Here's some malarkey from HOWER respected ethical
breeder lyin frosty dahl discussing karen pryor's click/treat
method... and HOWE "positive training" is not positive.
Then we got a couple of FACTS from The Puppy
Wizzzard about HOWE COME HOWER EXXXPERT
trainers cause seizures and other temperament and
Subject: Musings on Discipline
Karen Pryor relates an anecdote in "Lads Before the Wind."
She and another trainer are walking toward a tank/platform
where a porpoise show is in progress. The trainer with
her is an accomplished senior trainer who has worked with
the porpoise currently performing. The trainer conducting
the show is a relatively inexperienced junior trainer, and
the porpoise is lounging in the water, not responding to
the cue for a high jump.
From some distance away, the trainer accompanying Pryor
calls the porpoise's name in stern tones. The porpoise
gives him a startled look and immediately executes the
>> For a long time I thought there couldn't possibly be any
>> real discipline in a system of "pure positive reinforcement."
Discipline got to mean HURT, to HOWER dog lovers.
>> This story is a counterexample.
Only on account of HOWER dog lover lying frosty
dahl wants to see punishment in the c/t method
only in order to justify her own PREFERENCE of
>> It appears that the senior trainer, David, had established
>> *authority* to which the porpoise responded.
IOW, the animal was AFRAID of the trainer.
>> Certainly the trainers can do things, in the approach used
>> by Pryor et al., which the subjects found unpleasant, mainly
>> "pick up the fish bucket and walk away."
Yeah. That's HOWE COME the C/T method FAILS the
US Military Marine Animals 10% of the time, from the git go.
>> Other anecdotes suggest that coherence and clarity are
>> important to animals
They're DUMB ANIMALS.
>> being trained with reinforcement according to the principles
>> of operant conditioning,
Here, OC means PAIN FEAR FORCE and INTIMIDATION.
>> just as they are with the dogs I train by force.
Not quiet, lying frosty dahl.
>> What is discipline really?
In animals, it's an unethical abuse of authority.
>> Anyone care to take a shot at defining it?
You'll end up in jail as an animal abuser...
>> How "positive" is positive reinforcement?
Here we HURT animals to train them.
>> The porpoises in Pryor's work only receive food by working
>> for it--there is an implied threat: if you don't work, you starve.
Yeah. That's HOWE COME there's a built in 10% FAILURE rate.
>> If I understand correctly,
You'll LIE to defend your sick and sickening POV.
>> porpoises are somewhat fragile and a couple of days
>> without food may be life-threatening.
BWWWAAHAHAHAHAAAA!!! According to your skinnerain
method you just got to reduce their food intake 20%... to
MOTIVATE the critter to naturally WANT to do ANYTHING
>> Or is it reading too much into the situation to call it a
>> "threat," when the necessity of doing some kind of work in
>> order to eat is in inherent part of life for a wild porpoise?
No MOORE than gettin beat with a stick or shocked. Lucky
for them they ain't got ears to be pinched and twisted.
>> I'd really like to hear from people who have some familiarity
>> with PR training and want to comment on the role of
>> discipline, how it is established etc.
It's not something HOWER dog abusers are able to understand...
Amy Frost Dahl Retriever Training phone: (910) 295-6710
Pinehurst, NC 28370 (http://www.moonsgarden.com/)
Subject: Re: Musings on Discipline
> I live in the city that contains the Queen OF Positive reinforcement,
> called the third way. Interesting.
Interesting? You wanna see INTERESTING? It's INTERESTING
that karen pryor KILLED HER KAT cause she couldn't C/T IT
not to***in her stove top.
INTERESTING that she admits to not being a particularly good
INTERESTING that bribing animals FAILS at least 10% of the time.
> I use motivational methods.
That so? You're a liar and a dog abuser to boot.
> Food for GOOD DOG,
You BRIBE and WITHHOLD treats.
> and no food when not good.
And tha's positive motivation? No. That's HOWE COME you
KILLED YOUR DOG Quark.
> An amazing thing.
INDEEDY! Your "training" caused the seizures for which YOU KILLED HIM.
> I don't have to yell, cause pain, or irritate my competition
> ***. She KNOWS she is wrong when I give her the LOOK,
You mean, when you INTIMIDATE IT...
> and she tries very hard to correct it.
That's positive training here abHOWETS.
> Her son, goes into the giggles.
> My rescue
The WON you KILLED?
> used to like to see how many ways he could do things.
> I train all the same way. I have gotten EXCELLENT results,
> but the dogs themselves respond VERY differently:)
Yeah. Some of them have seizures and GET DEAD.
> Mindy and the Muddy paws pack
> U- CDX Strange Quark UDT,OA,NAJ, CGC (Retired, 8 UDX legs,
> 20 OTCh points, epilepsy too severe:(U-CDX Tribute's Three X The
> Charm UD,TDX,OA,NAJ,CGC working on OTCh and UDX) and her
>11 month old son Muddy Paws Tri the Truth TD (5 Breed points:)
Subject: Re: Musings on Discipline
>>> What is discipline really?
>> In the example you gave, discipline was an understanding
>> in common between the trainer and animal about expectations.
RIGHT! IOW, you're lying and attributing things to DUMB ANIMALS
that you couldn't attribute to a child...
>> A certain level of performance was expected by the trainer
Or the critter would get PUNISHED.
>> and understood by the animal.
>> And maybe that's not a bad overall definition.
Right. Ask mud e poz.
Subject: Re: Musings on Discipline
>> I think it's about the fundamentals of rules:
That so? The rules that sez you can jerk and ***and
shock and withhold food from dumb animals?
>> 1) Only one player may make the rules.
Yeah... That's The Puppy Wizzzard.
>> 2) All the players must understand the rules.
Yeah. We're workin on that right now...
>> 3) All players must understand who makes the rules.
You bums ain't gonna like this...
>> 4) The rules must remain black and white, with no gray area.
Yeah. We're gonna get LAWS passed protecting J.Q. Pubic from
being abused by lying dog abusing Punk Thug Cowards who
hurt and kill dogs and try to get HOWET callin THAT, training.
>> It's the reponsibility of the rule maker not only make the rules,
>> but to make sure all the players understand #'s 1-4.
Yeah. Or HURT and KILL the animal, when IT don't undersand.
Subject: Re: Musings on Discipline
>> Hmmmm, what a great topic, Amy. Thanks for bringing it up.
>> I hope that there will be lots of interesting responses.
Yeah. We've got quite a few very interesting case histories of
HOWER dog lovers hurtin and killing dogs and tryin to get
HOWET callin THAT, training.
> To me, discipline is mostly about placing *limits* on behavior.
> I know that this is too general a term to be much help
No problemo! We'll just limit PAIN FEAR FORCE and INTIMIDATION.
> (and I'll explain further), but I think that the term "limits" is a subtle
> shift from thinking about "disciplining" a dog.
Yeah. It's all abHOWET semantics here abHOWETS.
> To me, discipline implies punishment (in the colloquial sense),
You mean HURTIN and INTIMIDATING.
> while placing limits implies that the handler is responsible for
> self rewards for certain behaviors.
IOW, MANAGEMENT, not training.
> I haven't read the KP book that you are refering to, so I'm not sure
> about the "food for survival" thing....
HOWE do you think we motivate HOWER critters to want their food bribes?
> I'm surprised that the *only* way that the porpoises (porpoisi? <BG>) got
> to eat was to work for it.
That's the essence of C/T. The treats are part of the daily diet.
> That's not been my experience with treat based reward training.
Right. That's HOWE COME you got to HURT your dogs to train them.
> I have to say, though, that I have worked with *many* dogs that
> are "slow eaters" (leave their food in the bowl all day) who act like
> they haven't eaten in weeks once I picked up a handful of their food
> and started working with them.
Yeah... cause of the threat of LOSING IT.
> Same food, out of the same bowl (which was still
> sitting where they left it), but suddenly it was an interesting
> interaction for the pup.
No, it was suddenly in jeopardy of bein STOLEN by his handler.
> When I first start working with a class or a new pup, I generally limit
> their behavior by preventing any fun (or self-rewards) for undesirable
That's IDIOCY. You cannot train a behavior you PREVENT.
> If they pull....we go nowhere....
BWWAAAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!! You mean, you oppose the dog
and prevent IT from enjoying being with you till IT stops pullin.
> if they look up at the handler, praise, handler brings the treat
> to their left side, pup follows, handler starts walking as they
> release the treat.
> All rewards disappear if the pup does not give the desired behavior.
> Tons of rewards appear if s/he does.
You mean a jackpot? You're a imbecile. Dogs do not understand
or appreciate "jackpots."
> The praise is a reward, the treat is a reward,
> *and* the moving forward is a reward.
BUT THERE'S NO REWARD IN JUST WORKING FOR YOU.
> I don't do PP work
IOW, you mean you DO HURT your dogs.
> (not sure if I ever will),
Because that's your human nature.
> but I understand that they take this "limiting" of undesirable behaviors
That's IDIOCY! You cannot BREAK a behavior you LIMIT. In order
to BREAK a behavior, you got to ELICIT it, and THEN interrupt
the thought process, and not by bribing or giving an alternate
THAT'S HOWE COME YOU GOT TO HURT DOGS TO TRAIN THEM.
> and apply it to what others do as "aversive" training as well.
You mean, HURT the dog.
> For the "Leave it" command (which we used to teach using aversives only),
You mean by jerking and *** the dog on a pronged spiked
pinch ***collar or shocking IT.
> many PPers
You mean trainers who do not HURT dogs, but inclduding those
who do bribe and withhold treats...
> will have the dog on lead, walk up to a "Leave it" object, stand
> a few feet away, and say the command.
You mean, scream LEAVE IT at the dog?
> If the dog is staring intently at it, *nothing* happens...the dog
> doesn't get to grab the object, doesn't get to self reward in any
> way. When the dog *chooses* to look away from the object,
> *then* play/fun/reward/treat/praise can happen....but not before.
> In my training (mostly PR)
Mostly positive reinforcement with a bunch of bribes, withholding, PAIN,
FEAR, FORCE, and INTIMIDATION?
> I lay the foundation using the same type of setting limits.
You mean, by AVOIDING behaivors you cannot train...
> The dog is prevented from making the wrong choice,
Thereby not having any choice, therefore, NOT LEARNING.
> and rewarded for making the right one....in virtually all things.
YOU HURT AND KILL DOGS TO TRAIN THEM.
> For later work,
You mean, after the dog is TRAINED?
> we introduce corrections as P-,
IOW, YOU HURT THE DOG.
> removing a/the desired outcome for the dog if they do not comply.
You mean, PREVENTING the undesirable behavior the dog WANTED to do...
> This can be devastating to the dog without inhibiting behavior, IMO.
You're doubletalkin us now...
> For certain things, like the "Leave it" mentioned above,
The WON you jerk and ***the dog on a pronged spiked
pinch ***collar or shock IT while SCREAMIN 'LEAVE IT?"
> I take a more intersactive approach than the PPers I know of.
You mean, the trainers who cannot train their dogs cause
they don't use all the tools necessary to hurt and intimidate
and limit their dog's CHOICES and preferences for PAIN?
> I lay "claim" to the Leave it object by keeping myself between
> the object and the dog for the *teaching* part.
Oh. To teach the dog you're his partner?
> When they give up and look away, they get rewarded.
That's IDIOCY. The dog will HOWEtwit you every time.
> We do use corrections
You mean, YOU HURT the dog when YOU couldn"t make "IT" CLEAR?
> for this command after the teaching phase.
WHOA! If the "teaching phase" TAUGHT, you wouldn't NEED to HURT the dog.
> As of yet, I haven't found a method that actually creates
> *aversion* to the object that doesn't involve some sort of
> physical (although very indirect) correction on the dog.
EXXXACTLY! THAT'S HOWE COME YOU GOT TO HURT
AND KILL DOGS TO TRAIN THEM.
> Again, thanks for brining up the topic....I'd be interested in what the
> others think about "discipline" as well.
Yeah. You'll notice your pals lying frosty dahl doesn't post here noMOORE.
And neither can you... cause you're a lair and a dog abuser.