Syn Alia

Comment from Julie Alexander
Time: 25 September, 2006, 8:28 pm

My husband and I have been involved in the training and breeding of Dobermans as family companions and protectors for over 20 years.
We started out with a very strict style of training with strong points and also limitations. The strong points were that the dogs truly worked! Being protection dogs, the standards of reliability and control were very tight, as is needed for safety. The dogs were happy workers, this is what they were bred to do and as family dogs had good house manners, travel well and are well mannered in public. For this a combination of physical prompting, the words yes and no, praise and appreciation for the dog’s effort worked well.
Yet there was something missing. In examining other schools of training we found more food treats, the word yes, but not the word no, waiting for the dog to do the right thing but leaving the dog to guess and dogs that only worked when they felt like they wanted a treat, not acceptable for safety reasons. Descriptions of operant conditioning were unappealing, we didn’t want a dog to have unthinking reflexive responses to cues. We wanted a conscious thinking cooperative response that was reliable yet enjoyable for all involved.
When I first found the description of SATS, then called Bridge and Target, what stood out immediately was that respect, trust and communication were all needed for a balanced relationship with animals. Respect and trust we were satisfied with, we had been searching for clearer communication. And that is one of the things Kayce gave us with SATS along with other things we didn’t even know to want.
Not only were both yes and no included, but precise methods of showing an animal this is what I want you to do and you are starting off the right way, getting closer, closer, CLOSER and BINGO! that is exactly right! The no prevented guessing, frustration and confusion, it means don’t bother to go that way.
The Intermediate and Terminal Bridges are like the childrens’ game of hot and cold. As a specific example, teaching a dog to touch its nose to a hand target, the hand is extended, a verbal cue given and when the dog first looks at it, saying X! means yes, that is what I want you to think about. Then the dog is likely to investigate the hand further, extending the nose towards the hand. The dog is getting warmer and a stream of intermediate bridges, xxxXXX X! is like warm, warmer, hot hotter BURNING HOT! you’re there! right on target. if the dog starts to drift, simply stopping the stream means you’re cold. If the dog looks away, the trainer can say no, that’s not what I want, re-cue and again give a stream that directs the dog to the exact place to succeed.
When we first started to use SATS methods with our dogs, they seemed to be thinking “It’s about time they finally found a way to speak more clearly. We knew if we were patient that they’d finally get it together.”
Other aspects of SATS that we value are managing emotional and physical states, how diet, environment, daily life and rare events all come together to influence behavior.
This is far more than a method to teach your dog to come when called. It is a way to learn how to plan for life long events, cope with the tough stuff, enjoy the good stuff and be partners through it all.
The dogs still work well, very reliable, physical prompts are still used at times but are less needed. Trust and respect are deeper, and communication is beyond what we knew it could be.

Comment from Johnnie Fortycoats
Time: 10 February, 2007, 12:13 pm

This is a comment to Julie Alexander’s comment -
You say you weren’t interested in “descriptions of operant conditioning” as you didn’t want a dog performing “unthinking reflexive responses to cues”
The process of operant conditioning involves a behaviour having consequences to the animal, so therefore the animal’s response isn’t “unthinking and reflexive” - you were already using operant conditioning to train your dog by your use of “physical prompts”. Whether you are using pain free reward based training, or punishment and aversive based training, operant conditioning is occuring. When you say you still use “physical prompts” - do you mean leash corrections? If so, then depending on the setting, you are either using the operant quadrants of Positive punishment or Negative reinforcement, in other words operant conditioning.

Comment from Julie Alexander
Time: 11 February, 2007, 1:36 am

Dear Johnnie,
SATS takes operant conditioning to operant communication. The early descriptions of operant conditioning and examples we saw by clicker trainers were unimpressive. Yes, the early examples we were exposed to did not show us examples of thinking, we at times saw confusion and frustation on the part of the animals when forced to guess what the trainer wanted. SATS has precise methods of showing animals exactly what is wanted. Tactile prompts and physical manipulation–this can be as gentle as holding a toddler’s hand for support while s/he learns to climb stairs, can also give precise, clear and humane instruction. Guessing games are not enjoyed by all people or all animals and clicker training can be guessing games or irritating waiting around for the animal to do something rather than clear instruction.
I suspect you have not yet read the SATS manual. The 4 quadrants are discussed there as well as appropriate applications of +-R and +-P. Tactile cues to teach voluntary following of body part targets are part of the method. This is not moving away from pressure but following and maintaining pressure much as dancers do.
There is a major difference between a leash correction and a leash cue or prompt. But the best way to learn the difference is to take some riding lessons as using a length of leather with a delicate touch to communicate has reached its highest art with equestrians.
The word No, is a punisher. And telling an animal no that isn’t the right way to do it, is a kindness. Telling the animal NO! Don’t Touch the porcupine! is a safety signal. If the animal needs a leash correction to keep porcupine quills out of its face, it would be inhumane to permit it to risk blindness with normal curiousity. Yes, we will use physical corrections for safety behaviors.
SATS has methods to allow the animals to communicate back to the trainer and for trainers to more clearly define concepts, behaviors and coping skills. It makes normal OC look like grammar school.
Perhaps if you described your experiences with training this could be explained in details applicable to the situations you encounter.
Kind regards,
Julie

Comment from xfrrrrsvym
Time: 3 July, 2007, 2:02 pm

Hello! Good Site! Thanks you! mrqhvqncjdnq

Comment from Adrienne W
Time: 21 February, 2008, 4:39 pm

We need a SATS trainer in Australia! Our one and only went home 2 years ago… anybody want to visit Down Under and teach this fantastic system to us here? Maybe I need to learn it myself…