# Corrections?



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

(I know this is a controversial topic, but let's please keep it civil and agree to disagree where necessary as well as respect each other's opinions.)

I've been reading a book on training for Schutzhund and, overall, it is overwhelmingly about positive training methods. However, I did find the recent chapter I read on corrections to be very helpful in understanding why and when they use correction and why, in most cases when people use it with their pet dogs, it's being applied inappropriately. I thought they came up with some very good guidelines for using correction and I wondered what other people here thought about those guidelines.

1. Do not use corrections on a puppy. Puppies are still developing and it has too much potential to cause issues that you may not see until much later.

2. Do not use corrections with any dog until you have developed a good working relationship with them for at least 6 months. It takes that long to build up trust and to know your dog well enough to know when and how to use corrections with them. Doing it any sooner can damage that relationship before it is fully formed.

3. Do not use corrections unless your timing will be perfect. A poorly timed correction is more damaging to a dog's training than a poorly timed reward.

4. Never correct in anger. Corrections should always be given a calm manner.

5. Corrections should never be meant to hurt a dog. Correction is not punishment. A well-timed correction should surprise a dog and should return their attention to you, not hurt them and make them cower.

6. Do not use corrections for mistakes or before you are 100% certain a dog knows the behavior. Corrections should only come for disobedience that is willful, not for forgetfulness or for an honest mistake. If you can't tell the difference, do not correct.

7. Corrections should only be given when the dog is in drive. In most cases, they are used when you are otherwise unable to get a dog's attention because they are in drive or when the behavior they are rushing to do is more rewarding than any reward you have to offer.

8. Corrections should be quick and then followed by setting the dog up to succeed and then reward.

9. Corrections should be RARE. If you are having to correct your dog often, then there is something wrong with YOUR training, not the dog.

10. Corrections should be the minimum necessary to get the dog's attention, no more, no less.

11. You should not correct unless and until you know your dog well enough to anticipate his or her response to the correction. Some dogs have a temperment that will never respond well to correction. Other dogs have a temperment that will. If in doubt, do not correct your dog. Some dogs should never be corrected.

12. Corrections should come with no warning. A dog should not be anticipating a correction or it will become anxious knowing it is coming. If you cannot do this, then do not correct your dog.


This book was referring to things like leash corrections and e-collars, not abuse. I'm still figuring out how I feel about corrections in general, but I thought these rules were helpful in seeing that most people, in most situations, probably aren't ready to correct their dog. In most cases, most of the stories we hear about corrections being used are with puppies, dogs that are new a family, or dogs that are still learning rules and behaviors. In all these cases, even by these rules, it wouldn't be useful to correct.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

I think that you'll find a lot of people here use leash corrections, verbal corrections, no reward markers and other non-positive things that all fall under the umbrella of correction here. 

We just don't advise other people to do so, because it's an internet forum.

I use leash corrections and verbal corrections and I certainly don't only use them when the dog is in drive. It's a communication tool. I tell my dogs YES as much as possible. Once in a blue moon I need to communicate 'no'. 

Doesn't mean I'm going to ever advise someone online to do so. I don't know them, don't know their dog, and I don't know if I say leash correction they're not going to take it to mean yank the dog off its feet by the throat.


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

I did think it was good that they really spell out when NOT to give any corrections, beyond maybe a negative marker word. I may be just new to reading a lot of training books, but this is the first one I read that I felt really spelled it out well, if a bit on the safer side. I also think a list like this might be useful for a person new to dog training who thinks they "need" to correct their dog/puppy. While I'd never recommend a stranger over the internet use corrections, sometimes I feel like just giving a blanket statement with no explanation only leads to them being even more determined to be rough with their dog.

I see some handlers using more corrections that I think is useful or necessary or than I like to see. The handlers I admire the most are the ones who correct very, very rarely and are very intentional about when they choose to. I watch the way they use rewards and correction and how well they know when to apply each and I also see a difference in their relationships with their dogs. They are a team rather than fighting against each other in a battle of wills. That's what I want, if I can get there.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

LOL, that goes totally against what most non-positive training classes teach about "corrections"---especially 4H, which teaches (children!) that all corrections must be harsh enough to make the dog cower, or they won't do any good. 

And, "corrections" are punishment. . .saying otherwise is just sissying out. If they aren't comfortable with saying that, then they probably shouldn't be using "corrections" (since they are talking about leash "corrections" and e-collars, not verbal corrections and no-reward markers). Euphemisms are for people who don't really believe in what they're doing.


----------



## cookieface (Jul 6, 2011)

_If_ someone is going to use positive punishment/negative reinforcement, those are fairly good guidelines. The one issue I have is how does one identify _willful disobedience_? 

I've talked about a situation I witnessed in a previous thread. I was at an obedience match and there was a dog who had been sick and stressed after his first trial and didn't do as well in his second trial. At the end of the match, his handler was repeatedly asking him to sit and giving a leash correction (with prong) when he remained standing. After about 5 times, the poor dog exploded on the floor. He wasn't displaying willful disobedience as the handler assumed, he was sick.

I agree with CptJack about not recommending "corrections" to folks on the internet. Too much potential for misunderstanding.

I use negative punishment or verbal correction when needed, but so far, we're not at a point where I need Katie to be (close to) 100% reliable. I've actually been changing some of her cue to reflect the needs of the situation. For example, when we walk, I direct her to get out of the street and sit when a car comes. Sometimes she downs. Honestly, I don't care what she does as long as she's out of the street and still. Now, instead of telling her to sit, I tell her on the grass. She's safe, and sit and down are still distinct cues for when it really matters.


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

Willowy said:


> LOL, that goes totally against what most non-positive training classes teach about "corrections"---especially 4H, which teaches (children!) that all corrections must be harsh enough to make the dog cower, or they won't do any good.
> 
> And, "corrections" are punishment. . .saying otherwise is just sissying out. If they aren't comfortable with saying that, then they probably shouldn't be using "corrections" (since they are talking about leash "corrections" and e-collars, not verbal corrections and no-reward markers). Euphemisms are for people who don't really believe in what they're doing.


I have yet to see a single dog in Schutzhund cower during or after a correction, even the higher level dogs that they were using e-collars on. The corrections were used when the dog was ignoring commands from the handler because they were eager to get to whatever the goal they were focused on was, whether that was the dumbbell they were retrieving or the helper they were wanting to go after. The correction was enough to startle the dog and make them lose focus on whatever their goal was and refocus their attention on the handler.

I think by "punishment" what they are meaning is a punitive action taken to hurt a dog for something they did wrong. By "correction" they are meaning something different, not a euphemism for the same thing. I think there is a difference and I don't think they're using the word in an attempt to water it down any.


----------



## cookieface (Jul 6, 2011)

Generally, _correction_ is used as a synonym for positive punishment or negative reinforcement. In operant conditioning terms, positive punishment means to apply a stimulus after a behavior is performed to reduce the incidence of that behavior. For example, giving a leash pop for pulling is positive punishment. Negative reinforcement means to remove a stimulus after a behavior is performed to increase the incidence of that behavior. For example, cuing a recall and then, if the dog doesn't move, applying an e-collar stim until the dog starts moving towards you is negative reinforcement. 

Can you give an example of when one might use a correction following the guidelines you gave above if it's not used to reduce or increase behavior? It almost sounds as though a correction is more of a means to focus attention based on


> 7. Corrections should only be given when the dog is in drive. In most cases, they are used when you are otherwise unable to get a dog's attention because they are in drive or when the behavior they are rushing to do is more rewarding than any reward you have to offer.


Also, I was thinking about this while trying to walk Katie (loose dogs - grrr). Dunbar uses two methods to improve performance: repetitive reinstruction as negative reinforcement and the dog con system (I think he has videos on his web site, but this was easier to find). Just another option.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

packetsmom said:


> (I know this is a controversial topic, but let's please keep it civil and agree to disagree where necessary as well as respect each other's opinions.)
> 
> I've been reading a book on training for Schutzhund and, overall, it is overwhelmingly about positive training methods. However, I did find the recent chapter I read on corrections to be very helpful in understanding why and when they use correction and why, in most cases when people use it with their pet dogs, it's being applied inappropriately. I thought they came up with some very good guidelines for using correction and I wondered what other people here thought about those guidelines.
> 
> ...


Works for me.


----------



## Shell (Oct 19, 2009)

Overall, ignoring any splitting hairs on terminology, that's about how I use corrections. Seldom and specifically. Do I recommend them? Nope. For one, I think that easily 95% of situations can be handled as well or better without corrections and for two, I have no clue how another person would apply a correction. I know that my leash correction on Chester has the force of about 2 fingers tugging on the leash combined with a verbal "Hey!" to redirect his attention from a rabbits or such. Someone else's leash correction may be a full hand yank on the leash or even hauling the dog off his feet. 

Even with very good intentions, people can overdo physical corrections. My father for example cares very much about Chester, would never mean to hurt him and listens carefully to my instructions for walking him. But without fail, if Chester is on a prong collar the first tug on the leash my father gives him is way too strong. He honestly forgets the amplifying effect of the prong compared to his usual harness. Not so strong it would injure Chester, but a much harder punishment than was intended. So as long as it is planned that my father will walk Chester, I have Chester in a harness. Then he can be clumsy with the leash or tug it too hard and Chester will barely notice. 

I've had my foster dog for 2 days. I was told she pulled like a freight train on a leash. She was being walked on a prong collar (reasonably successfully). I put her in a plain leather harness and aside from seeing squirrels, she was walking loose leash today within 20 minutes. When I did haul her away from squirrels, there was no pain and no risk of neck injury.


----------



## MyCharlie (Nov 4, 2007)

packetsmom said:


> I think by "punishment" what they are meaning is a punitive action taken to hurt a dog for something they did wrong. By "correction" they are meaning something different, not a euphemism for the same thing. I think there is a difference and I don't think they're using the word in an attempt to water it down any.


Agreed. I think of punishment (in this specific case) would refer to a "bad boy! Yank!! This'll teach ya to disobey me!" Where correction would/should only be used as an attention getter/redirect. Not to say that people DON'T correct as a form of punishment, but it sounds like this book is differentiating the two. 

The only issue I have is #6 where it talks about "willful disobedience." I have a hard time with that term, and that makes the punishment=correction argument more plausible. Seems more likely that you would punish a willfully disobedient act than redirect it.


----------



## MyCharlie (Nov 4, 2007)

I also wanted to add that I think (hope) that this book was trying to be realistic in its approach to corrections. Instead of a blanket "don't use corrections," to which people could go "pffft whatever, I'm gonna use them anyway," instead it's trying to recommend very specific limits to when/where/how to use corrections. I think that is a better deterrent, and would guide the reader to hopefully THINK about how they use corrections, instead of a blanket "don't do it."


----------



## lil_fuzzy (Aug 16, 2010)

This is pretty much how I learnt to use corrections, except leash corrections *are* a punishment, and I don't know what it means about only correcting in drive. Admittedly, I don't know that much about training in drive, but I do know that once a dog is in drive, it will be less responsive to unpleasant sensations than a dog who in a state of low arousal. That's why Pixie will refuse to walk on grass when it's wet and she's just woken up, but when she's running around with Obi she will happily throw herself into puddles.

I'm not completely against the use of corrections, as long as they're used correctly. But there aren't a lot of situations where I think they're warranted, and I think it's a bad idea for the average dog owner to try to use corrections. You'll do a lot more harm with a badly timed correction than a badly timed click.


----------



## zhaor (Jul 2, 2009)

packetsmom said:


> 5. Corrections should never be meant to hurt a dog. Correction is not punishment. A well-timed correction should surprise a dog and should return their attention to you, not hurt them and make them cower.


So...it's just an interruption? I don't really keep up with the semantics but is that not included in 'positive' training? What happened to all that talk about not just ignoring unwanted behaviors?


----------



## Shell (Oct 19, 2009)

zhaor said:


> So...it's just an interruption? I don't really keep up with the semantics but is that not included in 'positive' training? What happened to all that talk about not just ignoring unwanted behaviors?


I think of an interruption as something verbal or visual- like an "ah ah" or moving into the dog's line of sight. I give interruptions all the time to puppies about to pee or dogs trying to dig in the dirt or those getting distracted by something on a walk. Where as a correction is physical and breaks the dog's concentration. For example, when Chester fixates on a deer, there is nothing I can do verbally or with treats that will distract him. I could wave sirloin steak by his nose and he will still be completely tense and focused on the deer. A quick pop on a prong collar, with a force similar to what the dogs do when they play, will break his concentration enough for me to give a verbal command like "Walk On" He is then rewarded for walking along past the deer.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Shell said:


> I think of an interruption as something verbal or visual- like an "ah ah" or moving into the dog's line of sight. I give interruptions all the time to puppies about to pee or dogs trying to dig in the dirt or those getting distracted by something on a walk. Where as a correction is physical and breaks the dog's concentration. For example, when Chester fixates on a deer, there is nothing I can do verbally or with treats that will distract him. I could wave sirloin steak by his nose and he will still be completely tense and focused on the deer. A quick pop on a prong collar, with a force similar to what the dogs do when they play, will break his concentration enough for me to give a verbal command like "Walk On" He is then rewarded for walking along past the deer.


The reason I have a hard time with this line, is it basically means that Bug is 'corrected' constantly, and for everything. She has to be - you can't verbally command her, and 90% of the time she's doing what she's doing in a position or place where getting in front of her is impossible, so no visual cue can be useful. Which means, you know. Poking, touching, or prodding at her to make her look at you. 

It's not at all unpleasant though, and I'll be honest:

I use corrections. For me? The line between interruption and correction is that it's unpleasant for the dog. Otherwise, you could touch Chester lightly on the head and get the same result as leash pop, however gentle. Minimal force TO get that look at you, maybe, but it still requires something that's unpleasant to cut through his focus. At least, that's the way I'm reading that.


----------



## Shell (Oct 19, 2009)

CptJack said:


> The reason I have a hard time with this line, is it basically means that Bug is 'corrected' constantly, and for everything. She has to be - you can't verbally command her, and 90% of the time she's doing what she's doing in a position or place where getting in front of her is impossible, so no visual cue can be useful. Which means, you know. Poking, touching, or prodding at her.
> 
> It's not at all unpleasant though, and I'll be honest:
> 
> I use corrections. For me? The line between interruption and correction is that it's unpleasant for the dog. Otherwise, you could touch Chester lightly on the head and get the same result as leash pop, however gentle.


Maybe I should say physical enough to break concentration? I don't think corrections are bad in and of themselves. With a real hard fixation, it does seem to need to be mildly unpleasant in order to break the fixation. Touching on the body can garner attention from a deaf dog or a dog that is somewhat ignoring you, but can be completely ignoring by one that has his attention so completely focused on something else that very little will shift it. 

I say mildly unpleasant because that can vary among dogs as it can among people. One dog may barely notice poke in the side while another may roll over and shut down completely. One of my friends dogs who I was dog sitting for these past few weeks is so incredibly soft. You go to pet her on the side, she rolls on her back. You wave your hand in the air, she rolls on her back. You shout at another dog to come inside, she rolls on her back. For her, nearly anything is an "unpleasant" correction. Whereas another dog may be completely unfazed by all of that and not even consider it as unpleasant.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Shell said:


> Maybe I should say physical enough to break concentration? I don't think corrections are bad in and of themselves. With a real hard fixation, it does seem to need to be mildly unpleasant in order to break the fixation. Touching on the body can garner attention from a deaf dog or a dog that is somewhat ignoring you, but can be completely ignoring by one that has his attention so completely focused on something else that very little will shift it.
> 
> I say mildly unpleasant because that can vary among dogs as it can among people. One dog may barely notice poke in the side while another may roll over and shut down completely. One of my friends dogs who I was dog sitting for these past few weeks is so incredibly soft. You go to pet her on the side, she rolls on her back. You wave your hand in the air, she rolls on her back. You shout at another dog to come inside, she rolls on her back. For her, nearly anything is an "unpleasant" correction. Whereas another dog may be completely unfazed by all of that and not even consider it as unpleasant.


Yeah, I was editing as you were replying. Ultimately it's mostly 'unpleasant enough to get attention' and the minimal amount of it, I totally agree with that. It's just that the element of this needs to not be enjoyable/pleasant for you to pay attention to me. Not that it's destroying the dog, but to break the focus it has to be something that's... well, more than applying a physical stimulus to get the dog to look your way, I guess.


----------



## zhaor (Jul 2, 2009)

See I've always just used common sense with training so I guess I'm just not sure where the separation for positive training lies or if there's even any strict definition for different training methods.

If it's simply verbal vs physical interruptions, that seems really insignificant. Even 'unpleasant' seems insignificant. We tell people to interrupt and redirect unwanted behaviors right? Doesn't that imply using force that is required to actually be able to interrupt a behavior? Some situations would certainly require a more forceful interruption to actually get a dogs attention.

For the record I've always just thought of things as punishment rather than correction since correction always seemed ambiguous to me.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

zhaor said:


> See I've always just used common sense with training so I guess I'm just not sure where the separation for positive training lies.
> 
> If it's simply verbal vs physical interruptions, that seems really insignificant. Even 'unpleasant' seems insignificant. We tell people to interrupt and redirect unwanted behaviors right? Doesn't that imply using the force is required to actually be able to interrupt a behavior? Some situations would certainly require a more forceful interruption to actually get a dogs attention.
> 
> For the record I've always just thought of things as punishment rather than correction since correction always seemed ambiguous to me.


I think there are two things here:

First is that it's minimal force required to interrupt. For the vast majority of dogs owned as pets, and not working in a hyped up (in drive) state, this is way, way less than most people think. Even in drive/hyped up, it's often less than people expect. 

The second issue is, that punishment is designed to build a negative association to an action. Ie: If I smack him for doing this and it hurts, they'll stop doing that thing. That isn't the goal with even the physical corrections being described here, at all. It's literally not 'don't stop fixating on the deer' (to use Shell's description), it's 'Yo, up here doofus'. You can accomplish that with FAR less force than what's necessary to build a negative association to stop the behavior. 

In a way it's semantics. A leash correction is a leash correction and it's unpleasant for the dog. But in a correction vs. punishment scenario, you aren't trying to get the dog to stop pulling forever, or stop looking at deer forever by building an unpleasant association. You're still trying to get the dog TO do something - look at you and refocus.


----------



## zhaor (Jul 2, 2009)

what I mean is, how is what's described here different from 'positive' training.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

zhaor said:


> what I mean is, how is what's described here different from 'positive' training.


Because it's communicating 'no', not 'yes'. I think. 

(to be honest, I don't get it, either.)


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

Sorry guys, I was at practice. 

I think this book IS a positive training book overall, but I also think kikopup would have a lot to disagree with all the same. I don't think there is a black and white line between "positive training" and "crank and yank," and that we all probably fall somewhere along a spectrum. If anything, this book probably views corrections in a way that might well seem watered down to some.

Tonight I saw a great example of one handler, who is sometimes even joked about for being soft on his dogs, giving a correction like this. His dog was in drive and full-out going after the helper (person she is supposed to bite on the sleeve), to the point she was ignoring his command to down. As far into drive as she was, she may not have even been able to hear him. He hit the button on her e-collar for an instant and she did not yipe or cry in pain, but suddenly looked at him, as if she'd just woken up. She then could hear his command and he quickly redirected her, praised, and rewarded her. Basically, he is trying to teach her to be able to remain at least partially focused on him even while in prey drive going after "the bad man," otherwise it just isn't safe because she won't be able to hear him call her off.

This is a lot different than the frustrated teenager tonight working with an older, inexperienced dog and constantly giving the dog collar pops. It's likely the level of aversive was higher in the first example, but I see that as a correction and the second example as punishment. Someone else might likely define them differently.


----------



## zhaor (Jul 2, 2009)

I guess it's also that with the people I get exposed to, corrections is used to mean punishment about as much as it's not and the term 'corrections' kind of has a negative connotation. So I'd rather just avoid the term entirely and say things like redirect instead of correct and say punishment for punishment.

It might just be me and maybe it's not as ambiguous for everyone else.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

CptJack said:


> In a way it's semantics. A leash correction is a leash correction and it's unpleasant for the dog. But in a correction vs. punishment scenario, you aren't trying to get the dog to stop pulling forever, or stop looking at deer forever by building an unpleasant association. You're still trying to get the dog TO do something - look at you and refocus.


...Wouldn't that be a cue then?

If you're giving a signal to trigger a behavior, then that's a cue (or command) is it not?

If the correction denies the dog something he'd want to do - wouldn't it be punishment (negative punishment)? So in that context again, the dog won't choose to do whatever he got corrected for (because it caused him to lose out on doing whatever)?

I don't see how a "correction" isn't either a cue, a no-reward marker, or a punishment - or all of the above...

I don't understand correction vs punishment when a correction can be punishing. I don't know - I guess that's why I like sticking to OC terms.




CptJack said:


> Because it's communicating 'no', not 'yes'. I think.
> 
> (to be honest, I don't get it, either.)



That should still be under "positive training" (assuming that label = +R/-P, then -P is the 'no' signal) 

I guess I'm missing something somewhere.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Here's my jumbled mess of thoughts....

It sounds like the list in the OP is referring to a 'correction' meaning a physical correction. Like a leash pop, collar shock, etc. I have yet to see people not use verbal 'corrections' at all. There is not really a way you could give a verbal correction with those guidlines so I don't think the list is talking about that. 

To me there is a big difference between cuing a dog to refocus or even what I call 'force refocusing' a dog than a correction. Correction would be punishment. Punishment meaning something I am doing to reduce the behavior the dog is offering. I think the strength needed behind 'hey you, focus!' is going to vary depending on dog.

It is somewhat of a vague word.

#6 somewhat bothers me for the reasons mentioned. Willful disobedience is a hard one to measure and I would bet 95+% of the time I see people saying 'But he knows this!' the dog really doesn't know the command as well as the owner thinks OR there's something else going on that is stressing or distracting the dog. Last night Mia would not down on the table even though she knows down... I think it's mostly a texture issue for her. Should I have used a correction there since she 'knows it'? I'd much rather move on, make her down next to the table then work on the table some when I had a better time to do so. 

We were actually talking about different sports and training philosophies in regards to different sports this last weekend. Agility is very progressive comparatively when it comes to positive training. Obedience is nowhere near it yet. I hear IPO depends a lot on club but of course go more into the correction side of things than anything we'd do. I admittedly don't read many (any, I don't think I've ever finished one) dog training books but if I did, I would be interested in reading across the sports. I know several people that have been doing IPO or other protection sport that have carried over a lot of the more progressively positive stuff from agility into their training. I think that's very neat.

Now I'm not saying there are never any physical corrections, although I do know a girl that had the goal of no physical corrections in IPO. Not sure how it's going. And I'm not saying agility folk never use physical corrections- again depends on trainer. It is generally not done while the dog is performing and to be honest, most agility folk are pretty anti-physical correction. I've seen several people use bark collars, of course verbal corrections, and also have seen some instances where dogs are physcially corrected. They were imo what I think warrants a physical correction.

1. The situation was dangerous or potentially dangerous to the dog, a person, or other dogs. And thus it needed to stop immediately.

2. The trainer is a professional who has been working with those dogs for years

3. The dogs have the temperament for it

4. The correction was applied a once and done. It is not something that happens often. If it is happening often, you're failing at fixing anything.

You're never going to see me advocating that kind of thing though online (or in person) because it's just not something that should be done without someone very experienced at the end of the leash and the history of the dog being seen in person, imo.

I think positive training is a fallacy as far as the name goes. No one is 100% positive, I don't think it exists. But I do think there's a big difference between people going into training with the mentality of going in blazing with corrections vs going in with a clicker and a cookie (for example). I am not sure I can explain myself well. My first experience with a professional trainer was a person that defaults to correction collars. Every dog he trains wears a correction collar. It isn't a sometimes thing, it's his go to. The type of relationship he promoted with your dog was very different than the kind of training I do now. 

This is kind of a tangent but isn't a no reward marker essentially a mild verbal correction. It does indicate a negative scenario for the dog- the dog is being told that the behavior was wrong and try again because they're not being rewarded for that (wrong) effort.

and holy novel....


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

I think we're mostly all arguing over semantics, but mostly agree on the general concepts here. It's the use of one word for something versus another that seems to be the biggest disagreement.

Except for the idea of willful disobedience. I do think it's sometimes difficult to tell what is a dog simply choosing not to obey a command versus a dog not completely understanding, being distracted, etc. I have seen willful disobedience, though. A ScH 3 trained dog disobeying a command because he'd rather skip looking behind 1 blind to go get the helper? Chances are he's not doing it because he is confused about what he is supposed to do since the routine is pretty static each time he does it and he's done it perfectly countless times. Chances are he's not doing it simply because he's distracted since he otherwise would always skip to where he knows the helper is. Chances are likely that going after the helper is just more rewarding to the dog than following the command. For a dog like that, there really isn't much of anything that the handler could do at that moment that would be more rewarding for the dog to convince him to follow the command rather than go after the helper...going after the helper is about the greatest reward there is for that dog. So, the handler corrects the dog and then makes him run the entire routine again before he gets to go after the helper. The dog learns that there is no way to shortcut searching every blind in order to get to the "good stuff" quicker.

I do think you tend to see more progressive training methods in other sports before you see them in IPO. I think part of this is due to the fact that there are very often situations where if a dog wasn't quickly redirected or a behavior wasn't very quickly put a stop to, it could be very dangerous to the dog or people. Another factor might be that most of the breeds involved in IPO are ones that are very forgiving of physical correction. Another factor is likely just the culture. A lot of people involved in IPO are involved in things like police dog work, search and rescue, etc, where there is a different dog culture. There is also variation across clubs. The club I first got involved with strongly discouraged the use of a clicker, even to initially train behaviors. They would have laughed you off the field if they saw you using one. This club routinely uses clicker training, particularly for puppies and for any new behaviors. I also see that the people who use the most physical corrections with their dog most often are either less experienced trainers or are in a hurry with their dogs. There are only so many opportunities to trial here and some people want to get their dog to a certain point by the next trial and are unwilling to take the extra time it might take without all the corrections.

Since I have no breeding program waiting for Sam to be titled and no reputation to worry about, I feel like we can take our time.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

packetsmom said:


> I think we're mostly all arguing over semantics, but mostly agree on the general concepts here. It's the use of one word for something versus another that seems to be the biggest disagreement.


If the concept is that a correction is not a punishment, then I disagree with that. It may not be me snapping Wally with his leash, but if it causes him to not do something he would rather do - it's negative punishment as I'm removing the opportunity for him to do something he'd find pleasurable. You could argue it's positive punishment as well if it puts him into appeasement mode, etc. 



packetsmom said:


> For a dog like that, there really isn't much of anything that the handler could do at that moment that would be more rewarding for the dog to convince him to follow the command rather than go after the helper...going after the helper is about the greatest reward there is for that dog. So, the handler corrects the dog and then makes him run the entire routine again before he gets to go after the helper. The dog learns that there is no way to shortcut searching every blind in order to get to the "good stuff" quicker.


How is this not at least negative punishment? 

The dog was denied the reward experience with the correction. That counters the idea that a correction is not punishment. The result was the dog didn't take shortcuts - if the stimulus reduced the occurrence of a behavior - it's punishment.




packetsmom said:


> I do think you tend to see more progressive training methods in other sports before you see them in IPO.


What is progressive training?


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

KBLover said:


> If the concept is that a correction is not a punishment, then I disagree with that. It may not be me snapping Wally with his leash, but if it causes him to not do something he would rather do - it's negative punishment as I'm removing the opportunity for him to do something he'd find pleasurable. You could argue it's positive punishment as well if it puts him into appeasement mode, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You really like to argue about specific words and their use, particularly if the way others use them does not agree with the way you would use them. I'm not interested in a debate about semantics, but I am interested in discussing concepts.

In the example of the dog skipping blinds, yes, it definitely could be a punishment. The dog is denied what he wants, to go after the helper now, and made to restart the routine. That part I would see as punishment. However the correction itself, which in this case was an ecollar correction, was to get the dog's attention back to his handler so that the handler could then give the command to come and restart the routine. I see the zap of the collar in this case the correction which then was followed by the punishment of denying him the chance to go after the helper and making him rerun the routine from the beginning.

Laurelin mentioned "progressive training methods" when talking about how agility handlers tend to use mostly positive training methods with few if any punishments/corrections (however you choose to use that term). I agree that other dog sports tend to be more "modern" for lack of a better way to put it, or open to changing ideas about dog training than IPO.


----------



## petpeeve (Jun 10, 2010)

> 1. Do not use corrections on a puppy. Puppies are still developing and it has too much potential to cause issues that you may not see until much later. *The exact same could be said for dogs of any age.*
> 
> 2. Do not use corrections with any dog until you have developed a good working relationship with them for at least 6 months. *Whatever method is used during that 6 month period (ignoring, redirecting, etc) can also be utilized during all life stages.* It takes that long to build up trust and to know your dog well enough to know when and how to use corrections with them. * If you've built up trust so painstakingly, why would you undermine it ? Trust is delicate, and should be cherished and nurtured for an entire lifetime. *Doing it any sooner can damage that relationship before it is fully formed. *Again, damage can occur at any time. I don't know why the author believes there is only a 6 month window for catastrophe to strike. *
> 
> ...


My thoughts in bold.

# 9 (revised) emerges as the most salient, in my opinion.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

petpeeve made a lot of really good points.

I'm not against all corrections, but to me, a correction should be a way of showing the dog what you want, and helping them succeed. Dog breaks a stay? Set him up again in the stay so he can succeed (it might mean less distractions, staying closer to him, etc). Dog too much in drive to pay attention to you? Remove him from the situation and start over where he *can* pay attention to you, then try again. I generally view appropriate corrections as negative punishment - removing the potential for the dog to self-reward, or get the ultimate reward. Positive punishment, especially physical (as opposed to verbal) is a tricky road to start down. There is always potential for fall out. If I'm training my dog for a sport, for fun, I don't want to go down that road. I want to build his drive to work with me and enjoy what we're doing, and the more corrections introduced into that, the more anxious he gets about the activity. My dog is not soft, but it wouldn't take many physical corrections before he started to check out of obedience training.

To me, #12 seems really silly. You should never let a dog know that a correction is coming? How is that useful? If the correction is strong enough to really stop the behavior, warning the dog that it is coming should be enough to stop him before you need to use the correction. If you don't warn him, then he will only learn that humans do scary things randomly. At least give him a chance to make the right choice and correct his own behavior first.

I do understand that in bite work, you may need an emergency brake to stop a dog from hurting someone or getting out of control, but that doesn't seem to be the point of corrections in this scenario. The article seems to be referring to corrections for other sorts of behavior, such as simple inattention. I don't have a high drive working dog, but when Watson is in hunt drive, I can tell you that it would require quite a high level of physical correction to get his attention if he really wanted to ignore me - why would I do that when I can just remove him from the situation and train attention?

Not saying physical corrections should never ever be used, and at least the list makes some points about how it should and shouldn't be used, but I'm still not a fan.


----------



## cookieface (Jul 6, 2011)

packetsmom said:


> You really like to argue about specific words and their use, particularly if the way others use them does not agree with the way you would use them. I'm not interested in a debate about semantics, but I am interested in discussing concepts.


But, to discuss concepts, it helps if everyone uses agreed upon terminology so there are no misunderstandings. Punishment and reinforcement have definite definitions; correction means different things to different people.

In your example, I'd classify the ecollar correction as falling between positive punishment (it's an added stimulus intended to reduce inattention) and negative reinforcement (the stimulus is removed to increase attention). I will defer to petpeeve, KBLover, and others who have studied operant conditioning more recently than I have (it's been a long, long time since college and I've lost quite a few brain cells between then and now).

*petpeeve* and *elrohwen* make some excellent points.


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

I think, to some extent, it also comes down to whether or not we think that dogs do sometimes intentionally choose to disobey. To most handlers I've seen, even the "softer" ones, there are times a dog intentionally disobeys rather than perform a command the dog knows how to do. Then, the question becomes how do we handle that?

I'd agree that those cases are far more rare than most people believe they are. It's very easy to see a dog not following a command and jump to conclusions as to what they are thinking or what their motivations are and it's a very common mistake to assume that the dog is intentionally blowing off a command when the dog is simply confused or distracted.

I do, however, think that dogs can choose to do something other that what the handler has commanded. The dog can hear the command, understand the command, but decide to do something that they find more reinforcing. Then, the handler has a few choices. Ideally, they can increase the reinforcement they are offering for the command. However, in many of the situations, where you are introducing something to the training that the dog already finds so highly reinforcing, it can be tough to come up with something even better. 

In my example where the dog was skipping blinds to go straight for the helper, I really can't think of anything that the handler could have offered that would have been MORE reinforcing to that dog than going after the helper. The next choice could be not to put the dog in that situation, where it is faced with a situation where the choice to disobey is more appealing than to obey. So, if the handler chose that route, they would either send the dog straight at the helper, skipping the blinds, remove the helper from the field and have the dog go around the blinds without the distraction, or try to find a lower value distraction unless and until the dog could ignore the helper and obey the command. In most of those scenarios, then dog then wouldn't be able to compete in trials. The point of the exercise is that the dog methodically goes around each blind until it finds the helper. (This is a German sport, so there's a lot of those very regimented kinds of details.)

The last option, the one the handler chose, was correction/punishment (choose whichever term you prefer here  ). The dog learns that there is a consequence for blowing off the command and avoiding the blinds in between them and the helper. This was used in conjunction with varying the blind the helper was behind so that the dog wouldn't always expect the helper to be in the last blind. If a correction/punishment had not been used, the dog would have reached the helper and gone for a bite, which would have reinforced the behavior.

Despite the risks of using positive punishment, these dogs remain engaged with their handlers and eager to get on the field. There are tails wagging and behaviors are offered. Part of this could be due to the temperments of the dogs involved as much if not more than any skill of the handlers as well as the fact that the activity is naturally reinforcing.

I also think it is important that the purpose of this part of the book WAS to caution about the risks of positive punishment in training and is aimed at an audience that is more likely to resort to them sooner rather than later. This book was/is a reprint/re-edit of an older Schutzhund book that was almost exclusively based on positive punishment and the author was writing to encourage handlers to choose positive training methods FIRST and to be critical and careful about the use of positive punishment. It is meant to dissuade people from using crank and yank as their go-to method of training, so of course it talks a lot about risks of positive punishment.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

I absolutely think that dogs can willfully disobey. They are creatures with their own agendas, and sometimes they want to do what they want to do. Dogs are honest, and sometimes they want to comply but can't (pain, illness, overly aroused, etc), but sometimes they just don't want to do what you want them to do. 

Like I said, I think corrections should let the dog know he is incorrect, and show him how to be correct. To me, a leash pop or ecollar stim doesn't really tell the dog how to be correct, it just tells them they are wrong. Sure, the trainer did take the dog back through the exercise so that it could be done correctly, but removing reinforcement also tells them they are wrong, but it isn't painful or anxiety inducing.

If I were that handler, I would have removed the dog from the situation then either crated, so the dog did not get a chance to reinforce by completing the exercise, or started from the beginning. I think there are ways of using negative punishment in that situation that could have been as effective as positive punishment. The whole thing in that situation is that the dog wanted to skip a necessary step in order to get the reinforcement faster. In that case, removing any chance of reinforcement (crating) or just making the dog do it again correctly before reinforcing, would probably have been effective.

I think the fact that the behavior is reinforcing and the dog is in drive is one of the keys. I could smack Watson upside the head (joking!) while he is hunting for things, and maybe it would work to get his attention, but it probably wouldn't dampen his desire to hunt. But he has very high hunt drive. I have seen other dogs in nosework who don't have a high hunt drive and if you smacked them, they would check out. Of course the dog's personality factors into it as well. But just because you can effectively use physical corrections doesn't mean there aren't other ways to correct behavior.

As a message to people who may be very quick to use positive punishment, I think it does a pretty good job of detailing some of the risks and cases where it should be used. Like I said though, I'm still not a fan of that as a general training procedure.


----------



## hueyeats (Apr 2, 2013)

packetsmom said:


> (I know this is a controversial topic, but let's please keep it civil and agree to disagree where necessary as well as respect each other's opinions.)
> 
> I've been reading a book on training for Schutzhund and, overall, it is overwhelmingly about positive training methods. However, I did find the recent chapter I read on corrections to be very helpful in understanding why and when they use correction and why, in most cases when people use it with their pet dogs, it's being applied inappropriately. I thought they came up with some very good guidelines for using correction and I wondered what other people here thought about those guidelines.
> 
> ...


If leash correction. e-collar is not an abuse...
One's belief in a non-abusive pack leadership like that of a dog's parent (human talking dog to puppy; eg, like exchange dog licks aka kisses etc.) is even more (not an abuse)... 

... like because owner wants dog to see them as their accepting parents (in every way) hence have that secured pack mentality that it does never needs to leave that family pack again due to its "loss of identity" (not human, hence maybe not accepted into pack) or "loss of security" (not understanding human communications thus be corrected or gets "negative" reactions from humans). And dogs do "run away" with reasons.

For one... its a belief (mentality)... not an action that can cause (+ / -) positive or negative "reactions" from that leash correction or control collar etc.

P.S. (That "effort" to try and talk dog; understand dog language {body, observations of behaviours etc.}) To me is just like being all of the sudden "appear" in a country totally speaking a language you do not understand; then finding that one person "even if speaking the broken english or your language" is that much of a "relief" when "shelter, next meal, means to buy or access that shelter or food, means of getting back home etc." is in question. At least that person who can understand you can maybe direct you to some useful info like "US embassy, or ways to get there". But how is one going to achieve that "if" one is surrounded by people who really cannot communicate with you??? 

Applies to humans, applies to new dog.

= Why, as a foreigner, I do not agree with "not talking dog just because dogs are not humans etc.".


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

Problem is, in my example, the dog was off-leash (as he has to be when doing this exercise), working at a distance from the handler (again, necessary for the exercise), and there was no way for the handler to just get him and crate him. Without the correction/punishment, the dog would have gone for the helper. Now, the helper likely would have dropped the sleeve at that point and refused to play with him, however, the activity of going after him and getting that initial bite would have been reinforcing enough. The only real way to stop the reinforcement of that behavior at that point was to find some way to stop the dog in his tracks. And...all this was taking place at running speed for the dog, so there was not much time to think things out and come to a decision on the part of the handler.

I do think that the fact that there is a limited amount of time to train plays a factor as well. Even if you aren't trying to rush a dog in order to be ready in time for a trial, there is a limited amount of training time in any club. You have the field reserved for x amount of hours. You have only x amount of hours in that where there will be a helper to work with you. At that level, you need to use the entire field for an exercise like that, meaning that only 1 dog can work at a time, so you usually only have 1 or 2 shots at a protection exercise that night. A club only works on protection usually once or twice a week. So, there can be a lot of pressure to get the dog to do the exercise right and give a ton of reinforcement for that correct exercise right then.

I think the more pressured a handler feels for time or the more stressed they feel to get a good performance, the more likely they are to use positive punishment, at least in IPO.


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

hueyeats said:


> If leash correction. e-collar is not an abuse...
> One's belief in a non-abusive pack leadership like that of a dog's parent (human talking dog to puppy; eg, like exchange dog licks aka kisses etc.) is even more (not an abuse)...
> 
> ... like because owner wants dog to see them as their accepting parents (in every way) hence have that secured pack mentality that it does never needs to leave that family pack again due to its "loss of identity" (not human, hence maybe not accepted into pack) or "loss of security" (not understanding human communications thus be corrected or gets "negative" reactions from humans). And dogs do "run away" with reasons.
> ...


I have zero interest in a dog seeing me as its mother, if that is even possible. For one thing, a male dog will even mate with its own mother after it is mature. Dogs do not recognize their parents as such after a certain age, nor do they really carry much of a bond for parents. For another...I certainly would not want a puppy trying to nurse me! LOL!


----------



## hueyeats (Apr 2, 2013)

packetsmom said:


> I have zero interest in a dog seeing me as its mother, if that is even possible. *For one thing, a male dog will even mate with its own mother after it is mature*. Dogs do not recognize their parents as such after a certain age, nor do they really carry much of a bond for parents. For another...I certainly would not want a puppy trying to nurse me! LOL!


That, a human is in control no???
Internet will also tell you, some humans are even of a "sicker" nature than dogs.
They even do goats.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

packetsmom said:


> I do think that the fact that there is a limited amount of time to train plays a factor as well. Even if you aren't trying to rush a dog in order to be ready in time for a trial, there is a limited amount of training time in any club. You have the field reserved for x amount of hours. You have only x amount of hours in that where there will be a helper to work with you. At that level, you need to use the entire field for an exercise like that, meaning that only 1 dog can work at a time, so you usually only have 1 or 2 shots at a protection exercise that night. A club only works on protection usually once or twice a week. So, there can be a lot of pressure to get the dog to do the exercise right and give a ton of reinforcement for that correct exercise right then.
> 
> I think the more pressured a handler feels for time or the more stressed they feel to get a good performance, the more likely they are to use positive punishment, at least in IPO.


Some very good points. 

In this case, since the dog is off leash and just going for it, I do see the ecollar as sort of the emergency brake. If your dog takes an agility jump out of turn, whatever - collect the dog and walk away. If your dog goes to bite somebody out of turn, that is sort of a big deal.

Assuming the ecollar was not zapping the poor dog, and used on a low setting to gain attention and break through that focus, I think it can probably be used effectively by skilled trainers. Lots of people aren't that skilled though.

I guess I agree that the dog needed to be "corrected" in the sense that it needed to not get rewarded for doing the exercise wrong, and needed to do it correctly. The logistics of being off leash and having a bite being the reinforcer make it trickier than in other sports. I think a good agility trainer whose dog took the wrong obstacle on purpose (because it just really liked that obstacle, for example) would step back and work at a lower level for a bit, controlling the situation. The fact that the Sch trainer was on limited time and opportunity probably makes positive punishment seem like the only logical choice at the time.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

I can't comment on IPO since I have zero experience there. 

Here's just a random agility thought...there is a terrier and sure as heck likes to run off and try to fence fight/crate fight with the other dogs. The dog is fast, going full out. It's pretty predictable, watching him when he's about to check out. For me, watching it's a sign that he's just not ready for everything at once. I am sure he can do the obstacles we're asking but that plus new dogs in kennels plus etc etc etc is just too much for him for now. 

And I do see frustration...and things done out of frustration... which I'm not sure gets anywhere. I think a lot of that could be fixed with foundations and a lot of people/trainers get anxious to move on and not really proof things. I can't blame them- trainers want to make some money and no one enjoys being stuck at baby levels, they want to get to running and doing the fun stuff. And handlers want some ribbons. 

The deal with agility is in my experience people won't correct physically but will end a run (maybe). Sometimes that seems fruitless to me because the dog's already over aroused and overstimulated. Or they just breeze through it anyways. I'm losing the point I was trying to make now, lol. 

Anecdote just meaning to say that oftentimes when I see a dog fail or choose to be disobedient there's a failure in training and most likely back in the beginning stages of training. And a lot of times people want an easier way out than to go back and fix things from scratch.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

Laurelin said:


> Anecdote just meaning to say that oftentimes when I see a dog fail or choose to be disobedient there's a failure in training and most likely back in the beginning stages of training. And a lot of times people want an easier way out than to go back and fix things from scratch.


Agreed.

Or the dog is just not having a good day. Either he's sick, sore, tired, or his brain has just checked out for whatever reason.


----------



## Amaryllis (Dec 28, 2011)

I have serious issues with "willful disobedience". I'm not even entirely positive that a dog can "willfully disobey". In order to willfully disobey one must know exactly what is expected, deliberately plan to do something else and be able to look forward to see the consequences of that. I haven't seen any research that suggests that dogs are capable of that. Dogs can, and do, disobey, but willful disobedience is another thing entirely.

There's also the issue that the vast majority of people, myself included, have or have had sick or disabled dogs and not even known it. It took 6 months for me to figure out that Kabota is deaf in one ear, which definitely affects his ability to come when called. Every day someone posts about their dog having some long standing health issue that they had no idea about until the condition reached such a state that it became completely obvious. So how many dogs are out there tired, in pain, nauseated, headachey, etc. getting a nice, hard leash pop for being "willfully disobedient"? 



> Packetsmom:
> 
> I think the more pressured a handler feels for time or the more stressed they feel to get a good performance, the more likely they are to use positive punishment, at least in IPO.


And that just kills me. Who benefits from a perfect performance in dog sports? The dog? No. The dog doesn't benefit at all. All the benefit accrues to the handler. People punishing their dogs for failing to perform as they wish them to make me incredibly angry because the dog is experiencing pain and fear solely so the human can have a nice ribbon and brag about some letters after their dog's name. The dog may enjoy the sport and may benefit from the exercise, sure, but ribbons and titles are meaningless to animals, and if you have to punish to achieve that don't expect me to congratulate you.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

Amaryllis, so you don't think that dogs just choose to do something else sometimes? There are a few things that I know Watson "knows" in certain situations, but sometimes he wants to do something else instead. He has heard me, he knows what "sit" means, but he doesn't do it. So what is that if not willful? I don't think he's doing it to be a jerk, but he has decided that he doesn't feel like sitting when I ask him. Is the issue with the word "willful"? 

When my dog disobeys, I don't punish or correct harshly. I set him up to do what I asked, so if he didn't sit at 5ft away, I get closer, get his attention, and ask again or wait him out, then praise. I do it in a calm and patient manner. He might not want to sit right then, but he is going to do it. That's a "correction", since I am correcting him not sitting, but I don't think it's punishment either (except maybe negative punishment, since he had to sit instead of do whatever else he wanted to do). 

And last night he was tired and sore (recovering from lyme) and when I asked for a sit stay at the end of the night, he laid down twice (I helped him back into a sit the first time). After that second time, I asked for the down and let him do a down stay instead, because he was obviously tired. So I did correct the down initially, by getting him to sit (gently, by cuing it) but I also took his cue that he just wasn't comfortable sitting at that time and would rather do a down.

I do agree that if you are going to do a sport with the dog, you should make it as enjoyable as possible for the dog. He didn't sign up for it, and doesn't deserve to be punished harshly in the name of reliability.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

I think MOST of the time what people call willful disobedience, something else is going on. 

BUT having said that: When Maisy is sunbathing in the backyard and I call her to come inside because I have to go to work, and she lifts her head, looks at me, and puts her head back down again... I'm pretty sure she's has precisely calculated the relative benefit to her of continuing to lay in the sun vs coming inside and deliberately chosen not to obey, lol. (I mean, really in training words it's a matter of competing motivators with different value to her and mine losing out but that doesn't mean it isn't deliberate.)


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

hueyeats said:


> That, a human is in control no???
> Internet will also tell you, some humans are even of a "sicker" nature than dogs.
> They even do goats.


I have no clue what you are trying to say here...I'm not sure I want to.

I'm not sure what place bestiality has in a dog training discussion, but suffice it to say that it's not in my training bag. Yech.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

elrohwen said:


> Amaryllis, so you don't think that dogs just choose to do something else sometimes? There are a few things that I know Watson "knows" in certain situations, but sometimes he wants to do something else instead. He has heard me, he knows what "sit" means, but he doesn't do it. So what is that if not willful? I don't think he's doing it to be a jerk, but he has decided that he doesn't feel like sitting when I ask him. Is the issue with the word "willful"?
> 
> When my dog disobeys, I don't punish or correct harshly. I set him up to do what I asked, so if he didn't sit at 5ft away, I get closer, get his attention, and ask again or wait him out, then praise. I do it in a calm and patient manner. He might not want to sit right then, but he is going to do it. That's a "correction", since I am correcting him not sitting, but I don't think it's punishment either (except maybe negative punishment, since he had to sit instead of do whatever else he wanted to do).
> 
> ...


I think I get what amaryllis is saying. If the dog is blowing you off, my first question is why. It's usually an issue of motivators like in Sass' example.


----------



## MrsBoats (May 20, 2010)

And then there's me....when my dog IS listening and willingly obeying commands (like holding a start line stay) it means he IS sick.  "Why are you being such a good boy?? Where is the magnificent bastard I'm used to?? Guess it's time for a Lyme test...." LOL


----------



## cookieface (Jul 6, 2011)

I agree with much of what Laurelin, Elrohwen, and Amaryllis have said. The more I think about willful disobedience in dogs, the less I'm inclined to really think it exists (at least on as widespread a level as many seem to believe). In most cases of a dog blowing off his handler, it's either due to competing motivation or physical/mental issues. Willful disobedience, to me, seems more like an act of rebellion or spite (which are, themselves, situations where the motivation to misbehave is stronger than the motivation to behave). 

I do remember reading about a study that suggested dogs are more likely to "misbehave" when they think no one is watching, which does seem to indicate some level of planning and/or awareness of potential consequences. I just found a blurb about it, but I can't vouch for the methodology or credentials of the researchers. 

Just a random thought based on what Laurelin posted about watching dogs check out during agility. And, keep in mind that I know nothing about schutzhund or IPO. If the handler knows the dog has "checked out" and is skipping steps, couldn't s/he signal the helper to leave or somehow prevent the dog from being rewarded by biting? The dog would then, only be reinforced if he completed the entire course in the correct order. I do agree that if this type of thing is happening more than a few times, the dog may be attempting activities that are too advanced.


----------



## hueyeats (Apr 2, 2013)

packetsmom said:


> I have no clue what you are trying to say here...I'm not sure I want to.
> 
> I'm not sure what place bestiality has in a dog training discussion, but suffice it to say that it's not in my training bag. Yech.





packetsmom said:


> I have zero interest in a dog seeing me as its mother, if that is even possible. *For one thing, a male dog will even mate with its own mother after it is mature*. Dogs do not recognize their parents as such after a certain age, nor do they really carry much of a bond for parents. For another...I certainly would not want a puppy trying to nurse me! LOL!


A truth for another truth.
What makes your observations so different than mine???


P.S. When my original talk of trying to understand dog in "their language" is just about making that dog have something to focus on (bridging that communication gap)... hence bridging the beginnings of "trust".


----------



## Capri142 (Jun 14, 2013)

There are some "trainers" these days who seem to believe that any correction is a form of punishment. 

I once sat in on an obedience class where the trainer did not believe in any type of corrections at all. ALL training was to be positive reinforcement. To say the least the dogs were not WELL trained. 

I believe that corrections can be very useful. However Yelling at the dog, Yanking on a leash, all without reason are not correction, they are punishment for an action that was not taken as perceived correctly by the owner. Often before the dog had a chance to perform. However, if one lets the dog make the correction a lot can be accomplished. 
For instance, teaching a dog to heel is really a matter of getting the dog to pay attention to you but many people think that but pulling on the leash, yanking the dog back to them and shouting "HEEL FIDO" over and over will, somehow, eventually get the dog to walk calmly beside them. Of course it never works. However if you don't say a word, let the dog run to the end of the leash and make its own correction, after awhile it will soon learn that there is an end to the leash and begin to watch you before charging off. By doing an about face while the dog is next to you or ahead of you and walking in the opposite direction the dog will make its own correction again UNLESS it watches you. Soon the dog will start paying attention to where you are going and you have never said a word or offered a treat. The only corrections that were given are the ones that THE DOG made because it was not paying attention. 

If the dog makes the corrections, I think that they can be very constructive.


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

cookieface said:


> I agree with much of what Laurelin, Elrohwen, and Amaryllis have said. The more I think about willful disobedience in dogs, the less I'm inclined to really think it exists (at least on as widespread a level as many seem to believe). In most cases of a dog blowing off his handler, it's either due to competing motivation or physical/mental issues. Willful disobedience, to me, seems more like an act of rebellion or spite (which are, themselves, situations where the motivation to misbehave is stronger than the motivation to behave).
> 
> I do remember reading about a study that suggested dogs are more likely to "misbehave" when they think no one is watching, which does seem to indicate some level of planning and/or awareness of potential consequences. I just found a blurb about it, but I can't vouch for the methodology or credentials of the researchers.
> 
> Just a random thought based on what Laurelin posted about watching dogs check out during agility. And, keep in mind that I know nothing about schutzhund or IPO. If the handler knows the dog has "checked out" and is skipping steps, couldn't s/he signal the helper to leave or somehow prevent the dog from being rewarded by biting? The dog would then, only be reinforced if he completed the entire course in the correct order. I do agree that if this type of thing is happening more than a few times, the dog may be attempting activities that are too advanced.


The dog isctrained to go after and stop the helper if they try to "escape," so if the dog is already going after the helper, then asking the helper to "leave" is actually giving the dog permission to go after the helper. The helper could throw down the sleeve and walk off, but since the dog is usually rewarded at the end of an exercise by the helper giving them the sleeve, that would also be reinforcing for the dog.

To me, a dog choosing a competing motivation over a known, understood command is willful disobedience. The question I'm wondering about is how to address that when it isn't possible to increase the reward for following the command vs. the competing motivation.

Another issue I have is that I don't think all physical corrections intimidate all dogs or damage the bond between dog and handler. If that were the case, how did people and dogs survive at all when all training was by compulsion? 

I don't think it's all black and white.


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

hueyeats said:


> A truth for another truth.
> What makes your observations so different than mine???
> 
> 
> P.S. When my original talk of trying to understand dog in "their language" is just about making that dog have something to focus on (bridging that communication gap)... hence bridging the beginnings of "trust".


Please...please stop hijacking threads. Let the grownups have an adult conversation here.


----------



## MrsBoats (May 20, 2010)

packetsmom said:


> The dog isctrained to go after and stop the helper if they try to "escape," so if the dog is already going after the helper, then asking the helper to "leave" is actually giving the dog permission to go after the helper. The helper could throw down the sleeve and walk off, but since the dog is usually rewarded at the end of an exercise by the helper giving them the sleeve, that would also be reinforcing for the dog.
> 
> To me, a dog choosing a competing motivation over a known, understood command is willful disobedience. The question I'm wondering about is how to address that when it isn't possible to increase the reward for following the command vs. the competing motivation.
> 
> ...


I'm not going to get really involved with this thread. But I will really agree that it isn't black and white. I completely understand what you're talking about the dog that chooses to self-reward over anything the handler could possibly offer the dog as another reward. I have a dog like that and it can be challenging sometimes. I've always said you have to train the dog that is in front of you. But I am not going to get into a discussion about him or how I train him here because I've been there, done that on this board. 

Someone should point Emily over here and maybe she can have some input because she works in the sport herself.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

packetsmom said:


> To me, a dog choosing a competing motivation over a known, understood command is willful disobedience. The question I'm wondering about is how to address that when it isn't possible to increase the reward for following the command vs. the competing motivation.


It's not a popular opinion, but I actually agree with you. Both Squash and Maisy will occasionally hear me, look straight at me, pause (you can practically see the smoke coming out of their ears), and then completely ignore me. I absolutely agree that in those cases I've lost the competing motivators game, but I do NOT think that and willful disobedience are mutually exclusive. Pip has NEVER done this to me, unless he's stressed out (when he simply shuts down) he is extremely biddable and it's really not hard to motivate him. The others... not always so much, lol. 

What I do is... practice and proof out the wazoo. I don't ask them to do things when I know I'm going to lose the motivators game (eg I don't call Maisy to come in from the backyard when she's sunbathing anymore). I do use some mild corrections but my dogs are relatively soft and I have to be careful with it.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

packetsmom said:


> To me, a dog choosing a competing motivation over a known, understood command is willful disobedience. The question I'm wondering about is how to address that when it isn't possible to increase the reward for following the command vs. the competing motivation.


I've been there a few times and... I cheat. LOL One benefit of having small dogs is well.... I can just pick 'em up and move 'em if they're being brats.

One specific thing coming to mind was in our distractions class. It was basically an agility proofing class where the dogs are expected to perform and stay with you through things like: other dogs being on the field doing wild things, toys being bounced at them, people acting weird, loud noises, etc. It all went well until we were supposed to run a sequence with people lying down and sitting on the ground. 

Well if you know Summer you know she's about as close to a Lassie 'i just want to be good' dog as there ever was. However, her weakness is that she LOVES people. I mean to say that Summer really really loves people. Her highest reward possible would be to get to go get loved on by people. They are the most awesomest thing to her ever and good luck trying to overcome that. People on the ground (and laps right there to jump in) was too much. But I still could get her to do her agility thanks to all the work we'd done before that. However, when her turn was up I was to crate her. And there wasn't any way possible she was going to go crate up like I wanted her to. She was working agility so well and then you see the thought process play out completely and her look at me... then at the crate.... then at the people on the ground... and she just booked it. That entire class she was not going to get in that crate on her own free will. No doubt in my mind that Summer knew I was going to tell her to get in her crate and no way, no how did Summer want to crate.

So yeah I cheated... walked over and plucked her up and shoved her in the crate. lol <--- I guess that is more management than any training philosophy. Haven't had another instance where people were lying down on the field again and I needed to crate Summer. 



> Another issue I have is that I don't think all physical corrections intimidate all dogs or damage the bond between dog and handler.


I agree completely. In fact I would say most dogs can probably take mild physical corrections.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

I'm with Sass and packetsmom that competing motivators can fall under willful disobedience for me. Ok, if Watson is so focused on a bird or furry thing that his brain is in its own universe, he's probably not willfully disobeying - he really hasn't heard me. But there are situations where doing just about anything, because he wants to do it, is more important than what I have asked him to do. At nosework he stays in the car while other dogs run. He knows the cue to get in the car and does it the first time I ask every other time, including other days at the training facility. On nosework day, he trots right up to the car and puts on the brakes. He knows I want him to get in the car, and he knows there might be a reward in it, by he wants to go back to work, not in the car. I would call that willful. I can't win the motivation game against doing one of his favorite activities, but he has to learn that he's getting in the car because I said. In other situations, like sass I just won't ask for something if I won't get it and don't feel like making him do it. Like Laurelin I'm not against cheating and physically making him do something (like getting in the car) but I try to get him to do it on his own by just being more stubborn than he is. If I stand there and point at the car long enough I usually get the dog equivalent of a teenage eyeroll and melodramatic sigh and he does it.


----------



## hanksimon (Mar 18, 2009)

I haven't seen anyone say this explicitly:
Punishment makes the behavior stop; Rewards encourage the behavior to continue. So, in my opinion, a correction is made to stop a dog's distraction or incorrect behavior with respect to the desired behavior, for example sniffing rather than sitting .. example below 

My form of 'correction' is to tell Shep to Sit, then come back to me, when we are off-leash. "Sit" is a 'punishment' curtailing freedom, and stopping Shep's wandering. However, if Shep finds a wonderful aroma on the ground to sniff [female dog pee  ], and I want him to stop, then I ask him to Sit. If he doesn't listen, then I will smack his tail - no, not his butt, literally thumping his fluffy tail. If your dog has a fluffy tail, then you know that thumping the end of it, is as ineffective as slapping a falling leaf in mid-air  

In any case, it does "get his attention" and he sits .... continuing to sniff without missing a beat 

I don't use traditional corrections - leash pops - and I discourage others. However, one of the more impressive trainers that I worked with, could pop a leash to correct a dog. He might say Sit, ... Fido, Sit, then pop! It was quick, decisive, a surprise, but harmless. The trainer pulled the leash and released before any significant pressure resulted. But, it successfully distracted the dog from the inappropriate distraction, so that the dog would focus on the trainer [I purposely worded it in this convoluted way to make a point.]


----------



## lil_fuzzy (Aug 16, 2010)

packetsmom said:


> The dog isctrained to go after and stop the helper if they try to "escape," so if the dog is already going after the helper, then asking the helper to "leave" is actually giving the dog permission to go after the helper. The helper could throw down the sleeve and walk off, but since the dog is usually rewarded at the end of an exercise by the helper giving them the sleeve, that would also be reinforcing for the dog.
> 
> *To me, a dog choosing a competing motivation over a known, understood command is willful disobedience. The question I'm wondering about is how to address that when it isn't possible to increase the reward for following the command vs. the competing motivation.*
> 
> ...


This actually isn't all that hard. You just use the competing motivation as the reward for obeying the command first. Over time, this becomes habit for the dog, so even when you one day meet something you can't release the dog to (e.g. it would be dangerous to do so), the dog has so much history of being released to what he wants if he just obeys you first, that he will obey you anyway. He doesn't know he won't get released to what he wants, and when you don't, it will just be one of those time when he didn't get a reward (i.e. intermittent schedule of reinforcement which you would have already trained for).

While the dog is in training, good management is key. The dog should never be able to leave you to seek out a competing motivator. The dog should only be released to self-reward after first turning his attention to you and obeying at least one command. Eventually the dog's default behaviour around highly motivating things will be to seek you out to get permission to go and self-reward.

This is another problem I have with corrections. If you correct a dog for seeking out a competing motivator, you're ruining a potentially great reward for your dog. A good trainer may be able to get around this and still have a dog who can be sent to a motivator it's previously been corrected for trying to seek out, but I'd think this is far beyond the skill of the average dog owner, or even most trainers.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

Laurelin said:


> I've been there a few times and... I cheat. LOL One benefit of having small dogs is well.... I can just pick 'em up and move 'em if they're being brats.


This is one of my favorite things about having small dogs, haha. Oh, you don't want to stop freaking out about that loose dog zooming back and forth, chasing squirrels? Lemme just pick you up and MAKE you leave the area, then! 



> Another issue I have is that I don't think all physical corrections intimidate all dogs or damage the bond between dog and handler.





> I agree completely. In fact I would say most dogs can probably take mild physical corrections.


A lot of dogs can even take harsh ones. Take Casper, for example. I don't use harsh corrections as a rule, but sometimes, like any fallible person, I lose my temper and do things I shouldn't. One night not too long ago, I was tired and having a bad day, and he decided to freak out at the raccoon he knew was in the dumpster outside. He wouldn't pee (which is why we were out there), he wouldn't stop lunging and jumping, he wouldn't stop whine-barking. He made me drop my phone (which I use as a flashlight) and almost break it. I got mad and yanked him off his feet. Didn't faze him one bit. There have been other times (not frequently) where I corrected him a little too hard accidentally or out of anger, or times where he "corrected himself" by suddenly lunging and hitting the end of his leash hard. He barely even notices. 

Of course, I'm not going to use harsh corrections in training, because it's lazy and harmful and it doesn't even work. 

(And I'm not going to recommend physical corrections to people who post here asking for advice, for reasons mentioned many times.)



elrohwen said:


> If I stand there and point at the car long enough I usually get the dog equivalent of a teenage eyeroll and melodramatic sigh and he does it.


That is the perfect way to describe it!

This thread made me think of something Crystal does, so I just got a quick video. I don't know if this counts as willful disobedience or if it's a case of insufficient reward (this is her favorite trick and the default behavior she offers when she wants something, and she has it down pat, but I am not rewarding her with anything in this video), but here you can see how she acts when she gets tired of performing a certain behavior:






She's already sort of bored when the video starts, hence the mouthing. And some of my "good"s are way off, too. I guess Crystal and I both get lazy with the well-known commands.


----------



## RabbleFox (Jan 23, 2013)

How does a dog "correct himself" on a leash? If hitting the end of the leash hard was a correction, I think Wolf would have learned by now that pulling on the leash sucks. Instead he just chokes himself unless I engage him. Prong collars self correct but a flat collar does not, really. At least not for this Lab. 

On the topic of correcting, generally, I believe that if you are having to make corrections, then you need to take a step back. The environment is too distracting, you aren't enticing enough, or a combination of both. Corrections have their place but like super rarely. Anything above a "Hey!" or "Eh! Eh!" doesn't happen very often.


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

lil_fuzzy said:


> This actually isn't all that hard. You just use the competing motivation as the reward for obeying the command first. Over time, this becomes habit for the dog, so even when you one day meet something you can't release the dog to (e.g. it would be dangerous to do so), the dog has so much history of being released to what he wants if he just obeys you first, that he will obey you anyway. He doesn't know he won't get released to what he wants, and when you don't, it will just be one of those time when he didn't get a reward (i.e. intermittent schedule of reinforcement which you would have already trained for).
> 
> While the dog is in training, good management is key. The dog should never be able to leave you to seek out a competing motivator. The dog should only be released to self-reward after first turning his attention to you and obeying at least one command. Eventually the dog's default behaviour around highly motivating things will be to seek you out to get permission to go and self-reward.
> 
> This is another problem I have with corrections. If you correct a dog for seeking out a competing motivator, you're ruining a potentially great reward for your dog. A good trainer may be able to get around this and still have a dog who can be sent to a motivator it's previously been corrected for trying to seek out, but I'd think this is far beyond the skill of the average dog owner, or even most trainers.


So, how would you handle the example given?


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

MrsBoats said:


> I'm not going to get really involved with this thread. But I will really agree that it isn't black and white. I completely understand what you're talking about the dog that chooses to self-reward over anything the handler could possibly offer the dog as another reward. I have a dog like that and it can be challenging sometimes. I've always said you have to train the dog that is in front of you. But I am not going to get into a discussion about him or how I train him here because I've been there, done that on this board.
> 
> Someone should point Emily over here and maybe she can have some input because she works in the sport herself.


There likely will come a time I'll end up talking less and less about our training here, too, particularly if we continue with protection. I likely would have hit the e-collar button as well in the same situation.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

elrohwen said:


> If I stand there and point at the car long enough I usually get the dog equivalent of a teenage eyeroll and melodramatic sigh and he does it.


I swear to god I have actually heard Squash sigh in similar situations.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Personally, I like the training discussions on here. It makes me think sometimes, which is something I should probably do more of. But yeah, in all reality I'll be following trainers' advice in person more than likely if there's a conflict. At any rate, I find this discussion very tame and I don't think most people are 100% against corrections. Or at least that's not what I'm getting from the posts.


----------



## MrsBoats (May 20, 2010)

packetsmom said:


> There likely will come a time I'll end up talking less and less about our training here, too, particularly if we continue with protection. I likely would have hit the e-collar button as well in the same situation.


Yes...I think discussion of the nitty gritty of Schutzhund/IPO work would be best left in the Schutzhund & French Ring thread in the Show and working dog board on here. 

I love talking training...but discussions get mired down with definitions, misunderstandings, warring methodologies, and labels. So that is why you will find someone like me and now someone like Packetsmom who will spend less time discussing training. I'll spend my time discussing training in the show/work board now and about specific sports, their levels, and venues. 

And for what it's worth I am in complete agreement of how the ecollar was used in that situation you were talking about at your training session. 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## MyCharlie (Nov 4, 2007)

Laurelin said:


> Personally, I like the training discussions on here. It makes me think sometimes, which is something I should probably do more of.


Totally agree. Last night I was thinking, "you know, I can't remember the last time I corrected Charlie." Then we were on a walk earlier and he barked at a lady walking down the street, didn't listen to my "leave it" right away, so I gave him a little tug to get his butt in gear and moving along with me. He wears a harness on our walks, so it wasn't technically a leash pop, but I suppose that could still be considered a correction. Who knows?! But at least these discussions get me to pay more attention to my actions.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

cookieface said:


> But, to discuss concepts, it helps if everyone uses agreed upon terminology so there are no misunderstandings. Punishment and reinforcement have definite definitions; correction means different things to different people.


Exactly. Sorry for wanting to keep things as much on "standard" definitions as possible. Also didn't think wanting to call things by their names is semantics. I guess I know better now. I just think it makes sense to discuss training in training terms with training meanings attached to words.

I'll just go away.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

RabbleFox said:


> How does a dog "correct himself" on a leash? If hitting the end of the leash hard was a correction, I think Wolf would have learned by now that pulling on the leash sucks. Instead he just chokes himself unless I engage him. Prong collars self correct but a flat collar does not, really. At least not for this Lab.


Well, as always, the dog determines what's aversive enough to end the behavior he's engaging in. For Wolf, it doesn't bother him and he makes him want to keep going, etc. 

For Wally - it was enough after a few days of it. If it didn't work for Wally, I'd have to try something else.


----------



## MrsBoats (May 20, 2010)

Since this discussion revolves around Schutzhund and its training, it may be helpful to give a link so everyone can see the final product of the protection phase which is what Packetsmom was talking primarily about. 

This is Ocean's father, Atom earning his IPOIII which is the highest level of the sport -






As you can see...Atom was a little excited to play this "game".


----------



## RabbleFox (Jan 23, 2013)

KBLover said:


> Well, as always, the dog determines what's aversive enough to end the behavior he's engaging in. For Wolf, it doesn't bother him and he makes him want to keep going, etc.
> 
> For Wally - it was enough after a few days of it. If it didn't work for Wally, I'd have to try something else.


He's one of those Labs who just doesn't rightly care that he's choking. We're working on Kikopup's "change direction" method right now. Much better than getting my butt dragged around whilst I'm waiting for him to correct himself. I doubt a prong collar would even phase him... Though people have suggested it.

Note: I love watching Sch dogs heel. They are so excited and glued to their handlers thigh... and then the amount of control it takes to get him to refrain from immediately "playing" with the helper is incredible.


----------



## lil_fuzzy (Aug 16, 2010)

packetsmom said:


> So, how would you handle the example given?


Not sure which example you're referring to? The one where the dog goes after the helper before being given permission to? I'm not entirely sure how you train that or what the rules are, but if the dog isn't reliable and would go after the helper before being given permission, it should be managed so it can't self-reward, by being on a long line, and possibly make it easier for the dog so it can be successful. Then just stop the dog, put it back or ask it to do whatever it was you wanted it to do, then give a low value reward for doing it correctly, such as a pat and praise. Not the ultimate reward because you had to help the dog. Then try it again and if it gets it right, release it to the ultimate reward.

If the dog isn't reliable enough to be in that situation without making a mistake, it's the trainers fault for giving the dog too much freedom too soon or for moving forward with the training before the dog was ready.

That's the approach I would use with any high value motivator anywhere, and the more you do it everywhere and with many different motivators, the better the dog will be at training and in the ring too.

I would also accept that dogs can make mistakes. I certainly have brain blanks and I make mistakes even when I've done something many times and I know what I'm supposed to be doing. I'm not perfect and can't perform like a robot 100% of the time, so I certainly can't expect that from my dogs either. If I know my dogs know what's expected and they usually perform to a high standard, I will allow them to make a mistake without considering giving them any kind of punishment or correction for it. Usually I will just set them up to try again. It's only an issue if mistakes are a trend, and then I would first question and blame my own training, not the dog.


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

The example is from the ScH 3 test, which has a dog run around 6 blinds in order, checking each one. In the trial, the helper (aka bad guy) will be hiding behind the last blind, but in practice, it's preferred to randomize which blind he hides behind to avoid this very problem. Also, keep in mind that the dog is trained to stop the helper if he tries to escape by going for the sleeve if he tries to run, which is another part of the test. Another part of the test is running at full speed across the entire field and subduing the helper. Another factor is that dogs at the level have already successfully trialled with 4 blinds for their ScH title, so this is an exercise they have done so many times they can do it in their sleep. They do this exercise off lead at some distance from the handler with the handler far enough away that they must yell out commands. The final factor is that these dogs are in full drive when they do this, about as amped up as racehorses at the starting gate.

What happened in this case is that the helper saw that the dog spotted him when it rounded the second blind, directly across from blind #4 where he was hiding. He waited until the dog was running with its back to him to try to go from blind 4 to six so that the dog would not do what it ended up trying to do, blowing off the command to search blind #3 and instead go straight for him. At this point, handler, dog, and helper were all doing exactly what they should.

This dog is smart, though, and looked back to blind #4 and saw the helper moving and started to reverse course. The handler saw the dog start to turn and repeated the command to go to blind #3, but at that point, his dog could no longer hear the command...he was focused only on the helper. The helper could have dropped the sleeve, but even just getting the empty sleeve would have been reinforcing enough. Had the helper run, the dog would have given chase. If the helper just stood there, it still would have reinforced the dog. So, at this point, there is nothing the helper can do.

The handler cannot reach his dog before the dog reaches the helper. It's too far and the dog is too fast. Realistically, he only has the practice time to do this exercise 2 times and only 2-3 times a week, given the availability of the field and helper. His second voice command has failed. If he does not get the dog's attention and stop the behavior it will be highly reinforcing no matter what anyone else does.

So...what should he do?


----------



## lil_fuzzy (Aug 16, 2010)

packetsmom said:


> The example is from the ScH 3 test, which has a dog run around 6 blinds in order, checking each one. In the trial, the helper (aka bad guy) will be hiding behind the last blind, but in practice, it's preferred to randomize which blind he hides behind to avoid this very problem. Also, keep in mind that the dog is trained to stop the helper if he tries to escape by going for the sleeve if he tries to run, which is another part of the test. Another part of the test is running at full speed across the entire field and subduing the helper. Another factor is that dogs at the level have already successfully trialled with 4 blinds for their ScH title, so this is an exercise they have done so many times they can do it in their sleep. They do this exercise off lead at some distance from the handler with the handler far enough away that they must yell out commands. The final factor is that these dogs are in full drive when they do this, about as amped up as racehorses at the starting gate.
> 
> What happened in this case is that the helper saw that the dog spotted him when it rounded the second blind, directly across from blind #4 where he was hiding. He waited until the dog was running with its back to him to try to go from blind 4 to six so that the dog would not do what it ended up trying to do, blowing off the command to search blind #3 and instead go straight for him. At this point, handler, dog, and helper were all doing exactly what they should.
> 
> ...


Well, when you're at a trial you can't do training, so obviously you'd have to consider this a fail and then go back and fix it in training. Work on listening to verbal commands even when the dog can see the helper. Use the helper as a distraction while training all kinds of stuff and teach the dog to pay attention in drive (which is just a matter of practice) and that the only way to get to the helper is to listen.

You don't try to train stuff at a trial when things have already gone wrong (dog has seen the helper). Knowing that there's a chance the dog will see the helper at a trial, would just mean you have to train for that as a distraction as well.

So in this situation, just manage it the best you can to try to get the best possible result, then fix it in training where you can control the situation. In training, the dog should never have the chance to run up to the helper.


----------



## cookieface (Jul 6, 2011)

lil_fuzzy said:


> Well, when you're at a trial you can't do training, so obviously you'd have to consider this a fail and then go back and fix it in training. Work on listening to verbal commands even when the dog can see the helper. Use the helper as a distraction while training all kinds of stuff and teach the dog to pay attention in drive (which is just a matter of practice) and that the only way to get to the helper is to listen.
> 
> You don't try to train stuff at a trial when things have already gone wrong (dog has seen the helper). Knowing that there's a chance the dog will see the helper at a trial, would just mean you have to train for that as a distraction as well.
> 
> So in this situation, just manage it the best you can to try to get the best possible result, then fix it in training where you can control the situation. In training, the dog should never have the chance to run up to the helper.


Honest question asked out of pure curiosity. Would the situation of a dog not responding during a trial and using a e-collar to regain control be akin to an emergency collar yank to keep a dog from running into a busy street or a shove to prevent jumping onto a hot stove? All of those scenarios are a matter of reacting with the expectation that additional training will follow. They're not training situations.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Can you even use e-collars in a trial at IPO? I know in agility trials you absolutely cannot train in the ring. Dogs run without any equipment on and you can't have a treat in your pocket or a toy or a clicker or anything on you. In a trial if you lose control of your dog (or the dog shuts down or whatever), you really have to take it as a 'ok we're done'. The training would have to be done outside of trials. There are certainly some dogs though that feed off the atmosphere of the trial and come up with some.... interesting ways of dealing with that.


----------



## lil_fuzzy (Aug 16, 2010)

cookieface said:


> Honest question asked out of pure curiosity. Would the situation of a dog not responding during a trial and using a e-collar to regain control be akin to an emergency collar yank to keep a dog from running into a busy street or a shove to prevent jumping onto a hot stove? All of those scenarios are a matter of reacting with the expectation that additional training will follow. They're not training situations.


Yeah, I guess you could see it like that. But as already asked, are you even allowed to do that at a trial?

And personally, I don't think I would use the e-collar or a yank on the leash unless there was some danger involved. If it's just the dog making a mistake at a trial that you know you will need to fix in training later, and the dog isn't in any kind of danger, it's not really worth it to yank on the dog imo. But of course in the heat of the moment you might do that and not realise it was silly until after.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

lil_fuzzy said:


> Yeah, I guess you could see it like that. But as already asked, are you even allowed to do that at a trial?


I don't know the rules for IPO, but it's possible that the dogs aren't allowed to even wear the collars during a trial in the first place, so it may be a moot point. Hopefully someone who knows the rules better will chime in about that.

In any case, sometimes during a trial handlers choose to do things that "aren't allowed". In Rally if a dog is distracted by the environment and not performing well, I've seen handlers choose to essentially use it as a training run. In WCRL rally you are allowed to treat after certain exercises so most handlers have treats in their pockets, although in AKC you cannot. 

You just get NQ'd, which if you have reached the point of making that decision you probably weren't going to get a qualifying score anyway.


----------



## cookieface (Jul 6, 2011)

lil_fuzzy said:


> Yeah, I guess you could see it like that. But as already asked, are you even allowed to do that at a trial?
> 
> And personally, I don't think I would use the e-collar or a yank on the leash unless there was some danger involved. If it's just the dog making a mistake at a trial that you know you will need to fix in training later, and the dog isn't in any kind of danger, it's not really worth it to yank on the dog imo. But of course in the heat of the moment you might do that and not realise it was silly until after.


Since the original situation involved a dog wearing an e-collar at a trial, I assumed it was permitted. 

I agree that training should not be a goal during a trial (mentally noting what areas need additional training would be a good thing, though). Not being familiar with schutzhund, I wasn't sure if there was an element of danger (perhaps to the helper, not the dog). Rereading, it does seem as though the intent was to use the trial as an opportunity for training and not that any real harm was imminent. In this case, I would do as you suggested (assuming I wasn't panicking): allow the dog to complete the trial and adjust training as needed to prevent a recurrence.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

cookieface said:


> Since the original situation involved a dog wearing an e-collar at a trial, I assumed it was permitted..


Packetsmom can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the situation was in a training run, not in a trial.


----------



## Emmett (Feb 9, 2013)

packetsmom said:


> Also, keep in mind that the dog is trained to stop the helper if he tries to escape by going for the sleeve if he tries to run...
> 
> He waited until the dog was running with its back to him to try to go from blind 4 to six...
> 
> This dog is smart, though, and looked back to blind #4 and saw the helper moving and started to reverse course...


Perhaps something is being lost in explanation here, but based on what you've said the dog did exactly what it was supposed to. Perhaps he had every intention of methodically searching the third blind, but anticipated the helper was going to be sneaky and so checked. Sure enough he see's the guy start to go for it and does what he's been trained to do "stop the helper if he tries to escape." 

There is really no way for the dog to differentiate that the helper is simply moving to a new blind, the only thing the dog perceives is that the helper is breaking cover which translates to running. The dogs are smart and seasoned, they can keep their eye on the helper and perform their task at the same time.

My thinking is that even if the dog sees the helper in the blind the helper shouldn't attempt to move to a new blind, but instead stay put to find out whether the dog really will break. 

You also have the component that a 5th and 6th blind have been added per the new standard. The dog is used to the helper being in the 4th blind and probably keyed in on the blind simply out his the normal routine. My thinking is that until the dog really has the entire 6 blind search down the helper should avoid hiding in the blind that the dog is conditioned to key in on.

ETA: There is also little doubt in my mind that the dog knows exactly where the helper is the minute he steps on the field...assuming he is familiar with the game. He has already caught the scent and most likely pinpointed it to a pretty close location.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

cookieface said:


> Honest question asked out of pure curiosity. Would the situation of a dog not responding during a trial and using a e-collar to regain control be akin to an emergency collar yank to keep a dog from running into a busy street or a shove to prevent jumping onto a hot stove? All of those scenarios are a matter of reacting with the expectation that additional training will follow. They're not training situations.


Unless there was some danger, no. To me, zapping a dog for not listening while playing a *game* is like going out on the field and smacking your kid for messing up in soccer. If someone's in danger, OK, but otherwise, well, it's a game, people. Human ego shouldn't take precedence.


----------



## cookieface (Jul 6, 2011)

elrohwen said:


> Packetsmom can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the situation was in a training run, not in a trial.


Thanks for the clarification. I'll admit, I'm probably combining comments in my head.



Willowy said:


> Unless there was some danger, no. To me, zapping a dog for not listening while playing a *game* is like going out on the field and smacking your kid for messing up in soccer. If someone's in danger, OK, but otherwise, well, it's a game, people. Human ego shouldn't take precedence.


As I said, I wasn't sure if there was an element of danger involved (though for the helper, not dog) since I'm not familiar with schutzhund.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

cookieface said:


> As I said, I wasn't sure if there was an element of danger involved (though for the helper, not dog) since I'm not familiar with schutzhund.


This is kind of where I am. If it's really a game and there is no element of danger (which as we have discussed on the Sch/IPO thread, apparently there isn't) then I don't see the need to shock.

If we are taking this as a potentially dangerous situation that needs to stop immediately, then I am more willing to agree with the use of ecollar as emergency brake in this situation.


----------



## Emily1188 (Jun 21, 2011)

There is a lot of good talk on this thread! I could pontificate all day about the use of compulsion in training dogs both as pets and for sport, but I think others have done a pretty good job already. What I will say is that:

In bitework, the generally-accepted theory goes "horsepower before brakes." That means bringing the dog up to high level of drive before applying control. Get the dog consistently excited to play the game and to tug before asking for obedience behaviors during bitework, as too much obedience is seen as potentially oppressive and could dampen the dog's enthusiasm - so the theory goes. 

The hitch with this method, typically, is that by the time obedience during bitework is started, the dog's got so much horsepower that very often the handler cannot get compliance or control without some physical compulsion, because the dog is so high in drive. Thusly compulsion is used to add those "brakes." 

There are trainers who do not use physical compulsion that title very successfully in IPO and other sports. But you can see why that might require a very different approach. One where the dog is set up to succeed very early, where the foundation of control is introduced early on but through non-compulsive means to avoid squashing drive. These are the differences I have observed in training methods between more traditional protection training and that which does not use physical corrections. It takes an excellent foundation and a lot of skill to _not put the dog in a position to disregard cues_, and a lot of creativity.

For my part, Blossom has had collar corrections, though not in huge doses and never very harsh ones, in bitework. Do I believe they're "necessary"? No, in fact I _know_ they're not - anything is possible and I think there's ample proof that dogs can be taught to do just about anything using positive reinforcement. However, _I_ do not have the know-how as a beginner and I do not believe that small amounts of compulsion, delivered in a timely manner that the dog can learn from, are evil or BadWrong. In this case, I took the advice of my club's TD, whom I very much respect despite some significant differences in training styles, because he has far more experience with this type of dog than I do. If I could train with Denise Fenzi all the time, I'm sure I wouldn't "need" collar corrections. :wink:

Personally I suspect that the examples given regarding IPO dogs receiving corrections could all be rectified in other ways, but I also don't think that the corrections in those scenarios were "wrong" either. I reject the notion that dogs "need" corrections or compulsion to be trained successfully, because I if start out believing that, of course it will come true. But I am not above making the educated choice to use corrections/compulsion/P+ if I feel it can be effective with a minimum of harm to the dog. I strive to be an effective R+ trainer but I am not perfect, and sometimes things like time and resources get in the way for me.

And for my dog personally, the benefits of working far outstrip the momentary discomfort of a collar correction.


----------



## cookieface (Jul 6, 2011)

Thanks for the comment, Emily. This has been a very informative, polite, and thoughtful discussion.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

How do you deal with the thought that this is a GAME, and therefore maybe not worth causing a dog even momentary discomfort? I don't think I'd be able to get past that. Dogs don't care about winning ribbons, it seems wrong to use compulsion so the humans can win a game.


----------



## Emily1188 (Jun 21, 2011)

cookieface said:


> Thanks for the comment, Emily. This has been a very informative, polite, and thoughtful discussion.


My please and I totally agree. This thread is worth the read for just about anyone and is filled with very reasonable, logical points from all perspectives.


----------



## Cattledogfanatic (Sep 18, 2011)

Willowy said:


> How do you deal with the thought that this is a GAME, and therefore maybe not worth causing a dog even momentary discomfort? I don't think I'd be able to get past that. Dogs don't care about winning ribbons, it seems wrong to use compulsion so the humans can win a game.



I've been lurking since the thread was started. I totally agree with this. I'm so anti shock collar. It's a game and I don't see any point in playing if both dogs and humans are not having fun. Here's my however. After reading Emily's response, would it be fair to liken it to playing chase or tag or even riding a bike and falling down and skinning your knee? Momentary discomfort but the game is fun enough you're not going to stop playing because the game is fun enough you'll take that risk.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Willowy said:


> How do you deal with the thought that this is a GAME, and therefore maybe not worth causing a dog even momentary discomfort? I don't think I'd be able to get past that. Dogs don't care about winning ribbons, it seems wrong to use compulsion so the humans can win a game.


I don't think it's that simple at all.

Have you ever watched a dog work in any sport or particularly in something the dog was bred to do? There is a lot of value to the dog in being worked. My little 9 year old papillon completely lights up for agility. She gets a lot of joy out of it, it keeps her occupied both mentally and physically, helps keep her fit, improves our relationship, and in general just plain gives her a higher quality of life, and I could go on. My point is that it's her favorite thing in the world. It's even moreso watching dogs do what they were bred to do. Never been to an IPO trial but have been to stockdog trials (and believe me there are physical corrections in stock training). Those dogs live to work. I could see how the people involved in IPO see the benefits as outweighing the use of corrections. 

My ideal is that people don't get stuck in a rut, do question why they do things a specific way, and do things consciously and realize what they're doing...


----------



## Emily1188 (Jun 21, 2011)

Willowy said:


> How do you deal with the thought that this is a GAME, and therefore maybe not worth causing a dog even momentary discomfort? I don't think I'd be able to get past that. Dogs don't care about winning ribbons, it seems wrong to use compulsion so the humans can win a game.


Who said anything about doing it so I could win a game??? I do it because my dog needs to be controllable in protection work for it to be remotely responsible to continue training, and I continue training because it makes my dog's world go around and the benefits she reaps from it are enormous. Her genetic drive for the work is intense and it truly is her reason for being. That is reason enough for me; it may not be for you and you're free to make whatever decisions you would like for your dogs.

It's true I want to trial and I want to title, but I can assure you I'm not administering corrections so I can "win a game."


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

Emily, I agree, very good explanation that makes total sense. 

To me, it seems like the attitude of "obedience must squash drive" is probably left over from when obedience was trained with a lot of compulsion (not just corrections, but actually training the basics through compulsion). I was reading an article the other day where it said you should never practice obedience exercises in a set pattern or the dog will anticipate the retrieve (which was assumed by the author to be taught with the force fetch method) and start to lag in heel or otherwise lose drive. Of course, this rule to never practice a set pattern is only valid if your method of training one or more of the exercises is unpleasant to the dog and he negatively anticipates it. If everything was trained positively, it won't be an issue, or the issue becomes the dog anticipating, because he is excited to do the next command. 

That was off topic, but I guess my point is to agree with you that if someone is basing everything off of old training methods (ie compulsion trained obedience squashes drive) they may be missing out on newer ways to train. Obedience doesn't have to kill drive anymore if it's not trained with compulsion.

I'm still in the camp that I would not use an ecollar on a dog for sport training, because I signed him up for it and he deserves for me to find a way to train without it. I'm not against all corrections though. 

In the scenario described, from what I understand it does sound like the dog may have thought the helper changing blinds was the cue to go get him. If the dog made that mistake in good faith, thinking he was doing the right thing, I disagree with the shock correction. I would have let that go as a mistake and started over. If the helper moving is a common thing that the dog should ignore until it has checked all of the blinds, then that can be proofed against when the dog isn't able to self-reward if he makes a mistake. Of course, talking about it after is a lot different than making the decision on the fly and I don't think the handler was 100% out of line with that decision.


----------



## cookieface (Jul 6, 2011)

Laurelin said:


> I don't think it's that simple at all.
> 
> Have you ever watched a dog work in any sport or particularly in something the dog was bred to do? There is a lot of value to the dog in being worked. My little 9 year old papillon completely lights up for agility. She gets a lot of joy out of it, it keeps her occupied both mentally and physically, helps keep her fit, improves our relationship, and in general just plain gives her a higher quality of life, and I could go on. My point is that it's her favorite thing in the world. It's even moreso watching dogs do what they were bred to do. Never been to an IPO trial but have been to stockdog trials (and believe me there are physical corrections in stock training). Those dogs live to work. I could see how the people involved in IPO see the benefits as outweighing the use of corrections.
> 
> *My ideal is that people don't get stuck in a rut, do question why they do things a specific way, and do things consciously and realize what they're doing...*


Sounds as though Emily and Packetsmom (and many others) are doing just that. They may not all come to the same conclusions, but the folks here are being thoughtful about what they are doing and why.


----------



## petpeeve (Jun 10, 2010)

packetsmom said:


> Realistically, he only has the practice time to do this exercise 2 times and only 2-3 times a week, given the availability of the field and helper.


Perhaps ... secure a field, privately, and hire the services of a helper for the purpose of THOROUGHLY practicing, proofing, and ironing out any kinks at a more leisurely and constructive pace. 

I know this probably falls outside the realm of 'realistic', but sometimes you just gotta do what you gotta do. Determination to fix problems that occur in other dogsports for example, while not under the constraints of mat-time, often neccessitates a similar approach.


Just throwing the idea out there as a potential alternative, as far-fetched as it may or may not seem ....


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

cookieface said:


> Sounds as though Emily and Packetsmom (and many others) are doing just that. They may not all come to the same conclusions, but the folks here are being thoughtful about what they are doing and why.


Yep. It's all good to me.


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

elrohwen said:


> Packetsmom can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the situation was in a training run, not in a trial.


Correct.

The problem with training with the helper as a distraction is that the dog is fully in drive at that time. There are times the dog is near the helper, but not allowed to go for a bite. This situation would not have been one of those, though. In this portion of the test, the dog would be allowed to bark and hold the helper immediately upon finding him and then would be allowed to go for a bite if the helper made any threatening gestures, tried to escape, or if the handler gave the command.

Ideally, you want the dog to go straight for the helper once he finds him. Ideally, you want the dog not to find the helper until he's reached the blind the helper is at.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

petpeeve said:


> Perhaps ... secure a field, privately, and hire the services of a helper for the purpose of THOROUGHLY practicing, proofing, and ironing out any kinks at a more leisurely and constructive pace.
> 
> I know this probably falls outside the realm of 'realistic', but sometimes you just gotta do what you gotta do. Determination to fix problems that occur in other dogsports for example, while not under the constraints of mat-time, often neccessitates a similar approach.
> 
> ...


There are time constraints in other sports as well. In a group session or seminar, there's instances where you just can't hold up class for everyone long enough to work on your own dog's issues. I agree in that situation for me it would be a pass now and fix later kind of situation. In my example where Summer wouldn't kennel (for example) I definitely could have used the people as a reward to work on her kenneling. Didn't have the time at that moment. Full class, lots of dogs to run and only 1.5 hours to do so.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

packetsmom said:


> Correct.
> 
> The problem with training with the helper as a distraction is that the dog is fully in drive at that time. There are times the dog is near the helper, but not allowed to go for a bite. This situation would not have been one of those, though. In this portion of the test, the dog would be allowed to bark and hold the helper immediately upon finding him and then would be allowed to go for a bite if the helper made any threatening gestures, tried to escape, or if the handler gave the command.
> 
> Ideally, you want the dog to go straight for the helper once he finds him. Ideally, you want the dog not to find the helper until he's reached the blind the helper is at.


I don't understand why fully in drive would matter so much.... I apologize for continually comparing to agility but that's what I am familiar with. 

In agility you do often see some incredibly high drive dogs and a lot of times those dogs come out blazing fast and just... wildly off course. One thing we say is 'tunnel suck' where the dog is very drawn to the tunnels (self rewarding for most dogs except mine, I swear). I've seen lots of dogs blow off their handlers and just go straight for the tunnels, skipping the obstacles in between. The tunnel is much more fun and exciting to them.  One border collie at the last trial, I swear, did about half a course he just made up long after the handler stopped running. My point is depending on the dog, tehre's many agility dogs that are in over the top drive while running. The challenge with agility is to balance that drive as high as possible while also keeping control on the dog. It doesn't always happen but the best handlers make it so. Just for the record, I am nowhere near there, lol.

Is that really much different than the dog blowing off the handler and high tailing it for the helper?


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

petpeeve said:


> Perhaps ... secure a field, privately, and hire the services of a helper for the purpose of THOROUGHLY practicing, proofing, and ironing out any kinks at a more leisurely and constructive pace.
> 
> I know this probably falls outside the realm of 'realistic', but sometimes you just gotta do what you gotta do. Determination to fix problems that occur in other dogsports for example, while not under the constraints of mat-time, often neccessitates a similar approach.
> 
> ...


Some people do essentially try to set up their own field, at least a smaller version of one, particularly as they reach higher levels. Still, there is only so much time available and so many fields to work in. A single pop-up blind costs about $400 minimum unless you make your own. For level 3 trials, you need to train the dog on 6 of these. You also need a nice, flat, groomed grassy surface about the size of a soccer field to set these up on. Where I live, at least, the ScH clubs all share a field and take turns with it on different evenings. Also, keep in mind that these dogs are also being trained in tracking and regular obedience, so there is a limited amount of time to train protection.

Another factor is that these things happen in an instant, so it's very rare that the handler has much time to think of a way to respond. This particular example was a split-second decision on the part of the handler. Honestly, as much as I strongly prefer positive reinforcement training, I can't think of any other realistic way I could have responded in the same situation. It's not that I'd want to press that button or be looking for an excuse to do it, it's that I would, in the limited time I had to react, see pressing that button as the best option of risk vs. benefit at that moment.


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

Laurelin said:


> I don't understand why fully in drive would matter so much.... I apologize for continually comparing to agility but that's what I am familiar with.
> 
> In agility you do often see some incredibly high drive dogs and a lot of times those dogs come out blazing fast and just... wildly off course. One thing we say is 'tunnel suck' where the dog is very drawn to the tunnels (self rewarding for most dogs except mine, I swear). I've seen lots of dogs blow off their handlers and just go straight for the tunnels, skipping the obstacles in between. The tunnel is much more fun and exciting to them.  One border collie at the last trial, I swear, did about half a course he just made up long after the handler stopped running. My point is depending on the dog, tehre's many agility dogs that are in over the top drive while running. The challenge with agility is to balance that drive as high as possible while also keeping control on the dog. It doesn't always happen but the best handlers make it so. Just for the record, I am nowhere near there, lol.
> 
> Is that really much different than the dog blowing off the handler and high tailing it for the helper?


I think you're on the right track. There is a balance you're trying to achieve between drive and control and what direction you're working towards depends a lot on the dog. With Sam right now, for example, I'm focusing more on building drive. At this point, he's a puppy with a puppy brain and what's most important isn't that he does anything perfect, but that he finds it fun and it builds his desire for the activity. The puppy next to him in the puppy circle, though, had drive to spare and her handler was working on adding more control.

Another thing to consider...about this all being a "game" and not worth the corrections...

Have you ever SEEN a Schutzhund trained dog working, both before they get on the field, during, and after? These dogs live for it. The ones not working are whining in the crates, eager to come out. The ones heading to the field are pulling on leashes, tails wagging. (They aren't corrected for this, it's just considered eagerness and they are allowed to do it until they reach the field in most cases.) After the dog has caught the helper and "won" the sleeve, they run around carrying it, tails wagging. Even the dogs of handlers who use corrections more liberally than I prefer come out again and again, eager to do the work.

This isn't something people force their dogs to do. In fact, if the dog is not eager to do it, you are not supposed to attempt to train them in it.


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

An additional point worth considering...it is prey drive that we're working with here, the same drive that creates that kind of focus on prey and attacking, that makes it so hard to pull a dog off a rabbit. That sleeve is prey to the dog and these dogs are specifically bred to have intense focus on prey and a one-track mind for going after it. (Not my dog, but the dog in the example was.) I find them to be very intense and they can be very difficult to handle once they have that intense focus on the "prey."

The ones that are bred for it are unlike any GSD or other dog I've worked with and I'm pretty glad I have my lower drive mix!


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I had a Lab bred for retrieving. . .and she loved to retrieve! But the compulsion-trained working retrievers I see always look. . .worried, I guess. A little stressed, even if they're enjoying the actual retrieving. Not that crazy joy Willow always had while fetching.

Just seems to me, if it's truly for the dog, there would be a way to provide that outlet for the dog without requiring the level of precision that would make compulsion seem necessary.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

We use prey drive in agility as well. Not me so much since my dogs aren't very high for toys- Mia can be but I struggle translating it into agility, but that's another thread. Got some good stuff from her recently. 

Anyways tug is a HUGE deal in agility especially to certain trainers. There are whole classes and seminars devoted to gettin your dog to tug and tug hard. At nationals I had to laugh because even before the papillons were running they were all ringside hanging off of tugs. I believe it was EZ that was absolutely berserk for that tug. Handler was standif rhere with a little papillon just latched on for minutes at a time. That dog was FAST too. The sporter collies, borderstaffies, and Belgians are all tug maniacs for the most part. and that is what the dogs work for. Do your stuff in the ring and once you're out (no toys in the ring) latch onto the tug. My trainer was nailed by her border collie doing this so it can get a little rough. 

Ideally we are tapping into that drive. 

I'm not trying to criticize just that in my mind there would have to be a way to deal with the dog in overdrive going after the helper first instead of listening because I've never seen an agility club or trainer that allowed anything other than a flat collar or maybe harness on the dog while working. And we do see similar issues of super high drive dogs who would rather make up the course themselves rather than do boring stuff like the table.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Willowy said:


> I had a Lab bred for retrieving. . .and she loved to retrieve! But the compulsion-trained working retrievers I see always look. . .worried, I guess. A little stressed, even if they're enjoying the actual retrieving. Not that crazy joy Willow always had while fetching.
> 
> Just seems to me, if it's truly for the dog, there would be a way to provide that outlet for the dog without requiring the level of precision that would make compulsion seem necessary.


I think my issues with your posts is that compulsion =\= correction to me. You can physically correct a dog but still be working that dog off of drive. When I think of compulsion I think of ear pinches or even that trainer I first went to that uses chokes on every single dog to get the dog to do every single thing.


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

Willowy said:


> I had a Lab bred for retrieving. . .and she loved to retrieve! But the compulsion-trained working retrievers I see always look. . .worried, I guess. A little stressed, even if they're enjoying the actual retrieving. Not that crazy joy Willow always had while fetching.
> 
> Just seems to me, if it's truly for the dog, there would be a way to provide that outlet for the dog without requiring the level of precision that would make compulsion seem necessary.


Unfortunately, with the biting involved, precision can be a very good thing for the dog and everyone around it. Plus, it's a German sport...you know how those Germans are. 

Happily, I have yet to see a worried-looking ScH dog. I'm betting part of that, though, is that they have to have a pretty hard temperment to go very far in the training, not because of corrections or compulsion training so much as simply the nature of the sport. The dog has to be eager to charge after a big scary looking guy holding a whip or baton.


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

Laurelin said:


> We use prey drive in agility as well. Not me so much since my dogs aren't very high for toys- Mia can be but I struggle translating it into agility, but that's another thread. Got some good stuff from her recently.
> 
> Anyways tug is a HUGE deal in agility especially to certain trainers. There are whole classes and seminars devoted to gettin your dog to tug and tug hard. At nationals I had to laugh because even before the papillons were running they were all ringside hanging off of tugs. I believe it was EZ that was absolutely berserk for that tug. Handler was standif rhere with a little papillon just latched on for minutes at a time. That dog was FAST too. The sporter collies, borderstaffies, and Belgians are all tug maniacs for the most part. and that is what the dogs work for. Do your stuff in the ring and once you're out (no toys in the ring) latch onto the tug. My trainer was nailed by her border collie doing this so it can get a little rough.
> 
> ...


This is good info. Admittedly, I'm not that familiar with agility training, so it's interesting to learn where there is some crossover.

You generally don't train protection in a pinch collar. The dog is going to pull to go after the helper and you actually want that. Initially, dogs are worked on leash in an agitation harness, which is padded so that is is as comfortable as possible when they pull. The only dogs I've seen using e-collars are ScH 2 or 3 dogs, so these are dogs that have extensive practice behind them and are working off leash at long distances from the handler. Even then, not every dog gets an e-collar and not every handler uses them. It seems to depend on both the training philosophy of the handler as well as the temperment of the dog.

And to answer people's questions earlier, e-collars are not allowed in competition. I believe fur savers or prongs are, though.

I think the difference is that if an agility dog blows off handler commands or is so engaged with the work that they lose track of the handler's voice, the risk is that a run is ruined. The risk in bite sports can be someone getting hurt and/or a dog having to be put down. There is a lot of pressure to keep control of your dog.



Laurelin said:


> I think my issues with your posts is that compulsion =\= correction to me. You can physically correct a dog but still be working that dog off of drive. When I think of compulsion I think of ear pinches or even that trainer I first went to that uses chokes on every single dog to get the dog to do every single thing.


Yuck.  I hate seeing that, too.


----------



## MrsBoats (May 20, 2010)

packetsmom said:


> Happily, I have yet to see a worried-looking ScH dog. I'm betting part of that, though, is that they have to have a pretty hard temperment to go very far in the training, not because of corrections or compulsion training so much as simply the nature of the sport. The dog has to be eager to charge after a big scary looking guy holding a whip or baton.


This ^^

Not every dog has the nerve strength to be a successful IPO dog and it takes a special dog to make it to an IPOIII or the podium. Well...that does go for any dog sport. Not all dogs will be UDX/OTCH dogs or MACH/ADCH/NATCH dogs either because of what is lacking in temperament/impulse control/confidence/nerve strength.

Those those of you who aren't familiar with "Nerve Strength" this is a great post on a rottweiler forum from a very seasoned and well respected trainer in IPO:

http://www.rottweiler.net/forums/behavior/33535-basic-nerve-strength-thresholds.html


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

packetsmom said:


> Unfortunately, with the biting involved, precision can be a very good thing for the dog and everyone around it. Plus, it's a German sport...you know how those Germans are.
> 
> Happily, I have yet to see a worried-looking ScH dog. I'm betting part of that, though, is that they have to have a pretty hard temperment to go very far in the training, not because of corrections or compulsion training so much as simply the nature of the sport. The dog has to be eager to charge after a big scary looking guy holding a whip or baton.


In the example given, nobody was at risk, nobody was going to get bitten. It does not matter one bit which order the dog looks where. It was purely an arbitrary precision element, the only reason it mattered at all was so the handler could win the game. If he were doing it because the dog enjoyed it, that kind of lack of precision would not be grounds for a collar zap. 

I'm not sure if the dogs' hardness or lack of worried-ness necessarily excuses the use of (whatever word we're using). It's already been established that that game can be played without use of (your preferred word), if one is willing to take the time and make the effort. So why is it OK to not be willing to take the time and make the effort if it is only a game they want to play because the dog enjoys it?


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

Willowy said:


> In the example given, nobody was at risk, nobody was going to get bitten. It does not matter one bit which order the dog looks where. It was purely an arbitrary precision element, the only reason it mattered at all was so the handler could win the game. If he were doing it because the dog enjoyed it, that kind of lack of precision would not be grounds for a collar zap.
> 
> I'm not sure if the dogs' hardness or lack of worried-ness necessarily excuses the use of (whatever word we're using). It's already been established that that game can be played without use of (your preferred word), if one is willing to take the time and make the effort. So why is it OK to not be willing to take the time and make the effort if it is only a game they want to play because the dog enjoys it?


I have yet to hear of any other way of preventing the dog from reaching the handler in that situation and self-rewarding on the sleeve. If you can think of one that the handler could have used in that moment, with the split second they had to react, I'm happy to use it if I ever get into that situation.

As far as not taking the time? That dog had been trained for years. This was not a result of a lazy handler trying to cut corners.

Can the dog not enjoy it and the handler also not be working toward a specific goal, with precision? Why are the two mutually exclusive? Why do you believe that the dog can't possibly enjoy a sport that also involves physical correction?


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

Great posts from Laurelin. That is basically how I see it. Sports like agility, and you could argue hunting, are done in very high drive with dogs who are very very wired and ready to go. I think it's absolutely possible to harness that and balance it, but it's not easy at all. Doesn't mean it shouldn't be the goal.

I also see the point that in agility a dog takes a few extra obstacles and NQ's, while a bitework dog might hurt someone. Still, if the dog is as safe as many consider (like only going for the sleeve, not the person), I would be on the agility training side of ignoring the incident, and training back up to it so the dog could be successful. 

In the case of this story, it doesn't sound to me like the dog willfully disobeyed so much as the scenario changed and the dog made the wrong decision based on what he knew. That may not be the right reading of it, but in that case I'm much less likely to think correction is needed so much as more practice is needed. In the moment I think your only two choices are to correct or let it go.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

packetsmom said:


> This is good info. Admittedly, I'm not that familiar with agility training, so it's interesting to learn where there is some crossover.


I think agility tends to get oversimplified into teaching the dog 'tricks' often. In order to get a fast, driven, precise agility dog, it's a lot of training and work. There's a lot of subtleties and a lot of working on the dog's drive. 

Now I do most of my work with food since my dog is afraid of toys. We have translated that food drive into toys some. You really ideally need enough toy drive (which I suppose falls under prey drive) to get the dog to chase. It's part of how you train the dog to move away from you. 

There is a dog in my class right now- poodly mix- who is so ho hum about everything typically but he will go FAST for his ball or the flirt pole. It is interesting watching that drive translate from the flirt pole to the agility. 



> I think the difference is that if an agility dog blows off handler commands or is so engaged with the work that they lose track of the handler's voice, the risk is that a run is ruined. The risk in bite sports can be someone getting hurt and/or a dog having to be put down. There is a lot of pressure to keep control of your dog.


I do agree although I've seen some instances where things could have gotten ugly. It has little to nothing to do with the agility, just over the top dogs who don't have the brakes on yet. I'm not kidding when I say I've seen blood, sweat, and tears in agility. I've also seen dogs run out of the ring and that can potentially get dangerous (run into other dogs outside the ring waiting and fight or whatnot). But yes things change when you're dealing with dogs biting. Or I'd imagine they would.

Another difference will just be type of dogs. Agility, you're going to see many breeds and drive levels, even if the top spots are typically border collies, and other breeds bred for and often seen in the sport. It also seems to me that agility maybe favors slightly softer dogs but that's just me speculating. Maybe that's simply because of the most prominent breeds in the sport.


----------



## SDRRanger (May 2, 2013)

I guess I see it the same way as working with horses. 

If I'm working with my horse on something that they know and that they do enjoy (like the dog chasing the bad guy, horses get hyped over stuff) there are corrections given to break the concentration. I had a horse once who hated dogs barking. Wanted to pound them into the ground whenever it happened. We worked at home and got him used to specific dogs barking, but at a show if it happened he would be so fixated that you couldn't use positive/non-corrective measures. Popping him on the shoulder with the reins would break his concentration and allow us to continue. It didn't hurt him, but definitely snapped him back into what we were supposed to be doing. 

When I look at the ferocious energy dogs use when they're playing, I don't think anything I do is in danger of damaging my dog (verbal, occasional leash pop, etc). 

I think corrections have a lot to do with person's personality and mood. Consistency, appropriate level of correction and stable mood all can effect the outcome. I know that when I am mad/frustrated (posture, voice, etc) Ranger is much more sensitive to a correction (even a voice command) whereas in a confident but calm manner, he will take it as a command rather than asa punishment.


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

I would also add that, at least the ones I've seen used at practices, e-collars have a ton of different settings, from vibrate and very low stimulus to trying to roast the dog. People try to use the lowest setting that will refocus the dog's attention, when they use them.

I can't think of a good application for e-collars in pet dog training, except teaching aversion to snakes or other severe dangers or a vibration collar for a deaf dog, and I have heard of IPO dogs even at the higher levels training without them and even without other physical corrections, but it's very rare.


----------



## MrsBoats (May 20, 2010)

packetsmom said:


> I would also add that, at least the ones I've seen used at practices, e-collars have a ton of different settings, from vibrate and very low stimulus to trying to roast the dog. People try to use the lowest setting that will refocus the dog's attention, when they use them.
> 
> I can't think of a good application for e-collars in pet dog training, except teaching aversion to snakes or other severe dangers or a vibration collar for a deaf dog, and I have heard of IPO dogs even at the higher levels training without them and even without other physical corrections, but it's very rare.


I had a student in my CGC class who had a deaf doberman and he wore an ecollar. It was a vibration collar and that's exactly how she used it. It worked brilliantly...she tapped the button and he would just turn and look at her like as if she had said "Levi, look." No yelping, no fear, no anxiety. I had no issue at all with dog wearing an ecollar in my class.


----------



## lil_fuzzy (Aug 16, 2010)

Laurelin said:


> I think my issues with your posts is that compulsion =\= correction to me. You can physically correct a dog but still be working that dog off of drive. When I think of compulsion I think of ear pinches or even that trainer I first went to that uses chokes on every single dog to get the dog to do every single thing.


I personally think compulsion can be part of positive/reward based training. When I hear compulsion I don't think of ear pinches at all, it just means the dog is forced to do what you want it to do and has no choice in the matter. Ear pinches fall into that category (although, there is a new way to teach a forced retrieve now that is gentler and doesn't involve pinching, making the pinching method obsolete even for people who like that sort of thing), but when I hear compulsion, I think of people who force their dog into a sit or a down in the teaching phase. I don't see why positioning a dog in the sit or down can't be positive training, as long as you reward in position and also release to a reward. When the dog knows the command, the training becomes hands off and because you've used rewards, there's no reason why you can't get speed and enthusiasm.

It's not what I would teach people and it's not what I personally do, but for a lot of people it's easier than learning capturing and less problematic than luring (no lure to become dependent on) and also the dog learns to accept handling and relax when being manipulated. Some (most?) people just want a well behaved dog without having to learn a lot about dog training and learning theory, and it's a method that most people are comfortable with because it's how it was always done. And I think hands off training in the wrong hands can be pretty bad, unless the person is switched on enough to realise that a dog needs to learn to accept being physically manipulated.


----------



## lil_fuzzy (Aug 16, 2010)

packetsmom said:


> Correct.
> 
> The problem with training with the helper as a distraction is that the dog is fully in drive at that time. There are times the dog is near the helper, but not allowed to go for a bite. This situation would not have been one of those, though. In this portion of the test, the dog would be allowed to bark and hold the helper immediately upon finding him and then would be allowed to go for a bite if the helper made any threatening gestures, tried to escape, or if the handler gave the command.
> 
> *Ideally, you want the dog to go straight for the helper once he finds him. Ideally, you want the dog not to find the helper until he's reached the blind the helper is at.*


But in that case, the issue is the helper's fault. He poked his head out and let himself be seen, and the dog has done his job and try to go straight for the helper. I don't see how you can punish a dog for that. If it was training for real life situations (which it's supposed to mimic, is it not?) the dog wouldn't be doing his job if he kept looking after he already knew where the helper was.

I think I've already mentioned that I'm not against corrections, but if something is clearly not the dog's fault and the dog's mistake was caused by human error, then that definitely doesn't warrant a correction (unless the helper or dog was in danger, which someone has said isn't the case.)

As I mentioned before, I would go back and train more with the helper as a distraction in a controlled environment, teaching the dog to go for the blind he's directed to even when he knows where the helper is. Maybe have more than one helper so the dog has seen a helper at the last blind, but is surprised to find another helper in another blind? Not sure how the training is done, so not sure if that would work, but that's just what I'm thinking at this point.


----------

