Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Dog taking over my bed
Comments
-
-
Behaviour is more my thang, but yes... Absolutely 100% committed to ethical training. For the record, there is no such thing as a purely positive trainer. Everyone needs to be able to provide consequences for a dog when he persists in misbehaving... It's the type of consequence that separates ethical trainers from *ahem* "traditional" trainers. Withholding desired rewards until the desired behaviour happens, and properly executed Time Outs are the two groups of "punishments" that are considered ethical. These are the only types of punishment a "positive" trainer will use.
God, I do go on, don't I? :-D
It should be noted that negative reinforcement isn't punishment. It's actually a highly effective way to teach. In simple terms, positive reinforcement is addition of something (like a treat), and negative reinforcement is taking away something (I dunno what about in dogs but I know in horses it's things like dropping rein contact). Punishment is something completely different to negative reinforcement. Not saying you don't know this DBB, but it is a common mistake made
OP, maybe teach the dog a command to get him to move? I know with our dog (quite by accident) we taught him "move". It was mainly because, as a youngster, he used to follow me about the place and always got in the way so me telling him to "move" turned into a command. Now when you ask, he always takes three steps backwards :P
Maybe do something similar with your dog, only for the bed?0 -
As per my post, yes I would say it can be a risk:
However, it's really important to put some context on this. Personally, I have no issue with people having their dogs on the furniture or in the bed... Each to their own! But only if sharing the furniture doesn't cause a problem. Most dogs don't cause a problem, but some do (further evidence that dominance as a motivator doesn't happen... If it was a motivator, it'd mean pretty much all dogs would be unliveable-withable).
Dogs who protect their sleeping spot, or food, or toys, or chews, or their owners etc are resource guarding, protecting something they value... Just like you or I do, although I feel it's easier to understand if you picture two young kids vying for something both of them want! There is definitely a disposition in some breeds to be resource guarders, although lack of really early training by the breeder, then owner, to learn to like sharing, plays a very big part too.
For the record, breeds that are in my experience predisposed to resource guarding are terriers, Shih Tsus (and Lhasas!), Retrievers, and.... Cockers :-o
Behaviour is more my thang, but yes... Absolutely 100% committed to ethical training. For the record, there is no such thing as a purely positive trainer. Everyone needs to be able to provide consequences for a dog when he persists in misbehaving... It's the type of consequence that separates ethical trainers from *ahem* "traditional" trainers. Withholding desired rewards until the desired behaviour happens, and properly executed Time Outs are the two groups of "punishments" that are considered ethical. These are the only types of punishment a "positive" trainer will use.
God, I do go on, don't I? :-D
No I could listen and ask questions all day! Please do go on 0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
It should be noted that negative reinforcement isn't punishment. It's actually a highly effective way to teach. In simple terms, positive reinforcement is addition of something (like a treat), and negative reinforcement is taking away something (I dunno what about in dogs but I know in horses it's things like dropping rein contact). Punishment is something completely different to negative reinforcement. Not saying you don't know this DBB, but it is a common mistake made
You're quite right! Getting mixed up on the definition of what negative reinforcement is, is a common mistake, and with respect, you've just made it!
Here's a brief synopsis of learning theory, specifically operant conditioning:
"Negative" refers to taking a reward or aversive away.
"Positive" refers to adding a reward or an aversive.
"Reinforcement" refers to making a behaviour more likely to happen.
"Punishment" refers to making a behaviour less likely to happen.
Withholding an expected reward is called "negative punishment", not negative reinforcement as you have said.
Going back to the definitions above, "Negative" refers to taking a reward away. "Punishment" refers to providing a consequence to reduce a behaviour. So, if we do not to give a dog attention (reward) when he jumps up, we are negatively punishing jumping up: removing the reward to make jumping up less likely to happen in future.
When the dog sits instead, the sit is positively reinforced by giving the reward, in order to make sitting more likely to happen in future.
Where you're getting mixed up here, as many do, is that negative reinforcement is used to increase (not reduce) a behaviour... That is why it's called a reinforcer.
Again, referring back to the above definitions, Negative reinforcement works by taking away an aversive in order to increase a desired behaviour: it is the relief from the aversive being removed that acts as the reward. This can be hard to get your head around, so some examples might help:
Take choke chains: the dog learns that the sound of the chain tightening is a prelude to a chuck in the neck (aversive), and so he stops pulling (avoidance). In this case, not-pulling has been negatively reinforced. Similarly, dogs are negatively reinforced not to leave their garden in order to avoid a painful shock to the throat from the radio fence.
Because by definition it involves having to apply an aversive, positive trainers will tend not to use negative reinforcement, although there are some scenarios in which it can work well, when used with judgment to keep the degree of aversion very low.
Negative reinforcement is very over-used in horseydom, a huge amount of things a horse does whilst being ridden, it learned to do by avoiding or gaining relief from things that are a little (sometimes a lot) unpleasant for it. Effective it can be, but because it requires the use of aversives, there is way too much potential for unwanted side-effects... Health issues aside, it is why so many horses develop vices like bucking, rearing, leaning on the bit, crossing the jaws, putting their tongue over the bit etc.0 -
-
-
-
My lurcher sleeps in my bed. He starts off on top of the duvet, then gets in. He takes up most of the bed as he likes to stretch out or sleep on his back, legs in the air!
I don't think he would ever sleep anywhere else now even if I wanted him to.
He's never snapped if I need to move him - he'd have to move to snap, and he's far too lazy to move 0 -
Advertisement
-
I share my single bed with 3
(2 dogs and a cat) I wouldn't have it any other way, our cat is 18 and has slept on the end of bed since he was just a kitten.
Lilly (springer) cuddles right up to me and rests her head on my neck (I gave her that habit the first night she came home)
and the JRT who was a rescue last year took to his new sleeping quarters straight away although he prefers to sleep right down the bet often on my knees
With all that said Im only 21 and live at home so I don't have children or oh's to think of
It may sound strange but whenever I stay at someone else house, Its stranger not having one of my furry buddies cuddled up to me
One thing which is great though, is that neither of the 3 (bar the cat some mornings) moves from their spot until I get up the next morning 0
Advertisement