# Article: R+ in Police K9 Work



## RedDogs (Jan 30, 2010)

The first part is great! I'm not currently a subscriber and so can't read the rest.


----------



## LifeOfRiley (Nov 2, 2007)

Just finished reading it the other night. Great article! I really hope this approach continues to gain ground as more trainers see that it works.
(I appreciated the explanation of luring vs. shaping. I've always been a little fuzzy on that.)


----------



## FlyingQuizini (Oct 24, 2006)

RedDogs said:


> The first part is great! I'm not currently a subscriber and so can't read the rest.


Oh no! Sorry to tease! I thought it was one they were giving access to on the website.

Sorry!


----------



## sammydog (Aug 23, 2008)

What a wonderful article. I can email you the PDF version if you want to share that. I assume you can since it is your article... I tried to find your email address, I thought I had it, so send it to me if you want a copy.

I think you did a wonderful job covering a tough topic. I hope lots and lots of people read it!!! This was my favorite little quote: _"He often marvels at the pet owners he encounters who claim that negative reinforcement or punishment is necessary to handle their own dogs. “If I can run a hard dog using (positive reinforcement-based) training methods 80 percent of the time, I don’t know why people couldn’t train their pet dogs with at least 99 percent (positive reinforcement) training.”_


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

sammydog said:


> I think you did a wonderful job covering a tough topic. I hope lots and lots of people read it!!! This was my favorite little quote: _"He often marvels at the pet owners he encounters who claim that negative reinforcement or punishment is necessary to handle their own dogs. “If I can run a hard dog using (positive reinforcement-based) training methods 80 percent of the time, I don’t know why people couldn’t train their pet dogs with at least 99 percent (positive reinforcement) training.”_


Very interesting quote--but why would he expect a pet owner to be able to use more positive than he himself uses as an experienced trainer? I think it unfair to assume that pet dogs are easier to train.

I am not a subscriber so can't read


----------



## sammydog (Aug 23, 2008)

GoldenSail said:


> Very interesting quote--but why would he expect a pet owner to be able to use more positive than he himself uses as an experienced trainer? I think it unfair to assume that pet dogs are easier to train.
> 
> I am not a subscriber so can't read


My interpretation is not necessarily that they are easier to train, but number of skills taught and the degree of reliability needed is not as high. Also that a working mal/GSD is not generally considered an easy dog to train. As a generalization (based on nothing more than my thoughts at this moment!) I would think many pet dogs would never need more than the basic behaviors learned in a CGC class. In fact that would probably make them more well trained than average.


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

sammydog said:


> My interpretation is not necessarily that they are easier to train, but number of skills taught and the degree of reliability needed is not as high. Also that a working mal/GSD is not generally considered an easy dog to train. As a generalization (based on nothing more than my thoughts at this moment!) I would think many pet dogs would never need more than the basic behaviors learned in a CGC class. In fact that would probably make them more well trained than average.


Mmm, k. I dunno though, a mal might be hard to manage because it has high energy, but the drive and biddability probably make it easier to train using motivators such as food, toys, praise than other breeds which do not have that natural desire/motivation.


----------



## sammydog (Aug 23, 2008)

GoldenSail said:


> Mmm, k. I dunno though, a mal might be hard to manage because it has high energy, but the drive and biddability probably make it easier to train using motivators such as food, toys, praise than other breeds which do not have that natural desire/motivation.


Now we are overlapping the other thread, but food is generally considered a primary reinforcer, meaning that the dog does not need to learn to like food. Toys and praise are not, but food should certainly work for most pet dogs.


----------



## FlyingQuizini (Oct 24, 2006)

If you read the entire article, you'll see that he's comparing the average pet dog to the dogs bred for police work, which generally come from overseas breeding programs where they have been taught to consummate the urge to bite from early puppyhood.

There is a substantial difference between your average pet-bred dog and a dog bred from hard working lines and raised from puppyhood for a very specific task.


----------



## FlyingQuizini (Oct 24, 2006)

sammydog said:


> What a wonderful article. I can email you the PDF version if you want to share that. I assume you can since it is your article... I tried to find your email address, I thought I had it, so send it to me if you want a copy.[/I]


Thanks. I have a PDF version, I just don't feel right distributing it here - at least not while it's still in the current issue. I'll have it up on my personal website shortly though for anyone who wants to take a look. Stephanie Colman.


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

FlyingQuizini said:


> If you read the entire article, you'll see that he's comparing the average pet dog to the dogs bred for police work, which generally come from overseas breeding programs where they have been taught to consummate the urge to bite from early puppyhood.
> 
> There is a substantial difference between your average pet-bred dog and a dog bred from hard working lines and raised from puppyhood for a very specific task.


Thanks I'll read the article (thank you thank you Sammydog). When thinking about the science, my brain tries to think and apply things in the strictest sense which may not be what he means (does he mean only using R+ 99% of the time--yikes! Or is this just a call for positive in a lighter sense of the word).


----------



## FlyingQuizini (Oct 24, 2006)

GoldenSail said:


> Thanks I'll read the article (thank you thank you Sammydog). When thinking about the science, my brain tries to think and apply things in the strictest sense which may not be what he means (does he mean only using R+ 99% of the time--yikes! Or is this just a call for positive in a lighter sense of the word).


Why yikes? 

The whole point of the article is how these guys are building entire police dog behavior profiles using R+ and -P, which dramatically reduces (by at least 80 percent in the example of Phoenix PD) the amount of compulsion/P+. Steve White goes on to say that doesn't mean they *never* use aversives, but they keep them as emergency brakes, not something that's brought into the training aspect when the dog is still learning the behavior.

And they've had a ton of success.

Using R+ 99 percent of the time does not mean the dog gets a cookie or a tug toy for every correct response. Anything the dog wants can be a reinforcer and an opportunity to train or strengthen a behavior...


----------

