trainers would not consider themselves in
= >>one "camp" or the other.  I know I will probably be flamed for this,
= >>but in my opinion, good trainers are flexible and treat dogs as
= >>individuals, applying different *tools* from either "camp" plus their
= >>own experience to "motivate" the dog to *enjoy* accomplishing task A.
= 
= >Thanks for putting it so well, Stephen.  That is exactly how I describe
= >dog training to my students.  I tell them to learn every technique they
= >can to "fill up their training toolbox".  Not every tool will work in
= >every situation or with every dog, so the more "tools" you have backing
= >you up, the better a trainer you will be.
= >I train "mostly" motivational because it does wonders for a dog's attitude,
= >but I "get physical" on rare occasions when it's called for.
= 
= That's what everybody says, is it true?
= 
= Schools have gotten a lot more flexible too, and education has not
= improved.  Educators have a really good conscience though.

I'm not sure if you are misinterpreting the stuff you've quoted or
I'm misundestanding the point that you're making.  I don't see how
your analogy about the schools relates to what your included quotes
are saying.

There are many ways of being flexible and, depending on
circumstances, the result may be good or bad.  In the material that
you've quoted above, *my* interpretation of what they are saying is
about flexibility in the good sense.  Having many tools makes you
flexible in the sense that you will be more likely to have the
right tool to do the job at hand.  I don't believe that they are
suggesting flexibility in the sense (that I infer you mean in your
analogy about the school system) of letting the dog get away with
disobedience or even with not responding the way that one wanted.
Indeed, it seems to me that one would be more likely to do that if
one did *not* have enough tools to afford the flexibility of
selecting the one that best fits the dog, the trainer, and the
situation at hand.

Perhaps you will clarify how your analogy was intended.

= How'd you rate Koehler as a trainer?  I think truly good might fit.
= Can you think of any flaw to deny him this description?  Any dog
= he couldn't train, even one?
= 
= He's won awards for taking on hopeless cases.
= 
= The ``cruel trainer'' as he puts it, gets the cases the humaniacs can't
= handle.  Nowadays they just euthanize untrainable dogs.
= 
= Put simply: an effective correction, delivered absolutely impersonally, is the
= quickest, clearest, cleanest way to let the dog know that he's now
= responsible for exactly THIS.

If your definition of correction is sufficiently flexible to
include showing the dog what you expect, I couldn't agree more.  If
it means punishing the dog for not being able to read your mind, I
couldn't *disagree* more.

Please allow me to illustrate with an example.  You are to teach a
dog to sit.  It has never been taught to do so and has no idea what
the word "Sit" means.  If by correction, you mean placing the dog
gently into the sitting position while saying the command word,
that's fine.  If you mean, for example, snatching at the lead on
the choke chain while saying "Sit" that's not fine.  If the dog
doesn't know what is expected, you can "correct" until you are blue
in the face (an old expression from where I come from) and until
the dog is corrected to death and it will produce no desirable
result.

It seems to me that what both the authors you quoted in your post
are saying is what you seem to be suggesting as well.  Show the dog
what is expected and, once it understands don't tolerate
disobedience.  There are many ways of doing both the "showing" and
the "correcting" and the more of them you know, the more likely you
are to know the best way for *that* dog at *that* time under
*those* circumstances and with *your* characteristics as a
trainer.

= If you think it won't work on your dog, please explain why Koehler
= himself couldn't train it using the methods he recommends.

Many methods will work on many dogs but *some* methods, I believe,
will work better on *some* dogs.  What is wrong with using the
method that is most effective with the dog in question?

= The reason there are ``camps'' is that some people don't want to
  ^^^\___*A* reason, not *The* reason

= correct their dogs - these people are interested in themselves,
= which is something that gets in the way of training.

Other reasons are that some people believe X while others believe Y
and that some people believe that the same method will work as well
on every dog as it does on the one they've just trained and that
some people believe that only the method that they either invented
or that they first learned is any good and ...

= Bad morality with a good conscience.

While I don't disagree with you that there *are* people such as you
describe and I agree that you phrase above is very apt for them, I
did not interpret the material that you quoted as suggesting
anything of the kind.

= I've had people explain to me that it makes dogs robots if you
= train them that way, as if my dog Susie weren't there any more,
= the brightest eyed, most attentive dog I know, as they have
= just remarked themselves.
= 
= Tired of seeing dogs put down as untrainable after their
= owners give up on obedience training.

You make some good points but I still don't see how they are
contrary to anything suggested in the material that you quoted.
Are you saying that *only* the Koehler method is any good?  Isn't
that just about as close-minded as those who say that a choke chain
is OK but an electronic training collar is inhumane?

Is it not true that Method A, well done, is likely to work better
than Method B, poorly done?  Thus, all else being equal, a method
that a given trainer is comfortable with is likely to work better
for him (or her, of course) than one that he is uncomfortable with
for the latter is apt to be done poorly and uncertainly and the dog
will sense the trainers hesitancy (for lack of ability to think of
a better word).  Does that mean that that particular trained should
avoid knowing about both methods?  Of course not.  That's the whole
point:  Know as many methods as you can find and use the one or
ones that best fit your own personality, that of the dog, and the
situation that exists at the time.  That's the point of knowing
many methods and of not joining any camp because as soon as you
join a camp, you are quite likely to close your mind to the methods
of the other camps.

Well, sorry folks.  I got diarrhea of the keyboard again...

-- 
Best,

Charlie "Older than dirt" Sorsby				"I'm the NRA!"
	  crs@lanl.gov