Talk:Dog training/Archive 1

Article start

I'm certainly not claiming any of this as the last word, but I thought we needed an article on dog training, so I did this brain dump. Please feel free to add or subtract as you think appropriate. The training techniques in particular are very skimpy. Ortolan88 06:37, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Not a bad start at all. This article really needed writing. I kept thinking about doing it myself, but I am no good at writing full articles. A couple of things I think need some attention:

• the article in general has a slight POV feel to me for some reason, but I can't point to anything specific... it might just be me though...
• breaking of the "fourth wall" isn't real good

[[User:Lachatdelarue|Lachatdelarue (talk)]] 16:08, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The POV all comes from my dog. I'm as neutral as can be. Seriously, most of it probably comes because I was trying to avoid the term owner, which left me with only master and keeper. But I know that people are put off by the idea of being the master, and the only thing I could think of was to say it right out, fourth wall be damned:

Do not let the term master put you off. Dogs are not humans and having a master does not make them slaves.

Same for the command voice section. Using it scares some people. Maybe this stuff could be better handled in a section on Responsibilities of dog keepers.

I don't expect my first draft to survive intact, but I didn't feel like waiting until I had solved all the problems of writing the article before writing it. I meant it as an open-ended opportunity for all to join in, Wikipedia style.

Completely missing are:

• Specific techniques for teaching each command
• A section on housebreaking
• Crate training
• Problems -- barking, jumping up, etc.
• Advanced and specialized training
• Dog tricks
• Grooming and training. The stand command, for instance, helps a lot. Many furry dogs have to be combed every day, and often are groomed by strangers, so training to be groomed helps a lot, not to mention the effect of bonding with the dog.

Much more to be said. Woof woof, bow-wow, barky barky, and out.Ortolan88 17:50, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That's "Woof-woof, Bow Wow, woooooooooooooooooo and a bark" to YOU. We need to make sure that this isn't a how-to article--that it describes the concepts in an encyclopedic manner but doesn't turn into a user guide. For that, see Wikibooks Dog Care. Maybe. Elf | Talk 02:39, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think the trick to being encyclopedic but not a user guide would be to put enough detail in to guide a reasonable dog trainer and lead the less confident to the Wikibook. Ortolan88

Drop (it) or Down?

I learned commands the same way they are described here (mumble, mumble years ago as Elf would say). Have a comment/question, though. I'm told that what I call 'Down!' to tell the dog to lie down immediately is now called 'Drop!' to distinguish this from (get)down (off of something). However, I understand 'drop' to mean 'drop it'--leggo of whatever's in your mouth. What do the modern gurus use for 'drop it' if not 'drop'? Quill 04:03, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The professional trainers I know (not including the one that exclusively uses correction-based training <shudder>) use "down" for lie down, "drop (it)" for such, and "off" for get off that. [[User:Lachatdelarue|Lachatdelarue (talk)]] 15:22, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I had drop (meaning drop the ball or the garbage) and down (mezning lie down) in the first draft, then when I came to write about the "universal-cease-and-desist" command, I wrote drop again, then changed it to stop. Actually, my dog and assistant dog don't do this one. I saw a guy at the park one day teaching his dog to do it, and he was using the Yiddish plotz as the command.

The article could say something like this:

Commands in this article are described as to function – a list of behaviors you should be able to get your dog to perform when you want – but you may use different command words than those given here. While it may be simplestto choose short clear words that are easily understood by other humans, in fact, dogs can learn commands in any language or other communications medium, whistles, mouth sounds, hand gestures, and so forth. Ortolan88 17:25, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree; think of all those deaf dogs out there who obey sign language just fine. There are also some fairly standard gestures for common behaviors, but that's a little challenging for this venue. However, I also think that mentioning words most commonly used by English-speakers is useful. FWIW, I have always preferred the most common, time-honored terms, because if someone else is in charge of my dog for some period of time, I'd like the person to be able to use commands that they're likely to think of, such as down for lie down and sit for sitting and such. Plotz I hear fairly often (but still by a small minority of trainers); I don't know what the equivalent words are for other common behaviors. Some people deliberately use unusual words for their dogs because they don't want other people to be able to get the dog to follow orders.

As a somewhat related example, it's interesting to see agility handlers take over someone else's dog (usually because the regular handler/owner is injured); they are interested in two things: "how would you handle your dog (body language and positioning) in such-and-such a situation", and "what commands do you use for the various obstacles"? Everyone has his theory on why certain commands are best for certain situations. (e.g., is the table "hop", "up", "table", "flat"? And if your dog's name is Riot, what do you use instead of "right" in your right/left commands?) You'll see the same thing in obedience training.

The only challenge I've found in common commands is that most people w/out a lot of dog experience use "down" meaning "get off me/that" and "lie down" meaning, um, lie down. So I always have to explain that dogs don't understand synonyms and they need to use "off" for "get off". (Although there's not a really good reason why "liedown" can't be taught as a different command from "down"; it just takes a little more effort for the dog to get the distinction.) Elf | Talk 02:05, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Muzzle?

"A light muzzle also helps to train the dog"? I'm not familiar with this one. I've seen muzzles only for dogs who have a tendency to use their mouths too much, and that's a chewing or biting issue rather than the same kind of training that collars and leashes are used for. I await enlightenment-- Elf | Talk 01:02, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I was referring to the light halter or hackamore that allows simply pointing the dog's head in the direction you want to go, literally leading it by the nose. Probably should say bridle instead of muzzle. I'll change. Ortolan88

Might want to note that this can be dangerous in two ways. 1) Improper use can injure the dog. 2) If the dog can't move its head naturally when meeting other dogs, it may be unable to give signals that would have prevented a fight.

It is know as a halti or head halter Tintina 16:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Training methods

I edited out a couple of things. For example, I'd never use "stay" for a crate because Stay means stay in the position I left you, and you don't want to put that kind of restriction on a dog in a crate; I changed rewarding the dog for a stay to rewarding while in the stay because that's the behavior you want to reward, not getting up and coming to you for a reward. Everything else I merely identified as "one method is--"; for example, I teach dogs down from a stand, not from a sit, because how many dogs do you see given the "down" command who dawdle into a sit and then get stuck there or dawdle their way the rest of the way to the ground? Anyway, I wouldnt' call that one wrong, just different. :-) Elf | Talk 18:37, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I just stuck it back in, before I saw this comment. Edit it back out, if you like, but I had two thoughts in mind.

1. the crate is the "den equivalent", just like the under-table, under-bench choices, and many people use the open crate that way.
2. the article didn't mention crate training anywhere else and I thought it was better to mention it in the context of indoor behavior control rather than simply under a Related topics list.

I really liked your copy edit. Ortolan88 PS - crate training has never worked for me, but under the Swedish day bed works fine.

I understand about an open crate--but even so, do you really want your dog in a single position in the crate the whole time? I wouldn't--in any case, in such a general discussion I wouldn't present Stay as a common command for a dog in a crate. I was thinking to instead include a separate fairly common command such as "in" or "go to bed" for either crate or bed--means the dog has to remain in that restricted space but can stand up or lie down as desired. (I've heard lots of people say "crate training doesn't work for me" but I've never seen a correctly presented and trained crate NOT work for any dog. But that's a whole different topic.)

I don't really like crate training, don't like locking them up, don't mind having dogs lying all over the house, so my heart wasn't in it. Ortolan88

Ah, my friend, I once was like you. ;-) See my blather at Talk:Crate training. Elf | Talk 21:47, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Also, I removed the "used in conjunction with sit" etc. from the one command because everything is used in combination with everything else; it's not particular to that one command and so seems both misleading and confusing.

I left both of these items in for the moment because I didn't want to look like I was starting an edit war :-), but I'd rather take them out again. Elf | Talk 20:08, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No fear, moved it to make the point in conjunction with Sit and Stay rather than with Come. Ortolan88

Collar photos

I put some photos on the collar article. Question for you--for the quick-release collar, do you prefer Image:QuickCollarNeck wb.jpg or Image:QuickCollarHead wb.jpg for use on that page (other than the fact that I discovered that they are both slightly out of focus & I'll have to redo later)? Thanks. Elf | Talk 18:37, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The caption should say "quick release collar" rather than "slip collar" because it is more self-xplanatory. Both pictures are a little hard to "read" not only because of focus, but because of the decorations on the collar and the angle, and, in the second, that huge green thing in the dog's mouth that's in the center of the picture. What is a quick release collar for anyway? Ortolan88 19:54, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Captions--oops; it's OK in the article but I was in a copy-and-paste frenzy in the image pages. The quick-release collar is just a different form of buckle collar that's easier to put on and take off. The big green thing is a toy that he didn't want to put down :-) and it is very distracting, which is why it occurred to me to edit it out. So let me rephrase the question--would you prefer a close-up of the collar with tags and not showing the rest of the dog, or would you prefer a photo of the dog's head and neck with collar? I'll try to find a plain-color collar and get the little black dog to sit still without something in his mouth. (Not my dog so I'm not taking responsibility for the training ;-) .) Elf | Talk 20:08, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The closeup shot you chose is fine. More at Talk:collar. Ortolan88 20:35, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Why me? Why now?

Argggggghhhhh! I was doing so good at staying away from Wikipedia--who got me started on dog training topics?!?! I blame everyone! Elf | Talk 23:14, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Latest edits

I agree with most of the latest edits. Original material didn't mean to say that you couldn't train your pup, only that classes often weren't available for younger puppies. I have clarified that, hopefully, so it's completely clear.

I disagree with the statement that "Pinch or prong collars are not acceptable"; there are cases in which they can be used effectively when other methods don't work--in my (somewhat) limited experience, more often with dogs who haven't been properly trained at a young age, particularly the very large breeds and older rescues. I don't know of any trainer in my circle of friends who recommends using slip or prong collars any more except in certain carefully controlled situations (and most of them will say that they don't recommend them, period, but sometimes they do--).

And I think the latest edits missed the point about the command voice--sure, dogs can learn hand signals, but when commands are used, most dogs don't respond well to "come Oooonnnn, pleeeeeze siiiiiit" in a whiny, questioning, or uncertain voice. An authoritative voice absolutely does NOT mean yelling or harshness. It is the voice of command. I've attempted to rewrite that section, too. Elf | Talk 20:56, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

"Master" vs "Handler"

As I read the article, the use of the word "master" kept throwing me out. It's not a word that I am used to seeing in regard to training. I have no philosophical objection, it is just not what I consider common usage. The word I am used to seeing/hearing is "handler". Sometimes the word "trainer" is used, but the trainer is not always the hardler. A dog's handler is the person holding the leash and giving the commands. A trainer might be a second person directing the handler and perhaps performing some specialized training function. In keeping with Wikipedia philosophy, I am going to edit the article to use "handler" instead. Dsurber 22:52, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Tricks training

Whole section was removed by anon user saying it's incorrect and out of place; I see nothing wrong with a mention of trick training in an article on dog training, since that's a large part of many experienced dog owners' training regimen. I left out the part about shaking hands becoming an annoying or dangerous dominance behavior, as I've not seen it myself among many dogs, although i don't tend to see the problem dogs or owners. :-) Elf | Talk 23:18, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

POV

The entire article is POV and unreferenced. It misses out major parts of training and doesn't provide information about controversy over different types.-localzuk 22:10, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Merge?

Does anyone else think that this article would be better of merged with the Obedience training article? They contain almost the same info and maintaining 2 seems a bit pointless IMO.-localzuk 09:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, well I just left a message at your talk page. Merge. Definately!--ViolinGirl^♪ 16:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think they should be merged but we should consider what kind of info goes into each. IMHO, dog training is for the general case--one trains dogs in many different ways for many different things & this might best address the general concepts of training dogs and point from there to more-specific articles (if there are others besides obedience training); "obedience training" is pretty specific to your standard sit-down-stay kind of stuff and leads into "obedience competitions"--which it's possible might be a separate article itself but that hasn't been clear when I've worked on that article in the past so I haven't (yet) done it; that also would require some thinking about the dividing line. Elf | Talk 19:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

As an encyclopedic article I think an historical overview of dog training leading into the present day would be appropriate. The various styles or philosophies should be presented objectively: There are those known as Balanced Trainers who apply corrections or aversives and there are those known as Positive Only or Purely Positive who dislike the use of aversives and corrections.It is a matter of personal choice and what is best for the individual dog and his owner/handler.(This is the origin of the controversy over training methods.)

Dog training is a general topic. Obedience Training, Herding, Schutzhund, Agility, are all sub topics. Most people think of obedience training when dog training is mentioned, but for an encyclopedic article a more general outline of dog training would work best and there is substantial content.

There are more than hundreds of books on obedience training alone.

The more detailed information on specific training then needs to be presented under the specific camp.[Balanced or Positive Only] There can be no assumption that one is better or more popular than the other. In this way it is presented objectively and removes the under currrent of controversy which should not be part of a reference article. Tintina 16:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and BTW

By the way, everyone...I put the {{inuse}} template because I'm focusing on the article right now, renovating it as much as I can to it makes more sense. I think it needs major work. However, unlike the template says, feel free to help me edit it, because I definately cannot do it all myself. Feel free to talk to me if you have complaints or questions. This isn't really my feild, so I'll need advice!--ViolinGirl^♪ 16:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I think putting up the inuse tag is going to be counterproductive if you want people to help edit the article. It's meant to be used for a few minutes while you're doing a complicated multi-stage edit so that someone doesn't confuse matters by making their own improvements while the article is in an intermediate state. When I come across it I don't edit the article (even if I otherwise would), I sit on the page refreshing it to see what big change has been made. There might be a more appropriate tag you could use, or you could just put a little note at the top of the page if you really want people to know the article is actively being worked on. Don't forget to remove it when you're done, though. PeteVerdon 18:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Yup, I've been monitoring but not jumping in because of the "in use" tag, as I don't know when you're actually working on it. So do please remove the tag if you're not actively at that time working on editing the page. Elf | Talk 19:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, sorry to have been counter-productive here. I only have time to work at nights, so I will remove the inuse tag after posting this. Sorry about that! I guess mainly I put it up there because I didn't want people to be worried when I deleted and changed a lot of text! :) ViolinGirl^♪ 01:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I just did some major editing, and while I'm not saying I'll never work on this article again, I think it's a little better than when I first found it...--ViolinGirl^♪ 01:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Thanks. Elf | Talk 02:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

How-to stuff removed

I removed the following from the article & it should never have been here because it's too specifically how-to and can't be made encyclpedic; also the methods are each only one variety of many ways to teach. wikibooks has a book on dog care but not sure about dog training; haven't looked in a while. Presevering here for easier retrieval later for something outside wikipedia itself. Elf | Talk 19:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Now, you are going to actually train your dog in some easy steps.

Sit Get a treat or favourite toy to tempt your dog. Then, hold the treat or toy in a closed hand. Raise the treat or toy above and back over your dog's head and say Sit. Repeat this process and then, after about twenty goes, just say Sit without the hand movement.

Leave it/Take it Every time you give your dog breakfast, lunch or dinner, tell him to sit. Then, say Leave it. Start putting your dog's meal down. He will rush to it so when he rushes at it, bring it back up, tell him to Sit (see above) and Leave it again. Keep doing it until he gets the point. Then, when he has successfully Left it, say Take it. If he doesn't, shake the bowl to tempt him. This can also be used for things your dog isn't allowed to touch.

Stay Get a treat or favourite toy to tempt your dog. Then, tell your dog to Sit (see above). Then, with your hand out flat, put your hand out in front of your dog's nose and say Stay and walk two or three steps away from your dog. Then say Take it (see above). Repeat this process several times. Each time you do it, take one or two steps further.

Drop or Down Get a treat or favourite toy to tempt your dog. Then, tell him to Sit. Then, bring the treat down just in front of his front paws on the ground and say Drop. I don't recommend pushing down on his back because most dogs will bite you. When he is lying down, say Drop or Down again. Repeat this process about twenty-five times. Then, say Drop or Down without the hand movement.

Look Get a treat or favourite toy to tempt your dog. Tell him to Sit (see above). Then, raise the treat or toy to your eye and say Look. Keep eye contact for three seconds then give him the treat. Repeat this process ten times and then five times without the hand movement.

Shake paws Get a treat to tempt your dog. Then, tell him to Sit (see above). Then, take his paw and shake it like you would shake someone you didn't know's hands and say Shake or Paw. Repeat this process ten times, then five more times without picking up his paw.

Twirl Get a treat to tempt your dog. Then, put it in front of your dog's nose and go round in a circle and say Twirl. Make sure your dog follows. Repeat this process seven times and then three more except without the hand movement.

---

Question Regarding External Link Removal

I added an external link to Cesar Millan's Dog Psychology Center, because I think he is the best dog trainer out there right now.I thought the link would be useful to people interested in dog training. I guess I just wanted to know why it was removed. This is my first time editing on Wikipedia. I'd appreciate any information you can give me! Thanks! Queequeg22

Be glad to. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a collection of links. Therefore, links to external pages should provide an extension of the encyclopedic information. For example, a great link would be to a nonprofit site that has lots of info about training dogs and no ads, pop-ups, or the like. In addition to that, attempting to maintain thousands of external links (which is what this would grow to if every trainer could have a link here) would be impossible. I've added some additional information to your user talk page. Feel free to ask other questions on my talk page or on specific articles, like this. Welcome to WP and sorry for the quickie revert without much explanation. Elf | Talk 21:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Untrained dogs?

This paragraph was recently added:

There are some professional trainers who disagree with this idea, particularly those who train working dogs, detection dogs, police dogs, etc. They feel that obedience work shouldn't start until the dog is at least a year old, or after the prey drive has fully developed. These trainers also take the position that spaying and neutering is harmful to the training process, again because of its negative impact on the dog's prey drive.

Can anyone enlighten me as to what trainers think it's a good idea to have a full-grown dog who doesn't have any idea about sit or down or not jumping up on people or walking on a leash? I can't imagine why one would think it's a good idea to let bad habit be practiced until they're well established and until the dog is well past its early rapid-learning stages and then try to train these things? Can anyone provide references for this? Elf | Talk 00:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I have never read any evidence to support benefits of delay of training until the dog is a year old. In fact, the only evidence I've seen is in support of training of dogs as early as 8 weeks old.

See: Beaver, Bonnie V. (1999) Canine Behavior: A Guide for Veterinarians. W. B. Saunders Company, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Lindsay, Steven R. (2000). Handbook of Applied Dog Training and Behavior, vol. 1: adaptation and learning. Iowa State Press, Ames, Iowa.

Scott, John Paul and Fuller John L. (1965) Genetics and the Social Behavior of the Dog. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

Serpell, James (1995). The Domestic Dog: Its evolution, behavior, and interactions with people. Cambridge University Press, New York, New York

Gemandbear 19:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

References!

This article is completly unreferenced. Before any more edits are made, what is here needs referencing. It is getting to a stage that this entire page is unverifiable as it would be impossible to track from where each statement is coming. --Localzuk ^(talk) 17:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Use of term 'reinforcer' questionable

In this article, it states: "This is seen most clearly in the fact that, according to the laws of operant conditioning, positive reinforcers lose their effectiveness if they're given every single time a dog does what is desired of him; the more predictable the reinforcer, the less reliable the behavior."

What source did you derive this from? Actually, how you've written this is inaccurate. Continual reinforcement of a behavior will maintain the behavior, although it may not strengthen it. The problem with continual reinforcement is that behaviors are subject to easy extinction; an animal trained receiving a reinforcer for every correct behavior response will stop responding quickly once that 100% reinforcement is removed. Intermittent reinforcement (for example, reinforcing every third or fifth correct response) works by making the behavior more resistant to extinction; the lack of predictibility of when the reinforcer will appear keeps the organism motivated. Think of all the people who play the slot machines in Las Vegas. That's intermittent reinforcement at work!

I believe that what you're talking about is the contrast effect of the reinforcer. Contrast effects of primary reinforcers of food can affect learning. For example, a handler is training his dog to increase the speed of the recall. The handler offers kibble as a reinforcer for a quick recall. On the fifth trial, the dog expects a piece of kibble as a reward for recall, but instead the handler gives it a piece of gorgonzola cheese. The dog has never had gorgonzola before, but it reacts by consuming the new, smelly cheese with great enthusiasm. As a result, the dog’s speed increases in the following recall trials. This is known as positive behavioral contrast. The handler offered the gorgonzola for several more trials, then ran out, and began offering the same kibble as before. The dog may not respond as quickly on the recalls anymore because the reinforcer does not hold as much value. This is known as negative behavioral contrast. It is important to note that the “contrast effect is quite transient and usually only lasts for 1-2 trials after the discrepant reward.” (Reid, 1996, p. 46)

A positive reinforcer is something that the organism seeks out and strengthens the behavior that preceeds it. If the presentation of something makes the behavior weaker, or results in a decrease of intensity, then it would be considered a punisher. (Chance, 2003; Lindsay, 2000; Burch and Bailey, 1999) If a reinforcer is highly desirable to the organism, then predictibility of the reinforcer would not result in a decrease in behavior.

The article continues: "Yet detection dogs only work well when they are always rewarded with a toy, every single time they find drugs or explosives, etc. The reason for this disparity is that when a dog is trained through the prey drive, the training activates an instinctive, automatic sequence that has to be completed in order for the dog to feel satisfied. That sequence is: search, eye-stalk, chase, grab-bite, and kill bite. So when a dog searches and finds drugs or explosives, he feels he hasn't finished his job unless he can bite something. This is the primary reason he's always given the toy. It's not really a positive reinforcer. If it were it would reduce the reliability of the behavior overall."

Again, technically, anything that results in an increase of behavior is a reinforcer. If it results in a reduction of behavior, then it would be considered a punisher. Your last two phrases contradict each other.

Not all dogs are qualified to become 'drug-sniffing' dogs. A desirable trait that this type of dog would need to have is a high grab-bite drive; this would make rewarding the dog with a toy very easy, thus easy to apply a reinforcer (toy) when necessary. It is quite possible that in the training scenario you describe above, the dog is deprived of the 'toy' reinforcer outside of the 'drug drills', which increases the value of the reinforcer. This would keep the reliability of the behavior quite high. To state that the dog would consider his "job" as incomplete unless he can bite something is questionable. It has more to do with allowing the dog to perform highly reinforcing innate drives than anything else.

This is related to the Premack Principle: "Reinforcement involves a relation, typically between two responses, one that is being reinforced, and another that is responsible for the reinforcement. This leads to the following generalization: Of any two responses, the more probable response will reinforce the less probable one." (Premack, 1965, p. 132) In short, the opportunity to engage in high probability behavior (playing with a toy) reinforces performance of low probability behavior (sniffing for drugs).

Consider three establishing operations when dealing with reinforcement (Burch and Bailey, 1999):

1. Motivation: if a dog is not motivated to obtain something, then it cannot act as a reinforcer. If the dog described above doesn't like hot dogs, then it will not work for them. If it likes tugging on a toy, then the toy is highly motivating.

2. Deprivation: if a dog is deprived of a reinforcer, it will increase the value of it. An example would be that the drug-sniffing dog described above is not allowed to tug on toys in everyday life. However, it is provided access to the toy and tugging contingent on finding drugs. This would make the toy highly rewarding every time, especially if the dog loves the toy.

3. Satiation: if the dog has had enough of a certain reinforcer, then it will lose some of its value. Especially when using primary reinforcers, such as food, it's important to make sure the dog has not just had a huge meal before training. The training treats will have much lower value if the dog is full versus if the dog has been fasted for 12 hours prior to the training session.

Gemandbear 19:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Instincts that favor training- cite source, please

The article states:

• In the wild as pack animals, canines have natural instincts that favor training. These instincts are manifested when the dog lives with humans as a desire to please a handler, as a dog would please senior members in a pack in the wild.

Please cite your source for this information.

Gemandbear 03:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Real dog problems

I edited the main article page to add an external reference to some articles about real dog problems. After reading the guidelines it appears as if I should have added it here instead. So...I would like to suggest adding a link to some articles that address real dog problems and how to deal with them, as written by a professional dog trainer. The site is http://www.dogtrainingbasics.com/articles.htm . Thanks, Shawn 64.230.24.94 17:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Learning Theory

Does anyone have a reference for this: "According to Learning Theory there are four important messages that the handler can send the dog: Reward or release marker Correct behavior. You have earned a reward. For example, "Free" or "Okay" followed by a reward. Keep going signal Correct behavior. Continue and you will earn a reward. For example, "Good". No reward marker Incorrect behavior. Try something else. For example, "Uh-uh" or "Try again". Punishment marker Incorrect behavior. You have earned punishment. For example, "No" or more specific commands like "off," "out," or "leave it."

I've never heard of these "four messages" before, and I know quite a lot about learning theory.

Controversy

Does anyone else think there should be a section on the controversy between different schools of thought in dog training? For example, some people strongly believe that positive punishment is inhumane and that all dogs can be trained using postive punshment/negative reinforcement alone (e.g Karen Pryor, Turid Rugaas), whereas others think that positive punishment is necessary to proof dogs against distractions to have a reliable dog (e.g Koehler, Ed Frawley, Monks of New Skeete). Some trainers believe that using "pack theory" is sufficient in order to have a well behaved dog (e.g Cesar Millan, Jan Fennell) whereas others think it is completely unnecessary (e.g most behaviourists, such as Karen Pryor and Jean Donaldson). Some trainers are keen on correction collars or headcollars, whereas others think that either (or both) are inhumane.

.............

I think it's imporant to reflect these differences of opinion in the article, since they reflect fundamental differences in how trainers work with dogs, and they are a real source of argument and division between dog trainers. Thanks, Rachel 7 Oct 2006.

Agreed. The topic of dog training should provide information on the various schools of thought. I don't now that this should be presented as "controversy". It may be a matter of controversy to some. My thoughts are that it should be presented in a more objective way, minus the personal bias towards one method or another.

Tintina 16:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Also , some dogs won't respond as well to certain ways of training. Slapping works on some dogs ( though I really don't approve of slapping dogs) but will make other dogs absolutely hate you. I think a positive vs. Negative Reinforcement section would really compliment this article, and it would be one that has a lot of bias at first.Well , maybe its time to start it. Anyway didn't they say to Be Bold? —Preceding unsigned comment added by APBTgirl (talk • contribs) 23:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Notice of import

A copy of this article was moved to wikibooks using the Import tool (with all revisions). If this article was marked for copy to wikibooks or as containing how-to sections, it can now be safely rewritten.

If contributors are interested in expanding on the practical information that was in this article, please do so on the wikibooks side. For pointers on writing wikibooks, see Wikibooks:Wikibooks for Wikipedians.

The transwiki version of this article (and some others) are proposed for merger into the book Dog Care. This book needs a lot of work, so any help from wikipedians knowledgeable on the subject would be appreciated. --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 14:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Youngest age for training

I've read books that say puppies aren't trainable. Hah! The article says 8 weeks; even that is old. I just trained the neighbor's 6-week-old Golden Retriever puppy to "sit", in one session. That was yesterday. Today he's performing for the owner and the housecleaner, on voice command only, with infrequent reward.

I know this isn't a suitable reference for an encyclopedia article. But don't be afraid to use the youngest age you can find in any reference.

Reply:

Puppies have very fragile mind at such young age. It isnt advisable to do any real training untill they are at least 3 months of age. Puppy should know his name and some basic commands like sit that come naturally, but asking for more can hurt the puppy.

Electronic Collar Training

I greatly expanded the section on remote collar training to include much more information about the methods generally used. I tried to be as informative as possible without writing a how-to (since a proper how-to on e-collar training consists of several whole books and a good bit of experience zapping yourself with the collar, IMHO). I also tried to maintain NPOV, but it's difficult on such a controversial subject. I am a SAR dog handler who relies heavily on e-collar training, and I'm strongly in favor of the method for working dogs. I think it's great, and not the least bit cruel, especially compared to the way many trainers use choke collars. I am of the opinion that most of the backlash against e-collars is a knee-jerk reaction based on the concept of a shock device and the connotations this has in modern society (stun guns, torture, etc.), not based on the actual reality of the training method. I would bet that almost everyone opposed to the method has never actually felt the shock from a contemporary e-collar. Since I would find it difficult to discuss the controversy while maintaining neutrality, I left it out for the most part. Please remember to maintain NPOV if you choose to add discussion about that issue.

POV in general not neutral

although I think this is a well written article it is not a NPOV and expresses one line of thinking (partisan? )in the very large arena of dog training. It is misleading to state or imply that this is now a universally accepted line of thinking.It is not.

The title Dog Training is an umbrella for a full and neutral presentation of the many areas and aspects, including methodology and philosophy.

If the general title Dog Training is to remain, the present text should fall under a chapter or subheading on Positive Only or Purely Positive Training as distinct from Traditional or Balanced Training.

Basic Training is typically considered Basic Obedience Training and could be distinguished from others such as basic herding, field work, search and rescue, etc.. Tintina 02:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

cleanup- article needs reworking

The entire article needs a rewrite and rework. The general title, as written, now primarily assumes Obedience training as training, though other forms are mentioned.

Citations are absent.

Tintina 19:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I agree. Sigh. I tried to start this as a general discussion of what dog training is, and it has expanded constantly in the direction of being a how-to article for everyday pet owners. I'm too exhausted to try to do anything about this except agree with you. :-) Elf | Talk 21:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• There is a lot of good information, I didn't mean my statement as a criticism and hope you didn't take it that way. I'm tinkering with it between other articles:)

Tintina 21:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC) HINT*TRY PET CLICKERS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.239.50.237 (talk) 23:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this wanders a bit and is short on references and long on instruction which isn't supposed to be included. I'll have a go at tightening it up a bit when I have time. Any suggestions would be helpful. Thanks Bob98133 (talk) 16:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Spam

I just removed several links that were not related, I hope you don't mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.76.48 (talk) 10:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Changes of 04/09

I have gone through this article briefly removing how-to sections, tightening up language. Please review for content and typos. The references for this article still need proper formatting, so anyone who's good at that can jump in. If there are problems with these chagnes, please don't revert them all, but change those parts you feel should be. Thanks Bob98133 (talk) 14:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Plagiarism - Recommended Training Methods

The entire section - Recommended Training Methods - is plagiarized verbatim from http://www.rcmp.ca/pds/dog/trng1_e.htm Bob98133 (talk) 23:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)