I've been happy with the results and so have my dogs. But I like to read up and be continually learning new and better methods of dog training.
So I've been reading about clicker training. Lots of people talk about how they went from the "old evil methods" to wonderful new clicker training and how they'll never go back again.
I find it hard to believe that clicker training can be used for EVERYTHING, and several "traditional trainers" I've spoken with agree.
However, one thing makes me wonder if I should throw off traditional methods altogether and just clicker train: There are many people who go from traditional methods to clicker training and proclaim it the better method. I have never heard of anyone who seriously tried clicker training and went back to traditional methods. This indicates to me that all those who try clicker training decide it's a better method.
Dog Training Clicker - Why Use a Clicker?
Recommended Answer:
This may not be enough experience for you -- but I worked with the clicker for awhile, and even taught a couple of clicker-based classes.
Frankly, I think it's useful for teaching tricks, but have no practical use for it. The old "treats to teach, corrections to proof" methods, and marking with my voice works best for me.
I would never have tried to use clicker training to get a dog through a CD just to try to prove to myself that it worked.
Schutzhund Dog Training Is Not So Difficult - Read These Top Tips
- I found clicker or strictly positive training very limiting. For just O/B work I suppose it would suffice, but there isn't a field trial or stock dog out there that was successfully trained that way.
My other experence with 'positive reenforsement' is that it is very easy to fall into a pattern of nagging, which is very detramental to a dogs training attitude.
In the end I found that there is a heck of a lot more to Pavlov than just ringing a bell to get a cookie. - Yes. Although I wouldn't say I "went back".
Clicker training is a tool... and like most tools it has places where it works and places where it doesn't. I use a variant of it (marker words/sounds instead of a clicker) with most dogs I train (or with the people I train to train their dogs).
In my experience, probably 75-80% of dogs can be totally trained using "clicker" or operant reward based methods of training. Another 10-15% require a mixture of methods.
And then there is the 5-10% of dogs who frankly couldn't give a &%$# about the reward, your clicker/marker and who think that you just might be lunch. Clicker training doesn't work with them... and 90% of the time other methods do... leaving a very small percentage of dogs that "untrainable" (which is far lower percentage than the number of humans that are!). - These are the people who I would've expected to answer your question and give you a good answer.
In addition, Greekman may chime in as well. I don't know if he's actually used Clicker training himself, but he's extremely knowledgeable and his opinion is respected and will mesh with the 3 answers you got here.
I'll star for him to see if he will answer... - You have 3 excellent answers here, very well said by all of them. I started training using the Koehler method or variants there of and have continued that way for 28 years. I have found that reward and compulsion work best for most dogs and see no reason to try and mess or change a method that has produced outstanding results.
Clicker training is a marketing scheme and has found a warm spot in the hearts of many of the younger, more kinder, more tree hugging members of our society, but, it has failed miserably to deliver the type of results that I demand from my dogs.
There has never been a serious dog trained in serious work like sport of police work using a clicker, nor will there ever be.
There has never been a dog that went on to compete at a National level that was trained with a clicker.
All dogs, regardless of training, need proofing and proofing demands compulsion.
No, clicker training is just a fad that will be replaced by the next thing and the next thing after that, but, real dog training will always stay the way it is, result producing!!
Hope I helped!!! - I'm not a professional, but I pay one and have many friends that are. So I don't have much in the way of credentials but I'll give it a go...
I don't care for "clicker training" in the sense of positive ONLY training. I think it's not only stupid but dangerous. Mother dogs give corrections, other dogs give corrections. One of the few points I agree with from Ceasar Milan is that dogs will correct other dogs and will not tolerate bad behavior.
Clickers are great for marking good behavior, to let them know that whatever they did at that exact moment was right. I just don't think it should end there. I agree with Loki's "treats to teach, correct to proof" phrase. When a dog KNOWS a command, sit for example, if they know what that word means and either don't do it or take their sweet time. They're disrespecting you. No dog should be allowed to disrespect ANY human.
I don't even have a problem with positive reenforcement. I DO have issue with positive ONLY training. If a dog takes off after a cat, no treat in the world is going to stop that dog from chasing that cat unless they know there will be consequences for ignoring the recall command, or for going after the cat in the first place... 2 ESSENTIAL commands, leave it and come... but I feel that a dog should be rewarded for coming back to you when you call. I start using a long line to teach it and then an e-collar (on vibrate or stim). Not that everyone needs to use this, but if my dogs don't have 100% recall it's 99.9%...
No is a correction. For some dogs that is all it takes. That is the main thing to keep in mind when using any type of correction. Do what works for the dog. Some dogs need a gentle correction (just a NO) or they will shut down, some dogs need a hard correction or they will take over and dominate you. In both situations, it's hard to get back to the beginning point if you screw up and frighten the dog or lose it's respect. You HAVE to know your dog. It's an integral part of training and pet ownership for that matter. You need to know what your dog can handle and what they need.
I personally have my own theory about correction and I'm no professional and it's only my opinion but.... Dogs have been bred to be with humans for hundreds of thousands of years. The "no correction" trend only came in recently. Dogs have never been trained this way before and if traditional methods are wrong (which they aren't) then we wouldn't still have dogs with us today. I think that a dog needs to respect you and is generally a happier animal for having someone boss them around, they are pack animals and most dogs are not of the temperament to try and be boss in the "pack". They are more comfortable underneath a human, who is not only their boss and leader but protector. In my case, before I got into traditional obedience my first dobie girl Amara was an EXTREMELY low confidence dog. She was soooo timid and such a wuss, her nickname at the park was "killer" because was such a joke. When we got into obedience and I started making her behave and respect me. Her confidence grew. I think it was because she was afraid that I wasn't strong enough to back her up if she got into trouble. I honestly believe that my dogs are happier and better adjusted for corrections. APPROPRIATE corrections, individual to the dog. My male is a lot harder when it comes to corrections than my girl, while he gets the stim, she always gets the vibrate.... He actually listens better, but isn't as sensitive to any stimulus as she is. I'm not hateful to my dogs and they are not scared of me. I love it when people tell me how cruel I am for using e-collars. They've never been at my house when I unplug them! If they were so bad, my dogs DEFINITELY wouldn't get excited that they're about to go play or work.I think the best way of training is a mix of treats for teaching a behavior and corrections when a dog knows the behavior and doesn't follow through. It has to be tailored to the individual dog and that is the owner/trainers responsibility of creating the perfect equilibrium... but in my mind that's part of owning a dog anyway.
All those that answered before me are well respected on YA and know what they're talking about, they've all had LOTS more of experience than I have and (dont take this the wrong way guys!) most of them have been working with dogs longer than I have been alive. I've learned a lot speaking with them and reading their posts and a few of them have helped me with my own dogs issues (online at that) and what they said was absolutely correct and made a huge difference in my dogs. I would take serious note of what they have to say as I've yet to see anything I disagree with. - Hmm interesting replies.
Obviously no one here has attended the Clicker Expo...
http://www.clickertraining.com/clickerex…
I saw some dogs there, top obedience dogs, who were entirely clicker trained. Not only that, they use all shaping. No luring.
I was amazed. I know I am not yet skilled enough to do that, but I refuse to use compulsion training on my dogs, obedience or otherwise. I am training for obedience competition now and we'll see how it goes when we compete.
Oh, and at the Clicker Expo, there was a great deal of talk from people who are bringing clicker training to police dogs and guide dogs and search and rescue. I can't wait to see it! - Why would ask someone who DOESN'T use the method about the method's limitations? Ask someone like Susan Garrett who has succeeded at elite levels in multiple canine sports using clicker training what she perceives the limitations to be. She'll give you an honest answer, because she has used the method with hundreds of dogs and seen where it works best and where it doesn't. (Just e-mail her.)
There have been people who tried the method, didn't like it for themselves and their dogs, and went back. There have been people who use it for some things and not for others. There have been people who switched completely. I don't, personally, know anyone who became proficient with the method who went back. However, proficiency requires a LOT of work.
Clicker training is simple in concept, but not easy. It takes a LOT of skill and knowledge to become proficient with it. If someone is proficient with traditional training, there may be no need or desire to switch methods. That isn't a failing of the method. If you're happy with method A, why switch?
I do have to say, though, the person who said that there haven't been clicker-trained dogs in police work is incorrect. The Seattle PD had several clicker trained police dogs, and their trainer still gives seminars all over the world on the subject. A friend of mine clicker trained dogs for the Department of Defense back in the mid-80s! He has also clicker trained dogs for ring sport and mondio-ring in Europe.
There have been clicker trained OTCh dogs. There has been a clicker trained Service Dog of the Year, and a LOT of service dog orgs use clicker training. Clicker trained dogs have been all over the elite levels of agility competition and canine freestyle for years. Clicker trained dogs have been used to detect trip wires and mines in war zones. There have been clicker trained Master Hunters.
Those are all elite levels, and they've all been accomplished already. There's no reason in the world to debate whether it's possible, because it's been done. Clicker training can be used for whatever the trainer needs it for IF the trainer has the skill and knowledge to do so.
Is clicker training therefore perfect and right for every trainer? Nope. Just like traditional training isn't. Try it. If you like it, learn more. If you don't, don't.
No comments:
Post a Comment