Training and Restraining Dogs.

[OrionH]

Why did you choose to respond to this argument?

I responded because I disagreed with your point about them being forms of negative reinforcement.

MagicMoedee: Like waffle, I do not support animal rights. In fact, given the idea of animal rights in its values which waffle has described, I am probably quite hated by animal rights supporters… I eat meat, wear leather or utilise items made from leather, take prescribed / OTC drugs when needed - ie supporting pharmaceutical companies that test / have tested these medications on animals, have pets etc.

Ju Smurph: Waffle isn’t saying clicker training is the only option (actually, no-one has - but your posts revolving around the clicker not working suggest so). Chances are, if the pit-bull attacks someone, it is down to owner irresponsibility, lack of socialisation and poor training rather than the fact the dog is just plain “aggressive“, as they can make good family pets. Their original use was for aggression towards other dogs so they could be used in bull and bear baiting and then dog fighting, but in dog fighting, it was a requirement that the ‘ref’ could step in and pick up one of the dogs without being bitten, so had to be good natured towards humans, else they would be culled.
The stereotypical pit-bull owner being a very much chav or scally type character - who most likely use choke chains to train/walk and probably keep it on their pets at all times because of their image - no wonder it becomes aggressive!

Incidentally, a lot of pit-bull attacks are actually mis-identified given that several recognised breeds fall under the pit-bull category, and as such owning them is restricted or outlawed in many countries due to their versions of Dangerous Dogs Acts.


Gaaendaal: Haha - I just had to google that one to try and see! But then I got angry over a couple of things that came up - e.g. cat attacks toddler, so family shoots other cat.
Anyway, I have a nice scar running down my Cephalic vein (that important wrist vein!) after breaking up two cats having a punch up… my own fault though, and one of my workmates had some nice scratches on her face and chest after her cat went a bit schizo (sp?) at a cat show… I think it was a loud noise that scared it.

And they’re not evil (much) lol - it’s just that dogs have masters and cats have slaves :P

Loki - do you reckon ArenaNet have read up on the Monkey King? I was reading the link and just seemed to think of Factions.

[Reverend Loki]

Loki - do you reckon ArenaNet have read up on the Monkey King? I was reading the link and just seemed to think of Factions.

They very well might have. In China, Monkey King can be as ubiquitous as Mickey Mouse in the west.

That story has served as the inspiration for a great many others. Consider Dragonball, for example (the original, before Dragonball Z/etc). The author freely admits it began as a retelling of Journey to the West. Bulma is in the role of the Tang priest, Goku is of course playing the role of Monkey King (in fact, the Japanese name for Monkey King/Sun Wukong is Son Goku), Oolong is in the role of the Pig Demon, and Yamcha the Desert Bandit is the role of the Sand Priest. A few things are changed... Goku doesn't wear a circlet, but Oolong reacts to a chant of "Piggy piggy piggy" in much the same way.

How about the popular anime Inuyasha - where the holy figure, Kagome, ends up on a quest, accompanied by several flawed characters seeking their own forms of redemption... amongst which are a half-demon tricked into wearing a buddhist-style necklace that forces him to sit when Kagome commands so, a fox demon and a flawed priest.

Actually, the themes in that story have been repeated in many, many stories since all over the world.

If you are interested in an English translation that is manageable (I think the original is 40 volumes) Arthur Waley has a great translation - Wikipedia article, and Amazon link with picture. You can generally find this at a lot of book stores. There are more complete versions, but I have not read them yet.

[themagicmoedee]

You are assuming that humans have rights that animals don't.

Not at all--I am simply saving us all the trouble of proving that humans have rights, since we all stipulate to the fact. I am NOT assuming that humans SPECIFICALLY have rights that animals do not. I am referencing an argument which proves that RATIONAL ANIMALS have rights, and man is the rational animal. The existence of those rights derive from the nature of a rational animal, which means that, in order for that argument to hold true, the entity being examined must meet the definition of a rational animal, which animals do not.

Careful how you use that term "assume." If I have to pull out the proof I will, but we'll all just end up more confused than we started.

The only reason humans have rights is because we, a group of humans, say we do. There are other groups of humans that say we don't. Sometimes, we go to war over this issue. In those cases, both sides tend to violate a number of those so-called rights.

Guess what? There are a number of humans that insist that animals have rights, too. Other groups of humans say otherwise. Hmm...

We've had this discussion in this thread already. Ethics and rights are objective extants--they cannot be generated or validated through consensus. The proof of the objective ethic is unlimited and unconditional upon all rational animals.

You're also committing the fallacy of appeal to popular opinion. It doesn't matter how many people say or think a contrary thing, or multiple contrary things. The truth or falsehood of those things is determined independently and logically.

I will assume you have a basic knowledge of science, therefore I guess you will know that when testing a theory, you remove all other variables except for the one you are testing. For example, you keep 20 dogs in identical conditions, reared in the same way etc. You enter each dogs pen holding a stick. One group you proceed to beat with the stick, the other group you play fetch with. Then you assess the dog's behavioural and physiological indicators of stress. If there is only one variable, and the 2 groups react differently, then it is reasonable to assume that this is the cause of the reaction. If both groups of dogs reacted the same way to the stick - by showing signs of stress, then one could assume that it is the presence of the stick itself that causes stress, not the act of beating the dog with it.
The point I am trying to make is that a massive amount of work has been done in studying animal behaviour, tested in a variety of situations - many in a strictly controlled laboratory environment. And all this work has led to the scientific conclusion that animals can experience pain/ fear etc. Hence I feel safe claiming this to be fact rather than guesswork.

Wonder Twin powers activate: Form of haiku!!!!

A new argument
Actually restates prior
Presumed statements

Your response doesn't answer anything. I am criticising the following things:

1. The equivocation between any sensation that you can detect in a laboratory and emotion, which has a unavoidably human connotation;

2. The presumption of facts not in evidence--namely, a large amount of scientific data that you allege, but cannot point toward. Anecdotal evidence is not evidence; it is an advanced form of hearsay.

Secondly - you seem to have an obsession with "animal rights". Let me make this clear right now - I do not support animal rights.

Let me explain the difference between 2 important concepts in this debate - animal rights and animal welfare.

Animal rights suggests that animals have intrinsic rights, including the right to live, the right to be free etc. This theory believes that animals have an intrinsic worth, are of equal value to humans, and that their rights are no less important than our own. Hence supporters of animal rights believe that it is wrong to deny an animals rights for any purpose - i.e. it is wrong to eat them, wear them, keep them as pets, etc.

Animal welfare is the view that humans are more valuable than animals, and that people should therefore always come first. However, it also accepts that animals are capable of suffering, therefore consideration should be given to their welfare. Hence, where animal rights would demand that we all turn vegan, animal welfare accepts eating meat, but would ban factory farming methods that cause a serious reduction in the animals welfare. It is against unnecessary suffering only.

I personally take the animal welfare stance, I eat meat (although I try to stick to free range stuff), and I keep pets (but do not cause them to suffer for my own sadistic pleasure).
You can say what you want about animal rights, but since I don't agree with animal rights anyway, the point is - as you would put it - moot.

Wrong--you certainly presume the existence of animal rights.

You're trying to define your way out of an argument. Unfortunately, these definitions don't address your problem. Your problem is that you presume that ANIMALS have RIGHTS. If there is anything that I am ethically obligated NOT TO DO to an animal that is not owned by another human being, you are presuming a right FOR THAT ANIMAL. Your definitions are specious. All that the second one, which you try to adopt, manages to do is internally contradict your position against yourself by creating a faulty "hierarchy of wrongness," with neither a bright line indicator of what constitutes immoral action and what does not nor any objective verifier. Or, in fact, even an objective definition. What's worse, it still presumes that against an unowned animal, or against my own animal, there are things which I am ethically obligated not to do. In other words, a right afforded to the animal.

If you want an intellectually consistent argument, you have to address this issue. You can't escape it with a semantic trick.

[Reverend Loki]

Not at all--I am simply saving us all the trouble of proving that humans have rights, since we all stipulate to the fact. I am NOT assuming that humans SPECIFICALLY have rights that animals do not. I am referencing an argument which proves that RATIONAL ANIMALS have rights, and man is the rational animal. The existence of those rights derive from the nature of a rational animal, which means that, in order for that argument to hold true, the entity being examined must meet the definition of a rational animal, which animals do not.

Careful how you use that term "assume." If I have to pull out the proof I will, but we'll all just end up more confused than we started.

In that case, I am going to save us all the trouble of proving that animals have a right to freedom from human cruelty, since most of us seem to agree to that. Or at least should have that right. Well, ok, maybe just the cute ones.

You do indeed assume that we all "stipulate to the fact" that humans have intrinsic rights. I believe that humans have rights, but they exist only because there are enough like-minded people who insist they exist. There is no supreme force making sure those rights are not tread upon, it is just us doing our best to make sure our own self-perceived rights are preserved.

We've had this discussion in this thread already. Ethics and rights are objective extants--they cannot be generated or validated through consensus. The proof of the objective ethic is unlimited and unconditional upon all rational animals.

Incorrect. Ethics and rights can ONLY be generated or validated through consensus of a given population.

You're also committing the fallacy of appeal to popular opinion.

Again, incorrect. I am not trying to appeal to popular opinion. Rather, I am stating that there are some things that are defined based upon popular opinion.

It doesn't matter how many people say or think a contrary thing, or multiple contrary things. The truth or falsehood of those things is determined independently and logically.

Tell that to the Republicans in office... *Ba dum ching*

I think I see part of the problem with arguing with you. Myself, I have to much exposure to dealing with and solving real life problems, to much of an Engineer's pragmatic outlook. You can spout Zeno's paradox all you want in the theoretical, philosophical world, here in the real world that arrow will still reach you, and it will hurt.

Sort of like the philosopher who tried to calm down an engineer he pissed off by explaining that, if he did throw a punch, it would never reach him, using that paradox argument, at which point the engineer hauled off and slugged him anyways, remarking that it was still "within his margin of error".

[themagicmoedee]

In that case, I am going to save us all the trouble of proving that animals have a right to freedom from human cruelty, since most of us seem to agree to that. Or at least should have that right. Well, ok, maybe just the cute ones.

Not at all--I do not agree to the presupposition, and the argument cannot be valid unless this primary principle is proven.

You do indeed assume that we all "stipulate to the fact" that humans have intrinsic rights. I believe that humans have rights, but they exist only because there are enough like-minded people who insist they exist. There is no supreme force making sure those rights are not tread upon, it is just us doing our best to make sure our own self-perceived rights are preserved.

Not at all--the stipulation is apparent in the lack of contradictory claim or assertion. It helps that you can't deny humans rights without denying animals rights. Either way, the existence or non-existence of rights for humans is irrelevant to the discussion. Given that humans are different from animals, the only possible question can be whether or not one of the elements of that difference serves as the deductive source for definable ethical rights. Turns out that that is the case--rights follow from man's nature as the rational animal.

Incorrect. Ethics and rights can ONLY be generated or validated through consensus of a given population.

1. Assertion without evidence. I have already provided argument toward this point that has not been addressed. Follow back through the thread--you should find something early on in my participation regarding the necessarily objective nature of all ethical appeals.

2. Provably wrong, and I will do it, on one condition. There will be no discussion of the proof, not because I am unwilling to discuss it, but because it is a little too far outside the point of the discussion at hand and serves a great danger of overtaking the relevant subject matter. Provided we can meet that stipulation, I will provide a short form of the derivation of the objective ethic (the full form takes the better part of three hundred pages in any number of available sources).

Again, incorrect. I am not trying to appeal to popular opinion. Rather, I am stating that there are some things that are defined based upon popular opinion.

That is the definition of an appeal to popular opinion. Your assertion is:

"Ethical Statement A is true because a number of people say it is true."

There's no wiggle room there. It's a fallacy, cut and dry.

I think I see part of the problem with arguing with you. Myself, I have to much exposure to dealing with and solving real life problems, to much of an Engineer's pragmatic outlook. You can spout Zeno's paradox all you want in the theoretical, philosophical world, here in the real world that arrow will still reach you, and it will hurt.

Sort of like the philosopher who tried to calm down an engineer he pissed off by explaining that, if he did throw a punch, it would never reach him, using that paradox argument, at which point the engineer hauled off and slugged him anyways, remarking that it was still "within his margin of error".

The collection of Zeno's paradoxes indicates that we may, in fact, live in a discrete universe--an assertion with which much modern study in physics also tends to agree, or at least fails to contradict.

I'm a software developer. It's my job to know everything the engineer knows AND what he wants. There's a reason I left the oil industry. Wasn't that, though. Engineering is easy. Interfaces--those are tricky. But all the same, it would be a mistake to ever assume that you can possibly divine anything about anything I believe, do, or am based on anything that I say. Several years of competitive forensic debate have taught me the rather dubious skill of believing absolutely nothing and everything at the same time.

[waffle]

Magicmoedee - I'm sorry but I will not continue this philosophical debate as I do not believe this is the place for it.
This thread is meant to allow people to discuss the pros and cons of training collars, whether they are necessary, acceptable etc - NOT to listen to your word-of-the-day-toilet-paper arguments about how its ok to abuse animals because they don't have feelings. Seeing as I believe everyone else in this thread accepts that animals can suffer, and that causing said suffering unnecessarily is wrong, I do not see the need to address your points.
Of course if you want to continue that particular line of debate, you could start another thread.

Ju Smurph - please do not take offense but your brief, non-sensical posts seem to imply you know very little about dogs, dog behaviour, or dog training. As Orion pointed out - the only one who keeps going on about clickers is you, yet you do not seem to understand the theory of clicker training, i.e. how and why a clicker is used or why it is effective or what it can be used for. If people actually want an explaination of clicker training I am more than happy to give one.

This brings me to my next point - Loki - of course it is possible to use more than one training tool at the same time, a dog could be trained using both a clicker and a correctional collar, or treats and a choke chain, or in fact with nothing at all - only your voice. All I am saying is that you do not need to use painful methods to achieve your goals, e.g. you could use clicker training (for speed and accuracy), combined with a decent socialisation programme, alongside training discs to "correct" unwanted behaviour and a headcollar to control the dog physically until it is trained. No pain, no problem.

Of course there are situations where using correctional collars alongside other methods would be contradictory. Take the example I gave about a dog that lunges at other dogs. The desensitisation programme is designed to allow the dog to overcome its fear/ anxiety of strange dogs, to ignore them, in short to reduce his reaction to them. You are telling the dog "those other dogs are nothing to worry about". The training collar method does not desensitise the dog, but often makes him more reactive, as he will associate the other dogs with pain/ discomfort. Hence you are telling the dog both "don't lunge at other dogs" as well as "other dogs cause pain". If you try to use training collars whilst systematically desensitising, you are effectively telling the dog "dogs are nothing to worry about. Dogs cause pain. Dogs are nothing to worry about. Dogs cause pain....." leaving the poor dog totally confused.

I know I can not prove that training collars are unecessary in EVERY situation, but your anecdotes do not actually lead to the automatic conclusion that they were the last resort/ only option.

Take the example you gave of the lab that was on a prong because it tried to run into the road etc. Did you actually try a no-pull harness or headcollar? Did you try training discs or some other, less painful form of correction/ negative reinforcement? Did you try training the dog what the word "heel" meant in the safety of its home/ garden before taking it to a place full of dangers and distractions? Did you encourage good behaviour by actually rewarding the dog in some way when it was walking nicely to heel? Did you work out what the dog values most (e.g. praise, teats or toys) to ensure that you are actually giving a valuable reward? Did you consider using a clicker (makes training quicker, and more accurate as the dog knows exactly what is expected)? Did you consult a qualified and experienced behaviourist? And finally, was this a second-hand dog that was got already fully grown, or purchased as a puppy? If the family concerned brought this dog home at 8-10 weeks, then for it to still lunge into the road by the time it is too powerful to control shows a lack of responsibility and training on the owners part. Only if you can answer yes to all of the above, can you prove that the prong collar was necessary.

Finally, what are peoples opinions on other training tools, particularly half-check collars (look like a prong collar made of nylon and without the prongs!)

PS- another link relating to the effectiveness and potential hazards of choke chains...
http://www.clickertraining.com/train...0608_click_qna

[waffle]

Waffle... can i let my dog out on the street with your kids to see wheter my clicker training worked...


I did not think so.

I've decided to answer this after all.

Firstly, whether or not your dog is safe around children has less to do with his actual training as such, and more to do with how well he has been socialised and reared.

Secondly, since your question was specific, let me explain based on what I know about clicker training versus training collars.

Clicker training is a highly effective training method, that when used correctly trains a dog much more quickly, more accurately and often more reliably. It is also risk-free, because there are no negative associations made.
Training collars on the other hand may actually directly cause behaviour problems, including aggression.
Therefore, I would be much more likely to trust a strange dog that had been clicker trained than one on a training collar.

[Reverend Loki]

This brings me to my next point - Loki - of course it is possible to use more than one training tool at the same time, a dog could be trained using both a clicker and a correctional collar, or treats and a choke chain, or in fact with nothing at all - only your voice. All I am saying is that you do not need to use painful methods to achieve your goals, e.g. you could use clicker training (for speed and accuracy), combined with a decent socialisation programme, alongside training discs to "correct" unwanted behaviour and a headcollar to control the dog physically until it is trained. No pain, no problem.

Again, I would agree, if only you had said "most of the time..." instead of making a blanket statement.

Interestingly enough, i've seen a few reports that halter style collars may not be much better... that the correction they provide is unnatural (wild wolves and dogs do not express dominance in such a way as these collars simulate), just as uncomfortable as prong collars, and liable to cause serious permanent injury to a dog's muzzle and neck when used improperly, and on occasion when used properly. This is all new, though, so we'll see.

Of course there are situations where using correctional collars alongside other methods would be contradictory.

I agree. In these cases, don't use them. Remember, I'm not trying to argue that they are universally appropriate, merely in certain cases.

Just for the record, if a dog of mine learns that a moving car = pain, I really don't have much of a problem with that.

I know I can not prove that training collars are unecessary in EVERY situation, but your anecdotes do not actually lead to the automatic conclusion that they were the last resort/ only option.

Take the example you gave of the lab that was on a prong because it tried to run into the road etc. Did you actually try a no-pull harness or headcollar? Did you try training discs or some other, less painful form of correction/ negative reinforcement? Did you try training the dog what the word "heel" meant in the safety of its home/ garden before taking it to a place full of dangers and distractions? Did you encourage good behaviour by actually rewarding the dog in some way when it was walking nicely to heel? Did you work out what the dog values most (e.g. praise, teats or toys) to ensure that you are actually giving a valuable reward? Did you consider using a clicker (makes training quicker, and more accurate as the dog knows exactly what is expected)? Did you consult a qualified and experienced behaviourist? And finally, was this a second-hand dog that was got already fully grown, or purchased as a puppy? If the family concerned brought this dog home at 8-10 weeks, then for it to still lunge into the road by the time it is too powerful to control shows a lack of responsibility and training on the owners part. Only if you can answer yes to all of the above, can you prove that the prong collar was necessary.

Eh, what the hell, I'll bite...
Yes, and in fact such a harness has become effective later in this dogs life.
Not training discs, but we did learn that one of the sounds he is most interested in in the world is that of a squeaker, as can be found in a stuffed squeaky toy. Since most stuffed squeaky toys given to him don't last very long, we've recovered a number of those to use. Having one in your pocket to squeeze can pull his attention away from ALMOST anything. the key word is almost.
Yes.
Yes. In fact, he was quite good at heeling. For brief periods of time. Until a distraction set in. Or until he got bored.
Yes. And yes, he values praise and toys, and though he has so far expressed very little interest in teats, he does love treats... (Yea, I know, I make typos too. It's just that yours was so amusing ;)
This dog really cares very little about a clicker. Squeaker, yes, but a clicker, once he finds it inedible, no.
As I thought I had stated before (too lazy this morning to look it up), this was a rescue dog. We know very little about his previous home, but when the got him, he was I believe around a year old. Although not quite fully grown, he was already pretty huge. He was too thin... not really food aggressive, so probably not starved, maybe mildly neglected, though his strength didn't seem to show it. All of our pets are shelter/rescue/adopted strays.

And considering that not all of those questions are yes/no answerable, it's impossible to answer yes to all of them... not a nice trick there

it wasn't that this dog is/was untrainable. In fact, he's very intelligent. It's just that he's like an idiot-savant with ADD. He picked up quite quickly that if he "conveniently" left one of the shin bones he was given at certain spots on the driveway, then a car would run over it, cracking it open and giving him access to the yummy insides. Of course, drivers learn to watch for shin bones when pulling in, and avoid them. Dog's solution in this escalation of power? Hide the shin bone behind the tires of a parked car.

Then, despite all of this, he shows off how much of a lack of foresight he can have. This house outside of the front door has a small brick courtyard with house on two sides, garage on a third side and the side facing the street has about a foot and a half tall brick wall topped with two feet more of wrought iron fencing - nice and ornamental and thick. This dog was trained immediately on the invisible fencing around the yard, but with this courtyard, well, it's just a short wall. The gate to it is never closed. What is there to teach the dog about this fence? Well, we let him out one time, and right out the door h spots a rabit in the yard, and makes a beeline for it. This route he wanted to take? Well, he had the smarts to jump the brick wall. He didn't even try to jump the wrought iron, but rather he tried to go through it. He hit it head on so hard he bent the iron, bounced off, and then ran out the gate to chase his quarry. And this is strong iron... none of us could barehand it back into place. No damage to the dog - barely a scratch to the skin, and he has a nice thick skull. Enjoyed the attention, though.

Anyways, I ramble on...

Finally, what are peoples opinions on other training tools, particularly half-check collars (look like a prong collar made of nylon and without the prongs!)

Haven't heard about half-check collars - is it like a martingale collar?

I'm interested in any sort of training tools. I'm not saying these types are the best in every case... hell, I'm not even saying in most cases. I'd even go as far as saying as, 95% of the time now, a prong collar or worse need not even be considered*.

And remember, you are still disrespecting millions of Chinese Buddhists...

* I'm putting the invisible fencing collars in a completely different category at this point. The percentage of situations where this is appropriate is much greater than 5%, from what I can tell. Let me know if you have a problem with this.

[waffle]

If you do a quick google search you should find a picture of a half-check. Basically you know what a prong collar looks like (i.e. a metal collar, with a chain running through it so it can tighten but only to a certain degree). A half check is exactly like that. Usually a nylon flat collar, that is not quite the length of the dogs neck, with a loop of chain running through where the lead is attached. Hence, if you or the dog pulls, the collar tightens marginally (although like the prong can not actually choke). This provides negative reinforcement in the form of discomfort (although they are much less harsh than choke or prong collars) and can be useful on breeds that may learn to slip out of a normal collar.
I only ask because I do not have a problem with these collars. Yes they still "correct" the dog so to speak, but they are much less severe, therefore do not have the potential for abuse, injury or psychological damage that the others do.

Incidentally, like Ju you also seem to be getting a tad confused about how a clicker works. Unfortunately, I don't have time to explain now... maybe next week.

[OrionH]

Haven't heard about half-check collars - is it like a martingale collar?

I think the half-check and martingales are pretty much the same thing... different country giving it a different name... bit like pavement/sidewalk or trousers/pants.

Better only for certain breeds of dog - your greyhounds and whippets for example.