(Sorry can't supply a link today - maybe tomorrow) In the Sunday Times today it is reported that a 'new breed' of trainers is advocating 'positive rewarding' methods rather than 'traditionalist's methods such as CM.   Victoria Stilwell is quoted and apparently next month 'her followers' are to launch the Animal Behaviour and Training Council (ABTC) with the support of the RSPCA and Guide Dogs for the Blind. 

This does not give an accurate picture of dog training at all - in my memory CM and the alpha roll idea is quite 'new' too - To me traditional methods of training are - give the difficult dog a smack to teach it is wrong.    The article says a 'dogfight' has broken out between animal trainers over how to deal with the problem hounds: they are split over whether it is better to master Britain's 7m dogs or befriend them'  Anyone else read it?   The article is entitled 'Pet trainers tussle over whose method is top dog' 

I have found that a lot of modern positive, reward based trainers criticise what they call  'traditional' trainers and condem them all as bad, cruel, etc etc. 

I personally find their stance to be extremely offensive, untrue, and unrepresentitive of a great many trainers.  Instead of supporting these people/authors of positive reinforcement training, (I do approve of the method) , I find myself turned off by these self-righteous, self-serving, holier than thou modern trainers who think only they can do it right and if you don't do it their way then trainers can only be using cruel/negative/punitive methods.  It's a myth, a lie, a misrepresentation of the truth and it makes me extremely angry to read the rubbish that purely positive trainers write about others within their profession.

There were and are some extremely good, fair, kind and effective trainers who did not and still do not use clickers, or food for reinforcing every behaviour.  These trainers knew full well that rewarding behaviours caused repetition and subsequently learning of the said behaviours even if they did not know that there were scientific principles of learning involved.  These trainers just did it anyway because it worked and the methods were handed down by word of mouth.  There were very few dog training manuals, and the means of sharing information that is so prevelant today just wasn't available years ago.

I started training my dogs at classes nearly 40years ago and no-one ever told me to use Alpha rolls, smacking, side kicking, domination  or any other form of punishment to correct my dog.  If they did I would have walked out of their class.   From my personal experience the main people using strict and sometimes punitive methods were those with working dogs/gun dogs/security dogs etc. where compliance and obedience were absolutely essential to the handler but these were not the requirements of the domestic pet dog owner.  The only ones advocating it today are CM and his ilk but these are hardly 'traditional' trainers!

Physical punishment and cruel methods were not nearly so widespread by 'traditional' trainers as these modern trainers would have us believe.  Saying so IMO just gives them a platform from which to bang on about their own chosen method.

To be honest when I had my first dog trainers were unheard of - you got your dog to sit and come to you and if you wanted you taught some tricks like beg!  It wasn't until my second dog that I found a local training class to teach the basics - how to walk on the lead, sit wait and come.  That was it - as you say no means of sharing information in those days - just the odd tv programme like Barbara Woodhouse - I didn't even see any books.  Dogs that were 'trained' were sheepdogs, hunting dogs etc - nothing to do with the pet dog at home.  CM has been quoted as saying that dogs should be treated as dogs not humans - well we would all agree with that.   It was the inference that his methods are traditional that I found wrong - as are that positive reinforcement trainers are new!   I was just pointing out that the discussion has now become newsworthy due to this new training council that is being set up to regulate trainers.  How are people going to be recognised by this council I wonder?  Is it a good thing?

It was the inference that his methods are traditional that I found wrong - as are that positive reinforcement trainers are new!

I agree with you.  Whoever has made this differentiation between 'modern' and 'traditional' trainers has made it a very limited view.  It is almost a case of anyone using positive reinforcement is modern and anyone else is traditional.   The trainers who refer to themselves as 'modern' are usually those who rely heavily on clicker and food rewards and if you don't use that you must be 'traditional' and lump everyone else, no matter what principles of training/philosophy/punishment they use, in that category.

I base that conclusion on such writers as Karen Pryor in Reaching the Animal Mind and Sheila Booth in Purely Positive Training.

But it isn't as clear cut as that and if there is to be any useful debate the first issue must surely be to define exactly what they mean by 'modern' and 'traditional' trainer and acknowledge that there are plenty of trainers who don't use a clicker and food rewards but who aren't followers of the CM philosphy and practises either!  Dog training isn't a two camp profession. 

Sheila Booth, of course, used to train dogs for Schutzhund (see her other book, Schutzhund training in obedience, written with Gottfried Dildei) and used to use prong collars, physical corrections, etc.

It was when one of her own dogs was returned to her in a heck of state, mentally :( after other people had trained it with "traditional" Schutzhund methods, that she altered her training, went to see other trainers who used rewards, and then wrote her "Purely Positive Training" (which is a slight misnomer, as no-one can train "purely positively" as such, if they also use methods such as withholding a food reward - but most people can see where she is coming from and why the book was so named). However, in her book, the methods are much more positive, and there is no physical punishment, as there often is in Schutzhund (or used to be - as with many sports, it's gradually embracing using more reward and less prong collar due to the influences of those who are doing well in it, without harsh punishments).

To be honest, when people have spoken about "traditional" training, they are not, to my mind, talking about pet owners - they are looking at the historical context, with peoplewho have been influential, such as Konrad Most and Koehler.
Using lead checks and physical manipulation, and then punishment  if the dog disobeyed. If the dog did as told, it may have got a verbal reward, or a pat, but sometimes the avoidance of punishment was considered enough.

It was the influence of traditional military techniques that most influenced dog training in many quarters, for good or for bad.

The influence of Most is, to me, what constitutes "traditional", along with the gundog trainers, Schutzhund and others who use the same methods.

Lindsay
x

There were and are some extremely good, fair, kind and effective trainers who did not and still do not use clickers, or food for reinforcing every behaviour.  These trainers knew full well that rewarding behaviours caused repetition and subsequently learning of the said behaviours even if they did not know that there were scientific principles of learning involved.  These trainers just did it anyway because it worked and the methods were handed down by word of mouth.  There were very few dog training manuals, and the means of sharing information that is so prevelant today just wasn't available years ago.

I don't think that these trainers, though, would be "lumped" in with the "traditional" trainers. I've never heard of such a thing. It is true that many trainers who do not choose to use food or clickers, often are the harsher trainers - so that would be why there is that link. But I can't imaginet that the trainer who is simply using different methods, but not food, is seen as "bad".
I'd also not call them "traditional" either, to be honest.

Re food rewards, I recall this discussion has been had before, but it is so much easier to use food rewards to lure a dog into position, for example, than to physically manipulate it. After a few times, the food reward does not have to be used. Toys can be used, as can praise, (although few breeds put "praise" high on their liste of Good Things to work for - collies and GSDs being the main exception) but to be quite honest when teaching classes with mixed breeds,  the best thing in the opinion of many, is to use food rewards. It's also easier and enjoyable for the owners, which is important :)

However, people will have different views about this :) , and the main thing is that dogs and owners are happy. If that is the case, although I call myself a reward based trainer, I'd not have any problem with it and I can't see that any others would, either.

People used to use food years ago, it's not new.

Lindsay
x

Link to website:

http://www.abtcouncil.org.uk/

.

Thanks for all that information Lindsay - I still can't put up a link to the article because it seems the Sunday Times needs a subscription - even for old news.  The link to the council explains a lot more and I see that organisations such as APDT, APBC are involved as are many others - it is a shame they didn't include that link in the article.  It sounds like progress.  

'Members of the public wishing to qualify themselves to work in this sector are met with a confusing array of possible choices and conflicting advice regarding the most suitable way to achieve their goals. The ABTC is working to rationalise this situation'  There are a lot of people setting themselves up as animal trainers these days - I see adverts in the pet shop window for instance.  At least if they have been accepted by this council then the public can have more confidence in what they are getting.  As long as the general public are informed that they must look for these letters by a trainers name.

I find it hard to know exactly WHAT modern trainers mean by Traditional trainers but if you read the books referred, to the implication is very much that it applies to anyone not using clicker/food lure/food rewards and all training other than clicker/food reward based training is based on corrrection/aversion/punishment/cruelty/dominance etc which is absolutely incorrect.

http://www.kateconnick.com/library/boothpurelypositive.html

This is someone elses review of Sheila Booth's book, which I read after I had bought it and was myself so disappointed with her tone and implications that I researched others' reviews.

I do have her other book on Shutzhund and it was because of the value I found in that book (not the use of prong collar) that I bought the one mentioned above. 

If you read the KP one referred to you will see that she adopts a very similar stance. 

It is very unfortunate that it has become a clicker/food reward  v any other type of training as a wealth of knowledge and expereince of other methods are discounted as 'wrong' and severly overlooked.

when i grew up (60s) books told us to train heel by saying heel and pulling the dog to your side with a choke chain and then say good dog. it never worked for me.  i dont see how not using food can work for training?

when i grew up (60s) books told us to train heel by saying heel and pulling the dog to your side with a choke chain and then say good dog. it never worked for me.  i dont see how not using food can work for training?

And your last sentence sums up the totally limiting feature of 'modern' training!  But there are many, many ways that do not include food.  I have trained countless of my own dogs without the use of food and without choke chains.  If any trainer during the process had even hinted that I either physically or emotionally hurt my dog I would have been off like a shot.  It didn't involve the negative,cruel methods that are depicted as being the only way other than clicker/food use that 'modern' trainers would have you believe!  The modern trainers have a very narrow, limited view and tarr any other type of training with the same insulting, critical brush.  It is not only incorrect, it is extremely unfair.

>when i grew up (60s) books told us to train heel by saying heel and pulling the dog to your side with a choke chain and then say good dog.

And there are still people who advertise themselves as trainers who do this, but often without the 'good dog' at the end - the lack of correction is supposed to be its own reward. :-(

Just popping in quickly (must get on!) but here's an article in the Daily Mail, I guess this is similar to the Sunday Times article, Ceejay? :)

It's very much dumbed down and black and white, but that's the paper's doing. They are writing for everyone, not just dog people :)

Lindsay
x

Ps it would help if I gave the link *rolleyes* :) :)   http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1301440/Bone-contention-Fight-trainers-teach-dogs.html

I don't think that these trainers, though, would be "lumped" in with the "traditional" trainers. I've never heard of such a thing. It is true that many trainers who do not choose to use food or clickers, often are the harsher trainers - so that would be why there is that link. But I can't imaginet that the trainer who is simply using different methods, but not food, is seen as "bad".
I'd also not call them "traditional" either, to be honest.

And there is the rub because if you read the OP's post it suggests, from the report in the newspaper and from the stance taken by some very high profile trainers, then everyone other than clicker and or food reward based trainers are lumped together and labelled Traditionalist!

Don't know if you have read PPT book but in it SB suggests that readers use 'hitching' to train a puppy not to buck the leash by tying its lead to a fence post and leaving it to fight it out until it submits to wearing the leash!!  Yet this trainer adopts a superior position towards those she thinks  are bad trainers if they use corrections on their dogs.  I suppose it's all a matter of personal opinion but I would find that method extremely cruel and counter productive - I like my pups to love having their lead put on and have nothing but positive associations with wearing one but I don't use a clicker and I don't use food.

Re food rewards, I recall this discussion has been had before, but it is so much easier to use food rewards to lure a dog into position, for example, than to physically manipulate it. After a few times, the food reward does not have to be used. Toys can be used, as can praise, (although few breeds put "praise" high on their liste of Good Things to work for - collies and GSDs being the main exception) but to be quite honest when teaching classes with mixed breeds,  the best thing in the opinion of many, is to use food rewards. It's also easier and enjoyable for the owners, which is important

I would not disagree with you but the unfortunate thing is that food luring and food rewards are becoming so commonplace, like another poster has said, that an awful lot of dog owners/handlers know of no other way of doing it and actually don't even know other methods exist.  Using the dogs drives and canine natural instincts/behaviour/communication methods are all lost and so is the knowledge that you can actaully tap into and use these inate canine abilities.  Dogs are not being stretched, their capabilities not achieved, their mental ability is not stimulated because food luring and food rewarding is so 'easy' and personally I feel that must be at great detriment to the dog. It's mental capacity for learning and the opportunity to use the dog's own instinctive behaviours are under-valued and under-used by the widespread use of food luring and food rewards.

As a dog lover, I find that incredibly sad.

> then everyone other than clicker and or food reward based trainers are lumped together and labelled Traditionalist!
>

No, I took it as everyone who uses reward-based (doen't have to be food - a reward can be anything the dogs likes) as the 'modern ones'

I don't see there being much importance as to how long ago positive methods were used, or which trpe of training should really be classed traditionalist - , I am just very pleased that postive training methods are actually being discussed :-)

> would not disagree with you but the unfortunate thing is that food luring and food rewards are becoming so commonplace, like another poster has said, that an awful lot of dog owners/handlers know of no other way of doing it and actually don't even know other methods exist.

All the handlers/owners who do not understand that things other than food can be rewarding for a dog, are the sort of people that will simply copy the training they are told to do,or see as most effective. I'd much rather these sort of people coppid food-reward training than alpha-rolling (for example).

> Dogs are not being stretched, their capabilities not achieved, their mental ability is not stimulated because food luring and food rewarding is so 'easy' and personally I feel that must be at great detriment to the dog. It's mental capacity for learning and the opportunity to use the dog's own instinctive behaviours are under-valued and under-used by the widespread use of food luring and food rewards.

What is the difference to a dog for getting a food reward compared to another reward (other than the dogs personal prefernces)?

Well I attended my first ever dog training class in 1981 and we were always told to use food to lure and reward -and choke chains. Then I moved to the UK in 1988 and here I was told by all classes I first went to to absolutely NOT use food -but make sure you have the right type of choke chain. So yes you definitely can train a dog without using any food whatsoever as I trained several that way, including one I competed in obedience with -never a treat, ever, when he was trained. But not all dogs are as easy (this was a Golden so dead easy, not much effort involved at all and he was happy with just praise) but in any event, surely it's nicer for the owner as well to be NICE to the dog -I know it gives me a LOT more pleasure to train these days when I clicker train. Clicker training entered the UK in the 80s so that's not particularly new (but seems to have taken a while to catch on)  -not now when you can get dog trainers that weren't even BORN in the 80s. ;)

Victoria Stillwell has improved a LOT and done a complete about turn as regards the way she trains and I think that is wonderful -it takes courage to stand up and say I got it wrong and have changed my ways.

> article in the Daily Mail

That is about the general tone of it Lindsay.  What will the general public think reading this - yet another attempt to bring political correctness to animal training? 

Lots of people out there think that they know how to train, control an animal - or even a child!  For example I was told when my bossy little dog jumped on a visitor - 'a tap on the nose with a rolled up newspaper is what she needs'.  My guilty conscience is saying - I haven't persevered with training her properly when we have visitors -  not given it enough time.  What is wrong with using a treat to reward when initially training something - it worked for me.  Now I use play as a treat too - for my dog just getting to do agility is a reward in itself now.  As for verbal praise - she absolutely blossoms when given praise for getting something right.  But shout at her, push her around and I get a snappy distrustful little dog.

I am all for Victoria Stilwell's methods - and on the list of people on this council you have people like Battersea Dogs Home and ISDS.  However I know that there are plenty of people in the dog world don't think much of her and are all for CM.  I stood alone in one agility training session defending her once over a year ago (amongst another half dozen people)  I now have a brilliant one to one trainer who always says - look at it from the dog's point of view - and gives me all different strategies to try to keep my dog interested and focused when she is being difficult.  I always have to look at my behaviour to see why my dog is reacting as she does.

No, I took it as everyone who uses reward-based (doen't have to be food - a reward can be anything the dogs likes) as the 'modern ones'

The thing is that if you read the books mentioned here already you will see that their inference is different from the above and that is why there needs to be a better definition and understanding of what a 'modern' vs 'traditional' trainer actual involves.

All the handlers/owners who do not understand that things other than food can be rewarding for a dog, are the sort of people that will simply copy the training they are told to do,or see as most effective. I'd much rather these sort of people coppid food-reward training than alpha-rolling (for example).

But surely, it shouldn't be a case of the choice being food reward training or alpha-rolling!  There is so much more to it than that but the blanket coverage of clicker/food lure/food reward or it MUST be Traditional (punitive/unkind etc) is too restricive.

What is the difference to a dog for getting a food reward compared to another reward (other than the dogs personal prefernces)?

The fact that you even have to ask that shows what a narrow and restrictive practice dog training has become.  What is also very unclear to some people is that there is a difference between re-inforcement and reward and which should be what the dog prefers and which the handler chooses to use and the effect that has on training.   The profile of 'drives' maybe also needs improving along with the knowledge  that it is possible to strengthen each and every drive the dog has providing the drive is there in the first place.  It may, as has been said here, easy/easier to use food but it makes us as handlers/owners incredibly lazy to reach for the food pot and not utilise all the other drives that are present in our dogs and it does dogs a great dis-service as their skills, abilities and capabilities are not fully utilised when we opt for the easy option and use food. 

I have just heard a short news bulletin on my way home and the question of dog training methods in relation to this latest 'debate' has now been couched in 'being your dog's friend' vs 'being your dog's master'.  Maybe eventually we will get some more specifics in what is meant and by whom when referring to 'modern and 'traditional' which is not clear at the moment, not only by me but by review writers and critics of the popular, current dog trainers, and which is the crux of the OP's thread.

Does anybody know anything about this http://www.petbc.org.uk/index.html ??

Daisy

Well, on a rough count so far we've got several different understandings of what 'modern' trainers and 'traditional' trainers are:

The OP thought the article meant 'traditional' trainers were those who practiced the methods of CM whereas she herself thought that's rather a new concept and thought traditional meant smacking.

Then we have what I've read in popular books as clicker/food lure/food reward is 'modern' and anything else is 'traditional'.

Lindsay thought 'traditional' refers to historical trainers eg Konrad Most, and Gund dog and Schutzhund trainers whilst others think it is

Those who use Choke Chains.

The radio bulletin I heard summarised it as those who 'befriend' their dog and those who want to be 'master' to it.

Then there are those who don't think it matters.

Quite a selection and obviously a lot of confusion which is why the terminology needs clarification before any worthwhile debate can ensue.

I always have to look at my behaviour to see why my dog is reacting as she does.

Spot on, Ceejay, and hurrah for your conscience, too! Sums it up, really :)

Lindsay
x

No, I took it as everyone who uses reward-based (doen't have to be food - a reward can be anything the dogs likes) as the 'modern ones'

I don't see there being much importance as to how long ago positive methods were used, or which trpe of training should really be classed traditionalist - , I am just very pleased that postive training methods are actually being discussed

Actually, I think you're right there, Mastifflover :)
Of course, reward based is surely up there with the "modern ones", no matter what the exact method is that's used. Makes total sense. I think you've just unmuddied the waters there :)

Lindsay
x

Thank you Lindsay :-) 

> The OP thought the article meant 'traditional' trainers were those who practiced the methods of CM whereas she herself thought that's rather a new concept and thought traditional meant smacking.
>

Well no Suzie - I meant that the  article I read was making categories that didn't make sense to me  As far as I was concerned in the past (besides working dogs) any training was haphazard and pure luck if your dog turned out to be what you wanted it to be.  I think I said in another post that many people still think a good old fashioned tap on the nose with a newspaper is showing your dog that he is wrong and who is boss. 

  A lot of people scanning through this article may come away thinking 'all this being nice to your dog is a load of rubbish - all they need is putting in their place'   As Mastifflover says though - at least it is bringing methods of training into the general public's notice to discuss.  I think most people will be aware that there have been several programmes on tv over the years whereas when I first had a dog there was nothing at all.  So at least there is an awareness that training is out there now - certainly I hear of quite a lot of people who have gone to puppy classes now.    As Lindsay says the facts have been dumbed down for the general public to read - I hope some journalist writes a better article sometime. 

In the Sunday Times today it is reported that a 'new breed' of trainers is advocating 'positive rewarding' methods rather than 'traditionalist's methods such as CM.

This does not give an accurate picture of dog training at all - in my memory CM and the alpha roll idea is quite 'new' too - To me traditional methods of training are - give the difficult dog a smack to teach it is wrong.  

This is what you said in your OP. 

I would love to agree with you and hope that any reward based training is included.  However, i just went and spent no more than 2 minutes flicking through KPs book I referred to earlier.

I will quote a couple of  example of the comments and inferences that are ripe throughout the book.

"Traditional animal training, the way it's been practiced for millenia, relies largely on force, intimidation and pain. While Traditional trainers may also use Praise and Rewards, dominating the animal and obtaining control over it's behaviour are the main goals, and the main tools are pain and fear.  Traditional trainers are abundant amongst us"

Well, the whole purpose of any kind of training is to exercise control over  behaviour and according to the quote, trainers who do use praise and rewards are not exempt from being labelled Traditional although KP states they may also use force etc. But you will note that those who use praise and rewards are still bound up in her categorisation of Traditional trainers.

KP goes on to say that the Traditionalists justify their stance with explanations of leadership but quote "that is all obsolete now. Now we have a new way of dealing with animals .  Out of real science we have developed a training technology". unquote  She then tells the story of how she got involved with training animals with whistle and food and subsequently clicker and food.  

She also has a section on cross-over trainers, quote "traditional trainers who want to become a modern trainer".  She goes on to say "experienced dog trainers who get into clicker training soon discover that it is faster than choke-chain training"  Agin it's a case of clicker being 'modern' and traditional being aversive.  But there are thousands of trainers who don't use clickers but they don't use aversives either but this is lost in this sanctimonious book where clicking is everything modern and right and everything else is traditional, punitive, aversive and wrong!

She has a Glossary of terms in the back of her book and her definition of a Modern Trainer is: quote" A trainer who uses marker based, positive-reinforcement technology correctly, with both animals and humans" unquote.  So we're back to clicker and (food) reward methods then.

So, it is clear there is a clicker vs others mentality in this book.  She also states, Quote;-

"One of the objections clicker trainers hear all the time from traditional trainers is this: I don't see how you can use totally positive methods to stop bad behaviours" unquote.

If modern trainers are those who use  positive reinforcement or reward based training and traditional trainers are those who don't, why doesn't KP say 'One of the objections reward based/positive reinforcement trainers hear all the time from traditional trainers is this:  etc etc' but she doesn't.  To her modern trainers are practitioners of C&T.

She also defines traditional trainers as those who use compulsion-based training.  Well, compulsion sounds a dirty word but it was used quite frequently years ago.  It did not mean using physical force it meant gently moving your dog into the right position.  So, if you wanted a tidy, square, front facing sit for a finish after presentation you used a hand signal to bring your dog into the correct alignment next to your leg and then put it on his rump so he didn't it swing out!  Hardly punitive but in the trade it was known as compulsion as other methods were known as inducive (lure) or spontaneous (free shaping)!

Throughout the book, KP continually refers to clicker trainers as the modern trainers.  She does not refer to operant trainers as being modern, or those using any reward based training as being modern - what comes across in this book is that ONLY clicker trainers are modern.

Whether that is her intended outcome is unknown but I could go on quoting for pages but it really all comes down to the same bottom line.

'Fradi I couldn't see that trainers who used Praise and Rewards based training were included in the 'modern' category that was reserved for clicker trainers only.

> A trainer who uses marker based, positive-reinforcement technology correctly, with both animals and humans" unquote.  So we're back to clicker and (food) reward methods then.

Clciker-trainng is a type of marker training, but not the only way to marker-train. Basically 'marker' means to 'mark' the desired behaviour, how one chooses to do this is really an individual thing.The reward is dependant on what one wants to use (obviously for effectiveness one would use something valued by the dog), but is not limited to food (and does not serve as a reward if the dog is not interested in it).

Marker training is opperant conditioning, it gives the dogs 2 options/outcomes
1. exhibit required behaviour = REWARD
2. do not exhibit required behaviour = NO REWARD
There is no punishment or correctionss involved (unless one want to include the lack of reward for unwanted behaviour as a punishemnt).

If you do not use food rewards or a clicker, but (for example) wait for your dog to exhibit the desired behaviour and then immediately say 'good'/feed it/put it's lead on etc. (basically do/give somehting the dog likes with 1 second of it's behaviour) then you are using reward-based, marker training (you have marked the desired behaviour & rewarded it).

This article will probably make much more sense than me.

I'll ask my earlier question again with some more detail. -
Why is using food as a lure/reward any different to using non-food lures/rewards (other than personal preference of trainer/dogs motivation) and why is using food rewards/lures at the detriment of the dog?

> Throughout the book, KP continually refers to clicker trainers as the modern trainers.  She does not refer to operant trainers as being modern, or those using any reward based training as being modern - what comes across in this book is that ONLY clicker trainers are modern.

I haven't read the book, but from the quotes you have put up, it appears to me that KP would class a person as 'traditional' if they use punishment/force and 'modern' if they dont.
Eg, Marker trainng, with the additon of correcting/punishing the dog for unwanted behaviour/failed attempts owuld not be classed (IMO), as being 'modern' by KP. That's not to say that non-harse methods are in fact 'modern', just the way KP is expressing things.

> This is what you said in your OP

Yes I did!  I try to keep my posts short - I tend to ramble!  Now I have qualified it.  Giving the dog a smack if it does the wrong thing is still seen as the best way to 'train' dogs by many people. I only heard it the other day -'I have given him a right thumping and unfortunately he is still getting aggressive with children'  spoken as if it was the most natural thing in the world.
  The council is not just for dogs but all animal training.  I remember well the local landowner and his 2 sons kicking a young horse as it lay on the floor because it was not doing what they wanted.  I was horrified and not surprised when my dog kept a real distance from this particular man - I suspected he had kicked out at her when she had slipped out into the field.  I must add she was the most gentle of dogs.

Jemary Vines had this as his topic for a talk in today, it was quite scarey that quite a few of the people  phoned in that felt they were right in their 'teach the dog who is boss approach.'

Clciker-training is a type of marker training, but not the only way to marker-train. Basically 'marker' means to 'mark' the desired behaviour, how one chooses to do this is really an individual thing.The reward is dependant on what one wants to use (obviously for effectiveness one would use something valued by the dog), but is not limited to food (and does not serve as a reward if the dog is not interested in it).

I do understand what you are saying and do understand that you can use another sort of 'marker'.  In training deaf dogs we always use a thumbs up sign for our marker. However, it is clear from the book, which you say you haven't read, and from the other quotes I used that it is a given that clicker training is 'modern' and anything else is 'traditional'.  I really do not think it should be, as like you I understand and believe that there are other ways of rewarding behaviour.

It is very confusing as to what exactly the difference between 'modern' and 'traditional' training is, who has made the categorisation  and just what Victoria stillwell and the rspca mean by it.

I'll ask my earlier question again with some more detail. -
Why is using food as a lure/reward any different to using non-food lures/rewards (other than personal preference of trainer/dogs motivation) and why is using food rewards/lures at the detriment of the dog?
T

I thought i had answered this.  It is because canines has many drives other than those based on food.  In using food to lure and food to reinforce/reward, these other drives are not utilised.  I wrote a more complete post earlier on in this thread concerning just this point.

haven't read the book, but from the quotes you have put up, it appears to me that KP would class a person as 'traditional' if they use punishment/force and 'modern' if they dont.
Eg, Marker trainng, with the additon of correcting/punishing the dog for unwanted behaviour/failed attempts owuld not be classed (IMO), as being 'modern' by KP. That's not to say that non-harse methods are in fact 'modern', just the way KP is expressing things.

In my quote you willnote that KP says traditional trainers will use praise and reward in their training and also compulsion which is not what we generally take this word to mean in a dictionery sense.  Compulsion means manually positioning the dog but it does not mean forcefully.  It is a training term to describe the fact that it differs from spontaneous and inducive methods but the way it is used in the book the inference is that it is an aversive.  She also says that traditional trainers use aversives and punishment.  My point is that it is clear that she refers to modern trainers as being clicker(marker) trainers and any other methods are traditional but that lumps a huge range of different training methods into one category which seems very black and white whereas in truth there are many shades of grey in between!! 

Quite clearly, there is no clarity about the meaning of the two terms as several different interpretations have appeared on this one thread.

Out of interest, how do you actually train your dogs (or other people's dogs?) to say, Recall, Sit and do something like a formal retrieve?
I ask as you don't actually say, or not that I have read (sorry if I've missed it).

I have trained dog in the past NOT using food as a reward, and I used, as some would refer to it, other drives such as pack drive (although I did not give it a name back then). However, I personally still find that using food and toys, Premack etc is much easier. Pack drive also doesn't work very well with the more independent types, in fact it's very hard work with such dogs!

Using food, toys etc is utilising drives, just not the drives that some prefer. To be frank, and blunt, I think there is a lot of drivel spoken about drives, especially from the shock collar and working dog community (I mean the ones who just talk and think drive, drive, drive...."is your dog high drive? I bet yours isn't high drive? not as much as mine" etc etc!!).

The reason food is used is because overall, it's the easiest for dog and owner. Also if you use clicker training to shape, the dog is certainly working and using it's mind.

Lindsay
x

I have been through this before on another thread and am not going to revive it here as this is a thread about what is meant by 'modern' trainers and 'traditional' ones.

I will PM you.

OK, thank you.

Lindsay
x

It's been sent.