# Does EVERYONE do positive training/lure-reward?



## ormommy (Mar 30, 2015)

In browsing, it seems like everyone here does a "no punishment" method obtaining. Does that work? It seems....unrealistic, slower,...I don't know. I have far more kid experience then dog  but I've never found punishment free methods effective. I read Ian Dunbar...he seems far more dogmatic that you can ruin your puppy with one mistake then any "harsh" trainer I read. Not to mention everything that goes wrong is your fault.  
I'm not trying to put down the method, I just wonder what happens I'd your puppy couldn't care less for Kong's, for example, or if a yelp doesn't stop a really painful bite.


----------



## chimunga (Aug 29, 2014)

ormommy said:


> In browsing, it seems like everyone here does a "no punishment" method obtaining. Does that work? It seems....unrealistic, slower,...I don't know. I have far more kid experience then dog  but I've never found punishment free methods effective. I read Ian Dunbar...he seems far more dogmatic that you can ruin your puppy with one mistake then any "harsh" trainer I read. Not to mention everything that goes wrong is your fault.
> I'm not trying to put down the method, I just wonder what happens I'd your puppy couldn't care less for Kong's, for example, or if a yelp doesn't stop a really painful bite.


Ian Dunbar is a little.... nuts. Like crazy. He seems like a smart guy. But he also sets some pretty unrealistic expectations in his books. Error free potty training, chew toy addicts, and yeah, the yelping thing. I actually wrote a super long review of his book on Amazon when I first read it: http://www.amazon.com/review/R3K8IN78B9L317/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm

But force free does work. I think most of us are a little more balanced around here. We don't hit our dogs, or yell at them, or try to be dominant. But that doesn't mean there isn't "punishment." When my dog bit me as a puppy, I would "punish" him by not playing with him, or putting him in time out. 

And we can argue force vs. reward till the cows come home. But I can just tell you, it works. My dog is smart and loving. He doesn't bite me, and he knows tricks. He has never been hit or yelled at in his life.


----------



## Canyx (Jul 1, 2011)

I TRAIN positively but I've yelled at my dog plenty. And early on in his life I found mostly dominance/force driven training advice so although I didn't beat my dog or anything I did think that scruffing, holding the dog down, yank and crank the leash, etc... Were actually good methods to use. I can only speak for myself but I hit a wall in training until I discovered 'positive' training. 'Positive' in quotes because you can call it whatever you want. Basically I turned away from force and dominance and thought more about how to set my dog up to succeed, how to show him what I want instead of punishing what was wrong. 

Did forceful and aggressive training produce results? Yes. I got a puppy that was so scared of going on the couch that I never worried about him going on furniture. Could I have easily produced the same result in gentler ways? Absolutely. I don't think I 'ruined' my dog. But there was a time period where he was more on his tip-toes about being 'allowed' or 'not allowed' things and if I could turn back the clock, I would have done things differently. These days, I still use an aversive voice (HEY.) to interrupt something and I still use force sometimes (ex. If we're going somewhere and my dog is scared of going in the bed of a truck I will PUT him into the truck and I know he won't like it). But I would call it getting things done my way, for my benefit. I wouldn't call it training.

Also, regardless of my opinions, what I do/don't do, use/don't use in the way of tools... I would never recommend anything but positive training when sharing advice over an internet forum. Worst case scenario is it doesn't work. In terms of recommending punishment, corrections, etc... The worst case scenario is much more dire. So I don't think anyone here would push those methods, even if they use them regularly and have gotten great results with THEIR dogs.


----------



## Eenypup (Mar 21, 2014)

I definitely AIM to be positive with Bennie when it comes to her training. Has she been yelled at because I noticed she was trying to grab food off my plate or put her paws on the table? Yes. But that's not really a method of training and more my instinctual reaction to get her to stop doing something I'm shocked to see her doing. I've never, ever physically punished her, pushed her nose into something, etc. Can I say I'm 100% positive all the time? Absolutely not. But I think trying to be as positive as possible does yield the best relationship with your dog and therefore the best results.


----------



## Shell (Oct 19, 2009)

ormommy said:


> In browsing, it seems like everyone here does a "no punishment" method obtaining. Does that work? It seems....unrealistic, slower,...I don't know. I have far more kid experience then dog  but I've never found punishment free methods effective. I read Ian Dunbar...he seems far more dogmatic that you can ruin your puppy with one mistake then any "harsh" trainer I read. Not to mention everything that goes wrong is your fault.
> I'm not trying to put down the method, I just wonder what happens I'd your puppy couldn't care less for Kong's, for example, or if a yelp doesn't stop a really painful bite.


One thing to keep in mind is that faster results don't always mean better, more solid results. Also that "punishment" has more than one meaning. Taking away a privilege or treat is a punishment but a much different one than a physical correction for example. 

Force based punishment has a higher risk of fallout than rewards or the removal of rewards, it doesn't mean that you will necessarily mess up your dog by yelling at him in frustration or giving a yank on the leash, just that there are potential risks to your relationship with your dog if that is your go to methodology. There are dogs that really will shut down just from harsh words while other dogs can shake off being yanked off their feet on a choke chain. one risk is that you don't know where your dog falls on that spectrum until you have gone too far for the dog.

The more you build a trusting partnership with the dog, the better and generally that stems from rewards, guidance, lack of force aka cooperation and consistency in training.


----------



## CandJHarris (Apr 29, 2010)

My Lola is the perfect example of how force can ruin a dog. My husband and I differ in our opinions on the best methods to use with our dogs sometimes. He is much more of the regimented, forceful mentality whereas I tend to take a softer, more patient approach. Lola has never like having her nails trimmed and I had been making progress with her doing treats and rewards so that she would somewhat tolerate me trimming her nails. Well, one day while I was at work, my husband decided he was going to do it. She was essentially held down and forced her to allow him to trim her nails. While his intentions were good in that he wanted to help me out by trimming her nails, he completely undid all of the progress I had made with her and now she completely panics when we try to cut her nails. I actually just tried this morning and managed to get one nail somewhat snipped before I gave up and decided I'm going to have to take her to the vet to have it done.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

For me it's pretty simple. What makes more sense to a dog: trying to teach it what not to do, or teaching it what you _do_ want it to do?

For example, if your dog jumps on people when they come in the door, teach your dog a solid sit and ask for that when people enter. A sitting dog can't jump. If the dog's not jumping, you don't feel the need to knee it in the chest or do whatever other aversive thing you might have done before. It's not rocket science.


----------



## lil_fuzzy (Aug 16, 2010)

Force free, positive training works really well. 

There is always going to be "punishment" in training. Withholding a treat, turning your back, ending a training session, removal of various privileges are all forms of punishment. But it's far more effective to teach your dog what you want him to do, rather than punish what you don't like. And even if you do use punishment, it will be far more effective if the dog has a reward history for what he's supposed to do instead.

I've yelled at my dogs, because I'm human and I get frustrated sometimes, or I have a bad day. But I don't use yelling or force to teach them what I want.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

I do use some strong aversives in very, very limited circumstance and do so for the safety and well being of the dog. That is to say: I use a high level shock collar to 'snake train' my dogs. Which means they associate snakes with horrible, terrible things and become petrified of them. I've had copperheads inside my house; that training makes sense.

Otherwise? Nah. Dogs are opportunistic creatures. They do what works, and I've gotten much, much further with training when using positive methods than old-school, harsh ones. I can get far more complex, natural behaviors than I can with using aversives. I mean I CAN use intimidation/force whatever and make them stop, I don't know, digging into the trash. But that won't get me a dog who runs an agility course, or sneezes on command or -

There's very, very little I want to STOP my dogs from doing entirely, basically. And a lot of things I want them TO do, and to do enthusiastically and happily. Easier to teach them to do than to not do, and the end result still knocks out 'bad' behavior by virtue of them doing the stuff I WANt *instead*.

And honestly, I'd much rather my dog love me, like me, enjoy me, and want to work with me than to be intimidated, afraid, or stressed by me. 

I'm a big girl with a fulfilling life. I don't need my dogs cringing around me to feel good about myself or in control of my life.


----------



## chimunga (Aug 29, 2014)

CptJack said:


> I'm a big girl with a fulfilling life. I don't need my dogs cringing around me to feel good about myself or in control of my life.


So much truth in that very simple statement.


----------



## ormommy (Mar 30, 2015)

Thanks for everyone's responses.
I should have clarified...I don't believe in yelling, hitting, shoving a dog's nose in his "mistakes", etc. With one exception. I read in ....I am pretty sure it was the Monks of New Skete, if your dog goes to aggressively bite someone, not just a nip, a cuff under the muzzle and a very firm 'no' is appropriate. (They say if it happens again to call a trainer). I also don't think a little "pop" on the leash is the end the world or asserting your dominance or whatever.
I guess my biggest problem/question is: does it always have to be all your fault if something happens? That idea makes me very nervous.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

The problem with the "correcting a bite" advice is that most biting is fear-related, not true aggression. The dog is afraid of a person or another dog, and if that being won't heed its growl and back off, the dog may lunge and bite. If you punish the dog for that bite, that can create an even _worse_ association with the person or dog. Your dog may become more aggressive ("I'm going to put on a big show so they won't even get CLOSE to me") or completely shut down ("I'll just cower and wait for this torture to be over"). Neither is conducive to a good relationship with your dog.


----------



## chimunga (Aug 29, 2014)

ormommy said:


> Thanks for everyone's responses.
> I should have clarified...I don't believe in yelling, hitting, shoving a dog's nose in his "mistakes", etc. With one exception. I read in ....I am pretty sure it was the Monks of New Skete, if your dog goes to aggressively bite someone, not just a nip, a cuff under the muzzle and a very firm 'no' is appropriate. (They say if it happens again to call a trainer). I also don't think a little "pop" on the leash is the end the world or asserting your dominance or whatever.
> I guess my biggest problem/question is: does it always have to be all your fault if something happens? That idea makes me very nervous.


To me, if I dog is biting someone, a bite is the symptom, not the cause. Addressing the symptom will work temporarily, but it may end up masking the actual problem. Instead of punishing the dog for biting, it would be much better to figure out _why_ the dog is biting, and try to solve _that _problem.


----------



## gingerkid (Jul 11, 2012)

Think of it this way - smoking drastically increases your risk of getting lung cancer, but that doesn't mean that everyone who smokes gets lung cancer. If you want to limit your risk of getting lung cancer, don't smoke.

In this analogy, smoking = force-based training methods, and lung cancer = behavioral problems. Note that neither _not_ smoking nor using positive-only training methods totally eliminates the possibility of the negative outcome... but it does reduce the risk of it occurring.


----------



## chimunga (Aug 29, 2014)

ormommy said:


> I guess my biggest problem/question is: does it always have to be all your fault if something happens? That idea makes me very nervous.


It's better not to think in terms of "fault." It's not your fault, it's not your dog's fault (although there are instances where the owner is at fault). It's more a question of cause and effect. My dog has a bad experience with a human, my dog is scared/aggressive towards those particular types of humans, dog bites out of fear/aggression.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

If your dog ever bites someone aggressively, you react in the moment to ensure safety of the person and end the situation. But frankly, you don't need a 'if it happens again, get a behaviorist' because the first time it happens odds are animal control is going to be involved and you're going to be up a creek. Unless the bite happens at home, to a family member, and you don't need medical care. 

Dog bite laws are no joke and monks of new skeet is pretty outdated stuff.

As for it being your fault. Well. Yes. I mean stuff happens, it isn't the end of the world or anything, and you can't control every aspect of your dog's temperment, personality and behavior because they're a-) living and b-) genetics matter, but. 

You ARE legally and morally responsible for everything your dog does. If the dog is getting into trouble/doing bad things, odds are extremely high it's a failure on your part to read the dog, manage the dog, manage the dog's environment, or respect the limitations of your dog. Blaming the DOG is kind of like blaming a 2 year old human. Doesn't work. They're dogs. They're your responsibility and they can not really be culpable.


----------



## parus (Apr 10, 2014)

ormommy said:


> It seems....unrealistic, slower,...I don't know.


Barring disaster, you're going to have the dog for over a decade. Choosing the methods that get better long-run results is just logical, even if it takes a while longer to get there. CandJHarris's nail clipping example is a great one. Swell, husband got the nails clipped this once. But now it's going to a battle every time in the future. Did he really save any time or get a better outcome? 

Two of the highly useful long-term good outcomes of using positive reward methods are teaching the dog to like working with humans, and teaching the dog to learn. A dog that enjoys training, and that is eager to try new things, engage, and offer a variety of behaviors, is much easier to work with in the long run than one that is some degree of shut down or reluctant. 

I don't really get what kongs have to do with anything, but as for biting, puppies bite. It's a puppy behavior. They grow out of it as long as you make it difficult and unrewarding for them to bite. Again, it's a question of short-term versus long-term. Sure, you CAN possibly thwack them hard enough to make them stop. But then you're liable to make a fearful dog, and that's liable to give you _lifelong_ biting risks as opposed to puppy nips that'll go away in a few months. You've also taught it that when human hands move toward it, they hurt.

Punishing a dog isn't like punishing a human. Dogs don't logically weigh consequences, they just make associations. Punishment works by conditioning the dog to associate a behavior with an unpleasant outcome. However, when you use punishment, you are also generally conditioning the dog to associate OTHER immediately present people/objects/actions/etc with the unpleasant outcome. This often creates unintended consequences.


----------



## ormommy (Mar 30, 2015)

I see what everyone's saying, and I agree for the most part. Of course, I've had a large family of crawlers and toddlers, and I remember with each kid the first time I said "no" and the 9-12 month baby looks at you and slowly and deliberately does it anyways (it's hilarious  this). I bring that up only to ask: do dog's deliberately disobey? I can see the benefits of more positive consequences, but even with those, I always thought a dog was smart enough to know the rules and try to break them anyways. 
I guess Ian Dunbar just threw me for a loop. Maybe because I'm scared right now anyway. This little being is coming into my life and I can screw it up! And what if he doesn't like me? And what if my limited social circle and quieter life ruins him.....add in hyperventilating here


----------



## lil_fuzzy (Aug 16, 2010)

When I train my dogs my goal is to get them to *want* to do what I want them to do. If my dogs know the rules and want to break them, I don't consider that good training. That's what you're likely to get with harsh training methods though.

With positive training, we don't just change what the dogs do, we change what they want.


----------



## Effisia (Jun 20, 2013)

I think of training kind of like this: You're kidnapped and dropped into the middle of a completely foreign country where you have no clue about the language or the culture or anything. Someone comes up to you and starts talking to you, but you can't understand a thing they're saying. So they either - 

A) Repeat what they said, then start yelling it when you still don't respond. When the yelling doesn't work, they start smacking you. Then punching you or choking you. Eventually you drop down and curl into a ball and miraculously the assault stops! The next time that person comes up and talks to you, what are you going to do? Drop to the ground to try to avoid another beating. Yay! The person now thinks you understand their language and you're forever fearful that you're going to get another beat down.

or B) The person realizes that you don't speak the language and begins coaching you. Pointing out different things and saying the word for them. Every time you get something right, they get so happy and clap and look thrilled. After a while, you know a bunch of words and are more eager to learn.

It's not quite that cut and dry, and that's a somewhat extreme example, but I think it's much more effective to work WITH your dog than make them work out of fear. I can tell you right now that I know I'M way more motivated by positive reinforcement than getting punished. Though of course you DO punish with "force-free" methods, it's just not punishment that adds pain, it's punishment that takes something good away. Like withholding a reward or putting the dog in a time-out.

Also, I would completely stop thinking about anyone being at 'fault'. It's not about fault (owner or dog), it's just about learning to work better together. Besides, it's way easier to screw up a dog using harsh corrections and punishment than with using treats and time-outs.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

> And we can argue force vs. reward till the cows come home. But I can just tell you, it works. My dog is smart and loving. He doesn't bite me, and he knows tricks. He has never been hit or yelled at in his life.


Liked your review of book. Definitely in the top 5 of stupid dog books. The rating is my opinion only.


----------



## petpeeve (Jun 10, 2010)

ormommy said:


> I bring that up only to ask: do dog's deliberately disobey?


 Deliberately disobey? no I don't think so. To me, that makes it seem vengeful or spiteful - two qualities which I don't believe dogs are truly capable of.

OTOH, can dogs test boundaries? certainly. I think someone stated previously that dogs are opportunistic and do what works to get them what they want. Which perhaps brings us around to a nifty and very useful premise in positive training that's worth mentioning, the Premack Principle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premack's_principle In simple terms, it's essentially 1) possessing the ability to get inside the dog's mind to realize exactly what it is s/he wants, 2) using that desire to get the specific behavior you're looking for, then 3) releasing the dog to do what it is that s/he wants most. It can't necessarily be applied to all facets of behavior in all circumstances. But still, many.



> I just wonder what happens I'd your puppy couldn't care less for Kong's, for example


 There is a multitude of reinforcers available. Every dog has *something* that they'll work for. It's merely a matter of experimenting, discovering, taking notes, and utilizing whatever is most effective. Common examples could be food treats, toys, liberty, social greeting, etc. The list of 'potentials' is ostensibly infinite and is only limited by imagination and then trial and error.


----------



## taquitos (Oct 18, 2012)

I stopped using punishment based methods the moment I got bitten by one of my fosters with severe leash reactivity.

I use R+ now and I've used R+ almost exclusively to train my current dog, the dogs I pet sit, and the dogs I train. I've seen much better results.

The way R+ works just makes more sense to me.


----------



## Shell (Oct 19, 2009)

IMO, if you are worried that a limited social circle and a quiet life is going to make it harder to have a trained and well behaved dog, then it is even MORE important to build that trusting and confident relationship with your dog from the start. A dog that has encountered tons of strange and new, maybe scary or stressful things and learned by those encounters how to deal with the new stuff has a certain level of internal confidence for the next exerperience that is new. But a dog with more limited exposure to the world will need to be able to look at his owner and believe this owner when the person guides him past the loud noise or over the scary bridge etc. The more he knows that good things happen around you and not bad things, the more he will follow your lead and trust you.


----------



## ormommy (Mar 30, 2015)

Shell said:


> IMO, if you are worried that a limited social circle and a quiet life is going to make it harder to have a trained and well behaved dog, then it is even MORE important to build that trusting and confident relationship with your dog from the start. A dog that has encountered tons of strange and new, maybe scary or stressful things and learned by those encounters how to deal with the new stuff has a certain level of internal confidence for the next exerperience that is new. But a dog with more limited exposure to the world will need to be able to look at his owner and believe this owner when the person guides him past the loud noise or over the scary bridge etc. The more he knows that good things happen around you and not bad things, the more he will follow your lead and trust you.



We're not too isolated...and we live in a very dog friendly community. But I'm not throwing parties or whatever for the puppy.  However, about a week after we get the puppy we're having a family of ten over. Very well behaved family...raised many of their own animals.
I see what everyone's saying. It makes a lot of sense. I just didn't want to be left with no tools in my toolbox for bad behavior. It sounds like there's plenty I can do...or not do as the case may be.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

> It sounds like there's plenty I can do...or not do as the case may be.


Sounds like a nice common sense plan.


----------



## Kayota (Aug 14, 2009)

if positive training left people with poorly behaved dogs then we wouldn't be positive trainers.


----------



## chimunga (Aug 29, 2014)

wvasko said:


> Liked your review of book. Definitely in the top 5 of stupid dog books. The rating is my opinion only.


I'm always perplexed when people rave about Ian Dunbar. Yeah, I'm sure he's a good guy, but his books are _terrible_. Just horrid. 



Kayota said:


> if positive training left people with poorly behaved dogs then we wouldn't be positive trainers.


That pretty much hits the nail on the head. Sometimes I feel like dominant/force based trainers think we're being manipulated by our dogs, or playing the doormat.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Canyx said:


> These days, I still use an aversive voice (HEY.) to interrupt something and I still use force sometimes (ex. If we're going somewhere and my dog is scared of going in the bed of a truck I will PUT him into the truck and I know he won't like it). But I would call it getting things done my way, for my benefit. I wouldn't call it training.


Haha yes this. Sometimes dogs must do things they don't want to and must do them via force on the human's part. But it's not 'training'. The dog is not really learning, things are just getting done. (or prevented). I call that management.

I don't prescribe to any real training philosophy really. I aim to create a happy working partner that can succeed in what I ask of him. Dogs work best if you make working with you fun and worthwhile to the dog.


----------



## ChelseaOliver (Nov 5, 2014)

chimunga said:


> But force free does work. I think most of us are a little more balanced around here. We don't hit our dogs, or yell at them, or try to be dominant. But that doesn't mean there isn't "punishment." When my dog bit me as a puppy, I would "punish" him by not playing with him, or putting him in time out.
> 
> And we can argue force vs. reward till the cows come home. But I can just tell you, it works. My dog is smart and loving. He doesn't bite me, and he knows tricks. He has never been hit or yelled at in his life.


This. I've done 100% positive, force free training since we brought Peggy home at 3.5 months old and, at 10 months, I could not be prouder of her today. That's not to say I don't make mistakes, and I do sometimes raise my voice and I do use a negative interrupter ("hey!" or "ah ah!") but she's never been punished, never been shamed, etc. When raising a puppy, the majority of issues ARE either just the puppy being a puppy or the owner's fault. It may be slower, but punishment, dominance methods, etc are guaranteed ways to raise a dog that's fearful and not trusting, among a host of other things.

Editing because I want to add that my adult pit bull mix was raised based on dominance/punishment methods - walked on a choke chain, trained often without rewards, alpha rolled when misbehaving, etc. As a consequence, she is an incredibly insecure adult dog who doesn't care to listen to other people but, 11 years later, is still scared of my husband, who has since changed his ways.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

Ian Dunbar's stuff online is a little extreme at times, but the method is good. I went to a seminar by him last year and it was fantastic. He's a great speaker. He absolutely does know what he's talking about, but the literature can be a bit dogmatic.

Personally, I am probably 90% positive. My philosophy is that the dog should be having fun, and I want to build our relationship. Now that doesn't mean I train positively 100% of the time, but even if I'm using corrections I want the dog to view our interaction positively, if that makes sense. As a pet and as a dog sport partner I want my dog to view me as the best thing since sliced bread, and to think that interacting with me is the best part of his day. Sometimes I feel the need to use corrections, after I've exhausted other training methods and after taking my individual dog into account, but I still use them in a way that does not shut him down or make him upset or confused. I own and use a prong and an ecollar, but I still consider my training method to be very positive.

When I do use corrections, it's with a lot more thought and care than when I use positive training, and you can bet that I have trained the behavior positively and my dog knows what I want before I use a correction. Using a correction on a dog who doesn't have a long history of training, and who doesn't know what you want is just going to create a dog who is scared and shut down.

Positive training does work, and for the majority of people who want a well behaved family pet I think it should be their primary method. I also think that positive trainers use more negatives and aversives than they realize (no pull harnesses, a "no" or "ah-ah") and that's not necessarily a bad thing. 

I am strongly against training methods that use mostly coercion and corrections. The dog may listen well and be well trained, but from what I have seen these dogs look miserable,


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

Ian Dunbar can be a little extreme with stuff like "your puppy needs to meet at least a hundred people before he is three months old," but I love his errorless housetraining. It _absolutely_ works. Casper had very few accidents while growing up, and all of them were my fault for not watching him closely/getting him out in time. He was reliable indoors by about 15 weeks, though. He still had the baby bladder, of course, but he knew that poop and pee happened outside.

I think with any trainer, you have to look at their stuff with a critical eye, question anything that seems extreme to you, and tweak things to work best for your specific dog. Read stuff from multiple trainers and behaviorists instead of just following everything any one person says. And of course, if your first instinct is to use an aversive, really _think _about whether there's a better way. There usually is.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

> Ian Dunbar can be a little extreme with stuff like "your puppy needs to meet at least a hundred people before he is three months old,"


Yes indeed my problem is I don't know 100 good people that I would want a pup to meet.


----------



## parus (Apr 10, 2014)

I'm trying to think what I currently do that's punishment in the behaviorist sense. I use a stern voice when interrupting naughty behaviors, I guess. Both my dogs are hard-headed so it doesn't upset them, they're just like OH HEY, DID YOU _NOT_ WANT ME TO STEAL THIS THING OFF THE COFFEE TABLE? MY BAD.


----------



## KodiBarracuda (Jul 4, 2011)

wvasko said:


> Yes indeed my problem is I don't know 100 good people that I would want a pup to meet.


Honestly, it'd be stretching it if you asked me to name 6 people I'd want to meet my puppy.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

I thought I was safe taking mine to a puppy class... no. He got humped by a shih tzu pup and hated that pup after that, trying to attack it every class. The instructor may be great at teaching rally and agility but she knew nothing about how to handle fearful dogs. If Casper was afraid of something in the room, she told me to just drag him past it (on a flat collar, so by his neck). She scolded him for growling at her large dog when it got too close. I quit after three classes, but puppy class set us way back in our training. Next time I will carry my puppy around in public so that he can see tons of people, but I will only let him play with people and dogs I already know are good. It's not about numbers for me... it's about quality.


----------



## Zilla (May 11, 2013)

I try to be positive. Jace has completed 12 weeks of puppy class twice a week. He's very good for his age I think. We can lay him down in the middle of the door at petsmart and he won't move till we tell him to. However we do use a stern voice if he try's to counter surf or steal things out of the trash. I think though with certain breeds and dogs some kind of "punishment" is might be needed. For example a border collie isn't going to have the tendancy be as "dominant" as maybe say a Husky or any of the livestock guardian breeds. But like I said I think it really depends on the dog, breed, and situation. :/


----------



## Sugarplum (Jan 7, 2015)

I will give my experience for the negative training. Here's jaspers story(sorry it's so long lol)

My friend at the time, Meghan, and her significant other got a 4ish month old dog from the pound. The pound determined he might have been thrown form a car as he had some issues with his beck leg and holding his bladder(would tell you he wanted out and pee all the way to the door) anyway, meghan never really liked this dog for whatever reason. She and I worked at the same store where she was a pet trainer of all things :/ supposed to use positive force. 
Anyway SO and her broke up and she was stuck with the dog bc SO couldn't take him with her. Flash forward several months and she decided she was going to get rid of the dog because she couldn't stand him, and like I said bladder issues she couldn't/wouldn't deal with etc. I felt bad because I really liked this dog and felt bad becasue she was already his third home and whith his urinating problems and the fact that I don't think she really cared what kind of home he went to I figured who knows how many more places he would get bounced around to I decided to take him. 

He is afraid of everything, any yelling even not directed toward him and he cowers down to the ground. He was food aggressive with people and animals, fear based aggressions as well. I couldn't understand why when he didn't act like that when she first got him.
Well flash forward several months and she asked me to move in with her becasue I wanted to get out of my parents house and she needed help with rent etc.
Seeing the way she treated her dog I can see why he ended up like he did she was terrible, smacked it for everything it did "wrong" yelled at it for the tiniest thing she decided was annoying/irritating and shouldn't be done. Constantly on this dog for not doing everything "just right", if it was being to loud chewing a bone/treat/toy she would walk over and rip it out of her mouth and take it from her, grabs mouth tightly when she wont "shut up" stuff like that
Anyway needless to say I no longer have anything to do with this person(for many reasons not just the way she punishes her pets) but I have a dog that I'm sure would have been amazing if he was treated better, because I can see how amazing he is sometimes and it hurts to know that he is essentially ruined becasue of her

Now don't get me wrong I love him and I will never get rid of him but it was a struggle for a long time...still is. He's much better with his food aggression to people because I can work on that but he still gets growly sometimes even at low value treats(ice cubes for example) and it's basically impossible to work on the food aggressiveness with animals becasue I cant exactly say "hey cat I'm going to need you to walk by his food bowl/treat he's eating and toss this yummy treat and walk away so he associates you going near him with food, thanks" lol
Now can he be given treats next to the animals or even eat treats/ food next to the other animals? Yep!! He sure can but he will also randomly grab them at other times he decides for whatever reason his treat isn't "safe" at the time and he'll grab them-- never caused any injuries thank god and stops immediately when I yell but still not something I want to happen. And he is perfectly fine with animals as long as no treats are involved, even strange animals, as long as there's no food he's super friendly and just wants to play. 
For the most part that can be controlled by feeding him seperated and not giving him any long chews unless he is by himself.

Like I said he is afraid quite a bit, he still(and I've owned him for almost 2 years now) he will kind of flinch when you go to pet over his head unexpectedly and he is unpredictable around strangers at the house. Sometimes he looooooves them other times he's terrified.
And it's very sad because he absolutely looooved being loved on but he is too afraid of most strangers to really let them do that although in public he does allow them petting I just make sure they know to pet him under the chin at first to get used to them but he's too afraid to relax and really enjoy the petting. 
For the most part he is find just sniffing from afar-- he desperately wants to go near them when hiking for instance because the other dog goes over for pets when we pass people who want to pet her but he's just too timid.
And like I had mentioned the yelling I can be just yelling something to say... My mom who is kind of far away to hear me in the house and I'm yelling but not even angrily he will put his ears back and start pacing around like he's "in trouble" 

He has improved amazingly but it has been a long road and still is, and I don't know if he will ever be "normal"
Now that being said I am obviously all for positive training with most "punishments" being removal of whatever good things they wanted.
I say mostly becasue I will say...give a gently tug on the leash if I've already gin the "leave it" command a few times and they keep sniffing anyway...or if they are off leash and do that or they won't listen to the "quiet" command I will start kind of stomping toward them to get their attention focused on me when just saying the command isn't working but I would never hit or grab anything because I've seen the effect of that and it breaks my heart.


----------



## hanksimon (Mar 18, 2009)

1. Try to find 'Don't Shoot the Dog' by Karen Pryor ... It was written around 1986, and helped start the 'positive' school of thought. [Clicker training]
2. I idolize Ian Dunbar, probably too much. His methods work very well, and they're surprisingly simple, when explained correctly. His books don't do that all the time, and the fear techniques turn people off. He should try more positive explanations  [Lure training]
3. Correction based methods are reactive after the fact, and may result in some fear behaviors during training.
4. Positive methods are 'more difficult,' b/c you have to anticipate bad behavior to stop it, by training, cuing, and rewarding a desired positive behavior to take its place. For example, when a dog looks like he will hump, you call into play your Sit! training, cue him to Sit! and the reward, before he gets a chance to hump. With kids, rather than saying No!, you remove the distraction before the kid wants it. 
5. Yes, it sounds impossible, but by your third child ... or fifth grandchild  .... it seems like second nature.
6. The advantage of correction based methods is that they work. And, in the hands of an expert, used as a scalpel, they are quick. Most of us aren't experts.
7. The disadvantage of positive methods is that the dog learns confidence, independence, and how to learn. Most people have dogs that are out of control or that look to the owner for direction [and punishment if the dog 'guesses' wrong]. A confident, independent dog that chooses to work with you, blends in and most folks don't notice him at first. ... The difference between a pet and a friend. I don't know where Pierce fits in that continuum....
8. Meeting 100 people - I took Shep to the Vet's waiting room, to PetsMart, to the Hardware store, etc. [held in my hands when he was young] to meet various people. Plus, we would Sit/Stay in front of PetsMart, and greet people as the came out of the store... I didn't follow Dunbar's protocol to the letter, but I think I followed the spirit.


----------



## chimunga (Aug 29, 2014)

hanksimon said:


> 2. I idolize Ian Dunbar, probably too much. His methods work very well, and they're surprisingly simple, when explained correctly. His books don't do that all the time, and the fear techniques turn people off. He should try more positive explanations  [Lure training]


He has some good ideas, but man, I wish he'd get a better editor or something. He was the first positive reinforcement book I read, and he damn near turned me off of it just with how terrible and preachy and high-handed his book is. It's good thing he has great information about bite inhibition, because if that hadn't piqued my interest, I might have been alpha rolling Watson left and right.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

> I don't know where Pierce fits in that continuum....


That can't be my Pierce, if it is he fits in anywhere he wants to. Even though the owner was a jerk for dumping him, he did not harm him while raising him to 18 mths.


----------



## hanksimon (Mar 18, 2009)

It's good that Pierce could find a good home to suit him, and servants to provide for him. I imagine that he never worried about any of Dunbar's books.

I like that picture showing that he's alert and in command.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Command does not even begin to cover it.


----------



## hanksimon (Mar 18, 2009)

wvasko said:


> Command does not even begin to cover it.


 I like it! :rockon:


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

chimunga said:


> Ian Dunbar is a little.... nuts. Like crazy. He seems like a smart guy. But he also sets some pretty unrealistic expectations in his books. Error free potty training, chew toy addicts, and yeah, the yelping thing. I actually wrote a super long review of his book on Amazon when I first read it: http://www.amazon.com/review/R3K8IN78B9L317/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm
> 
> But force free does work. I think most of us are a little more balanced around here. We don't hit our dogs, or yell at them, or try to be dominant. But that doesn't mean there isn't "punishment." When my dog bit me as a puppy, I would "punish" him by not playing with him, or putting him in time out.
> 
> And we can argue force vs. reward till the cows come home. But I can just tell you, it works. My dog is smart and loving. He doesn't bite me, and he knows tricks. He has never been hit or yelled at in his life.


Yelping works when they are very young, but for some, esp the herding and harder working breeds, making you "yelp" can become a game. For those I stand up and stomp my foot and say in a firm, slightly raised voice "OW, THAT HURT!" and I turn my back, almost always, the puppy will come around and say "sorry" in dogish, which you MUST accept (or they dont learn) and continue play, rinse, and repeat. Its not cruel, and its not mean, you arent abusing your puppy, but you are telling them that in no uncertain terms that you dont appreciate being a chew toy LOL and it also works on puppies who think that every scolding is a huge game LOL.

I would not try that on a puppy that yelping is working, as it might be too much correction for them. 

My puppy "technically" is a "harder" puppy, but yelping works on him ONLY because we have a mutual respect established. There are times when he likes to challenge me, like not coming when I call him ... BUT he has an achilles heel ... he LOVES being with me more then anything else, so if he gets a wild hair where he thinks about disobeying me, I will just shrug at him and say "Oh well, bye" and start walking off, he wears a bell on his collar, and sure enough, I will hear him catching up moments later LOL.


----------



## Amaryllis (Dec 28, 2011)

I won't quote Sugarplum's comment (thought I think it should be read), but my dog is the same. Sometimes I see flashes of the dog he could have been and it makes me very sad. It also makes me sad that he still, 3 years later, flinches right before you touch him. He loves it, he asks for it, but he is still, for a moment, scared.

Some dogs are "soft", even what we would consider harmless punishments traumatize them. So when people say, "do I really need to be 100% all the time, no loud voice, nothing at all, positive?", the answer is "probably not, but maybe, and you might find that out the hard way." There are lots of "hard" dogs out there who could get hit by a 2x4 as punishment and take it as a funny game. There are even more average dogs who won't fall apart at being yelled at or the occasional leash pop, but would have problems with more aggressive punishments.

The problem is figuring out what dog you have without causing permanent trauma. And I'm not saying the OP or the average owner is some sadistic idiot who likes hurting dogs. They've maybe heard the wrong advice, or they're frustrated, or their last dog was hard and could take it. Or they mistook trauma for well behaved. That's common. Ask some of my relatives and they'll tell you I ruined Kabota. They'll say he's way worse behaved than when I got him. He was afraid to move when I got him. It took forever to pull him out of his shell and he'll retreat right back to it when frightened.

So I get Dunbar's "craziness" about positive only. He doesn't know what dog you have, so the safest advise to give the masses is positive only and always. That way all the dogs are happy and well trained, not just the ones who can take some punishment.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

I am usually very gentle and patient (still patient, just not as gentle LOL) and never take anything for granted until I know what kind of dog I have. I made a mistake and didnt do that with Josefina, and I think I kind of traumatized her (even though I wasnt abusive by the technical term). Now Lincoln? I can push him emotionally and mentally pretty good and he takes it all in stride. He just has a very solid temperament. I used to be very rigid with my training, but I realized, with this puppy that I was taking all the fun out of it ... for both of us, so with this dog, I decided to just let him be himself (within reason of course) and ENJOY him and you know what? I have had a LOT more fun with my dog.


----------



## K9 3X (Apr 17, 2015)

No such thing as all positive training. It's simply a charade to accommodate the mentality of our culture ( well, part of it anyway ). Probably why there are so many more messed up dogs that need "behaviorists" and all these other ridiculous products. Dogs living in crates for extended periods of their daily life, those who can view that as a wonderful life for their dogs and argue they don't use punishment are kidding themselves. With so many people using these analogies comparing a human situation to a dog in their quest to rationalize their "all positive" methods conveniently pass over a dog living in a cage or better yet rationalize that the dog is "happy" living in a jail cell which compared to a human jail cell is inhumane. Evenhanded fair corrections applied with no emotion is difficult for many a human, so maybe it is best for those who cannot control their emotions when correcting a dog to either not have a dog or just get a canary and put that in a cage. Dogs have a wonderful capacity to learn and with proper guidance and fair emotionless corrections a dog will learn it has a choice. The sooner the dog discovers the better of the two choices it will gladly opt for the one where everyone coexists peacefully together.


----------



## K9 3X (Apr 17, 2015)

Amaryllis said:


> Some dogs are "soft", even what we would consider harmless punishments traumatize them.


Couldn't agree more. Sometimes the lacking of nerve in a dog can make this situation come about rather easily. I have seen dogs with weak nerve become cowering, skittish insecure creatures because of weak self restraint on behalf of the human and it might simply have been their voice or own emotional faults at a crucial time in the pup's development. I'm the type that believes a dog feeds off of the human's emotion and this characteristic can be your best tool at times and unfortunately your worst enemy at times as well if not fully appreciated. Weak nerved dog and a less than confident leader is a recipe for problems.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

People who can emotionlessly cause pain to a dog (or child) are probably evil. At least sociopathic. So I can't recommend "fair, emotionless corrections" because I think that shows a lot about the human, and I don't want to encourage that. But hey, if it makes you feel big and strong, knock yerself out.

And, well, no, I don't believe dogs are more messed up now. Just that a lot fewer of them end up with bullets in their heads. Which I guess some people think is a bad thing but I don't like those people either. Sort of like how there are a lot more abuse accusations now---there isn't more abuse, LOL, just a lot more reporting.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Willowy said:


> And, well, no, I don't believe dogs are more messed up now. Just that a lot fewer of them end up with bullets in their heads. Which I guess some people think is a bad thing but I don't like those people either. Sort of like how there are a lot more abuse accusations now---there isn't more abuse, LOL, just a lot more reporting.



You know what my actual feelings about this are? We notice more issues because we are out with our dogs more and so are other people. More dogs owned in cities, dog parks, more people taking classes, more dog sports both in existence and numbers of participants. Heck even 'bring your pet!' petstores are recent things.

30 years ago, growing up, even the WELL cared for pets were basically animals that lived at home, went out into the yard to potty, got walked maybe and rarely encountered truly new/strange to them dogs or had to learn more than 'sit' and 'come' (if they learned that) Or they were working dogs who were kenneled. Dogs who were dog aggressive got culled out fast. Dogs that were people aggressive outright got put down. The rest? How the heck would I ever know if my pet feist mix who never went anywhere but the vet had issues with strange dogs? Or weird fears? 

Our expectations of dogs then was lower. Dogs are about the same. Training is BETTER. It's just now asking the dog to do a whole heck of a lot more.


----------



## Effisia (Jun 20, 2013)

CptJack said:


> You know what my actual feelings about this are? We notice more issues because we are out with our dogs more and so are other people. More dogs owned in cities, dog parks, more people taking classes, more dog sports both in existence and numbers of participants. Heck even 'bring your pet!' petstores are recent things.
> 
> 30 years ago, growing up, even the WELL cared for pets were basically animals that lived at home, went out into the yard to potty, got walked maybe and rarely encountered truly new/strange to them dogs or had to learn more than 'sit' and 'come' (if they learned that) Or they were working dogs who were kenneled. Dogs who were dog aggressive got culled out fast. Dogs that were people aggressive outright got put down. The rest? How the heck would I ever know if my pet feist mix who never went anywhere but the vet had issues with strange dogs? Or weird fears?
> 
> Our expectations of dogs then was lower. Dogs are about the same. Training is BETTER. It's just now asking the dog to do a whole heck of a lot more.


Totally agree with this. Growing up, our dog had one or two doggy friends in the neighborhood. He knew how to sit (which the cat actually learned to do from watching him, which was adorable), and that was about it, but he was pretty well-behaved. No dog classes, no specialized knowledge on my mom's part, no agility classes (though I bet he would have loved it) - he went on walks in our neighborhood and sometimes went into work with my mum on weekends. 

Anyway, I do think that our understanding of animals and specifically dogs has moved forward a TON, and I wish more people would take advantage of that instead of clinging to the old notions of making a dog fear you to behave. I simply cannot fathom why someone would choose to hurt, frighten, and intimidate their doggy companions instead of working WITH them in a partnership. Does not compute.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Yeah. I get sick of old people saying stuff like "when I was young, kids didn't have ADD/Autism/emotional issues/whatever!" (and similar things about dogs). Um, yeah, they did, and were beaten and shamed for displaying unwanted behaviors or voicing their emotions so they stuffed their feelings and ended up drinking themselves to death or perpetrating the abuse. Things were not better in the past, people. Things were pretty nasty in the past.


----------



## sclevenger (Nov 11, 2012)

Nice thread. Just had this conversation This morning with my mom, I've been researching training lately, and I too have stumbled on this. 

For example: yelping To stop a biting puppy. Royce (Aussie) when he was a baby was a shark. Omg, like launch at your face little wild animal shark. I tried the yelping, he would bite harder it became fun, I walked away, he followed launching at my feet And anything else he could do, stamping all the "positive" methods seem to make him more crazy Or he just ignored them. 

Well fast forward my now ex fiance was playing with him, he kept telling him no bite sternly, Royce launched at him and bit hard, fiance flipped him hard on the end of the nose, he shook it off and came back but a little more hesitant, launched again, another flip on the nose...

FAST FORWARD again to a 2 year old Royce. Guess who didn't have trouble with a mouthy pup up to the 2 year old. My fiance. Yep, at 2 he still could get mouthy with me, but a firm no from my fiance and he was walking away. He wasn't afraid if him or anything, but the positve methods juat didn't work....a ow that hurts when I bite him worked. 

So, I would really love to learn these positve methods, but when I try it just doesn't seem to work. Except for our sheltie, you could look at her cross eyed and she would crumble.


----------



## K9 3X (Apr 17, 2015)

Willowy said:


> People who can emotionlessly cause pain to a dog (or child) are probably evil. At least sociopathic. So I can't recommend "fair, emotionless corrections" because I think that shows a lot about the human, and I don't want to encourage that. But hey, if it makes you feel big and strong, knock yerself out.


Wow !!! I couldn't disagree more if I tried. The fact that one can control their emotions and deal out a correction is the NAME of the GAME !! A person who has the mindset such as you suggest or have, would allow themselves to correct a situation with emotion in their mind. Please take a moment to think about what you posted, seriously. Life in general, whether human or animal, if one deals out discipline/correction with a mind filled with anger, frustration, resentment, or confusion ( emotions) is almost always not applying a proper correction/discipline. If one is able to control their emotions and dole out correction/discipline without any emotion involved will ALWAYS win the day. One who controls their emotions in situations where cooler minds prevail are ANYTHING but "big and strong", well they may have strong control over their emotions. Why do you have to twist things around and imply such ridiculous insults such as "sociopathic" ? Fair and evenhanded without emotions fueling the fire will always triumph over a mindset of emotions. The person who let's their emotions dictate any discipline ( such as putting a dog in a "time out" ) is the person who is cruel, flawed and lost in the moment because of their inability to control their emotions for the greater good. Example : human becomes frustrated with a dog for whatever reason and yells at the dog, human lost and let their emotions dictate, I personally choose not to be that way because it displays a human with little if any control of their emotions.


----------



## K9 3X (Apr 17, 2015)

The neighborhood I grew up in had numerous dogs, mostly all wonderful. Some actually stayed in their own yards with no Invisible Fence baloney. I could play with any and all of them whether they were tethered or trained to stay in the yard. On occasion a neighbor's dog would be loose and even as a kid, we'd play with the dog and then bring them back home. I never thought how impressive that was at the time but when the electric fences and crates became so popular it dawned on me how things have changed, mostly out of convenience I guess, but the average dog has paid the price. Too many people have dogs who shouldn't. Nobody crated a dog when I was kid, today it seems to be the thing to do, for shame, such a horrible practice to isolate a dog for extended periods of time. Dogs evolved to live with people, end of story. Read the book " Animals Make Us Humans" and it will open your eyes as to why dogs today are plagued with so many problems. I'd like to believe that the vast majority of people in this forum care enough about their dogs to think of the dog's welfare first before they look at the "convenience" of their own personal life. Dogs did so much better in the past because they were not isolated and kept like zoo animals. People rationalize their behavior and convince themselves they are doing a dog justice, too many are just fooling themselves and once again, the dog pays. I've had "old school" dogs all my adult life except for one difference, I have a fenced in yard, as a kid there were very few fences.


----------



## K9 3X (Apr 17, 2015)

sclevenger said:


> Nice thread. Just had this conversation This morning with my mom, I've been researching training lately, and I too have stumbled on this.
> 
> For example: yelping To stop a biting puppy. Royce (Aussie) when he was a baby was a shark. Omg, like launch at your face little wild animal shark. I tried the yelping, he would bite harder it became fun, I walked away, he followed launching at my feet And anything else he could do, stamping all the "positive" methods seem to make him more crazy Or he just ignored them.
> 
> ...


Investigate the meanest of all disciplinarians, a mother dog and how she deals with her pups at times. They never read the book " All Positive" I'm guessing.


----------



## parus (Apr 10, 2014)

lol, congrats on growing up in Mayberry, I guess.


----------



## sclevenger (Nov 11, 2012)

K9 3X said:


> Investigate the meanest of all disciplinarians, a mother dog and how she deals with her pups at times. They never read the book " All Positive" I'm guessing.


Haha. I know. I've seen mother dogs get down right nasty with her nippy pups, I've almost felt the need to intervene Sometimes it was so harsh.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

K9 3X said:


> The neighborhood I grew up in had numerous dogs, mostly all wonderful. Some actually stayed in their own yards with no Invisible Fence baloney. I could play with any and all of them whether they were tethered or trained to stay in the yard. On occasion a neighbor's dog would be loose and even as a kid, we'd play with the dog and then bring them back home. I never thought how impressive that was at the time but when the electric fences and crates became so popular it dawned on me how things have changed, mostly out of convenience I guess, but the average dog has paid the price. Too many people have dogs who shouldn't. Nobody crated a dog when I was kid, today it seems to be the thing to do, for shame, such a horrible practice to isolate a dog for extended periods of time. Dogs evolved to live with people, end of story. Read the book " Animals Make Us Humans" and it will open your eyes as to why dogs today are plagued with so many problems. I'd like to believe that the vast majority of people in this forum care enough about their dogs to think of the dog's welfare first before they look at the "convenience" of their own personal life. Dogs did so much better in the past because they were not isolated and kept like zoo animals. People rationalize their behavior and convince themselves they are doing a dog justice, too many are just fooling themselves and once again, the dog pays. I've had "old school" dogs all my adult life except for one difference, I have a fenced in yard, as a kid there were very few fences.


Even if a dog wasn't crated while their people were at work, they would still be technically isolated. 



K9 3X said:


> Investigate the meanest of all disciplinarians, a mother dog and how she deals with her pups at times. They never read the book " All Positive" I'm guessing.


As much as we are similar, you can't deny that humans are more evolved than dogs. I like to think that when you know better, you do better. I don't use physical corrections with my dog because there are other ways to get her to do what I ask, or stop doing what I ask.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

K9 3X said:


> Wow !!! I couldn't disagree more if I tried. The fact that one can control their emotions and deal out a correction is the NAME of the GAME !! A person who has the mindset such as you suggest or have, would allow themselves to correct a situation with emotion in their mind. Please take a moment to think about what you posted, seriously. Life in general, whether human or animal, if one deals out discipline/correction with a mind filled with anger, frustration, resentment, or confusion ( emotions) is almost always not applying a proper correction/discipline. If one is able to control their emotions and dole out correction/discipline without any emotion involved will ALWAYS win the day. One who controls their emotions in situations where cooler minds prevail are ANYTHING but "big and strong", well they may have strong control over their emotions. Why do you have to twist things around and imply such ridiculous insults such as "sociopathic" ? Fair and evenhanded without emotions fueling the fire will always triumph over a mindset of emotions. The person who let's their emotions dictate any discipline ( such as putting a dog in a "time out" ) is the person who is cruel, flawed and lost in the moment because of their inability to control their emotions for the greater good. Example : human becomes frustrated with a dog for whatever reason and yells at the dog, human lost and let their emotions dictate, I personally choose not to be that way because it displays a human with little if any control of their emotions.


I didn't say that someone who controls their actions is bad/wrong/whatever. Controlling one's actions is essential. I said someone who is capable of causing pain to another being while in full control of themselves is not a nice person (note: yes, I realize there are exceptions. If one feels there is no other choice but to cause pain, hopefully they're being thoughtful and empathetic about how/why they choose to inflict it. I do hope they aren't emotionless about it though. Lack of empathy is scary) . If you think discipline cannot be acheived without causing pain. . .OK. Proves my point.

I suppose I shouldn't use ableist language such as using "sociopath" as an insult; as one person in a blog I follow said: "I'm diagnosed as sociopathic and even I know better than to strike a child!" I try to work on that but ableist language is pretty well embedded in the culture so it's hard.

And, yes, a life "like a zoo animal" is probably fueling some of the dog problems nowadays. But that's how it is now----everybody is driving everywhere, staying indoors most of the time, etc. It would be dangerous to let dogs run around loose; even if someone didn't care about the dogs, it's dangerous to the drivers too. I guess we could waste time lamenting the loss of whatever lifestyle was possible when fewer people drove but it wouldn't help much. I will also point out that many dogs back then who weren't as wonderful as those you remember got "disappeared". If they wouldn't stay in the yard or didn't like kids running up to them while tethered, oh well, drop them at the pound to be gassed or get the old rifle out, bam. Now personally, I think calling a behaviorist is somewhat more responsible than taking the easy way out by killing the dog, but I'm sure some people disagree with that.


----------



## parus (Apr 10, 2014)

sclevenger said:


> Well fast forward my now ex fiance was playing with him, he kept telling him no bite sternly, Royce launched at him and bit hard, fiance flipped him hard on the end of the nose, he shook it off and came back but a little more hesitant, launched again, another flip on the nose...
> 
> FAST FORWARD again to a 2 year old Royce. Guess who didn't have trouble with a mouthy pup up to the 2 year old. My fiance. Yep, at 2 he still could get mouthy with me, but a firm no from my fiance and he was walking away. He wasn't afraid if him or anything, but the positve methods juat didn't work....a ow that hurts when I bite him worked.


There are some dogs where getting rough with them doesn't have serious negative consequences. Dogs that are naturally both hard and unaggressive can often be roughed up a fair bit without reacting badly. I don't even think it's necessarily inhumane to be rough with a hard dog. It's just body language to them.

The problem is, dogs that aren't actually hard enough, or aren't sufficiently low aggression, are liable to either learn to be fearful or learn to be mean back. And it's not that predictable which dogs'll have which temperament, particularly as youngsters. So it's a gamble to use pain to train. Am I making a dog that is respectful, or a dog that'll turn around in a few years and take someone's face off? Is my dog tough enough to take this, or are they internalizing something bad? Mind, when a lot of these dogs finally overflow with the reaction, it's on some person who doesn't even do something deserve it, since dogs store up stress and anxiety. Personally I'd rather take the slow road with the safer outcome than the fast road that's a gamble.

He didn't really teach the dog not to nip if it was nippy on other people but wasn't nippy to him, though. He just taught it it'd be smacked if it mouthed on HIM. The dog didn't learn bite inhibition or generalize the idea.

My terrier mix was a super bitey adolescent. By adulthood she was no longer biting anyone. Didn't have to hit her to achieve this. She's dumb as a stump (and still very hyperactive and over-excitable now at age 13, so you can imagine what she was like when young) and I'm a novice, so I don't think it's that I have a super trainable dog or I'm a super trainer, either. Just persistence and consistency.

I don't use "positive" methods out of some hippy-dippy motivation, although I do prefer to train in a way that is consistent with my general ethos. I use positive methods because my experience is that they're long-term effective and safe.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

parus said:


> I don't use "positive" methods out of some hippy-dippy motivation, although I do prefer to train in a way that is consistent with my general ethos. I use positive methods because my experience is that they're long-term effective and safe.


This.

I have seen dogs trained with mostly correction based training. IMO they are much less engaged with their handlers, and generally less... happy? That might seem silly to say, but they really do seem to have less enthusiasm for the job. They work because the handler is asking them to, but they're not excited or enthusiastic about it. 

And yea, it doesn't seem more effective either. The dogs that get a leash pop when they don't 'leave it' are still getting leash pops for the same thing month after month. Their behaviour isn't improving. 

Then you have the dogs that are made worse. A dog I have taken classes with on an ongoing basis since she was a puppy comes to mind as a glaring example. The dog barked at other dogs because excited puppy is excited. She got corrected with a harsh leash jerk and a "NO!". Week after week I watched her get worse. A couple weeks ago outside of class she barked and lunged at a child. In class she broke her leash and went after another dog.

I have literally watched this dog be MADE reactive and aggressive from the training methods used on her.


----------



## K9 3X (Apr 17, 2015)

parus said:


> lol, congrats on growing up in Mayberry, I guess.


Actually, I grew up in a very affluent suburb, my good fortune but thanks for the "congrats" all the same.


----------



## K9 3X (Apr 17, 2015)

Willowy said:


> I didn't say that someone who controls their actions is bad/wrong/whatever. *Yes, that is exactly what you said but spin it however you choose*
> 
> And, yes, a life "like a zoo animal" is probably fueling some of the dog problems nowadays. But that's how it is now * That's a rationalization and irresponsible as the dog still loses*
> 
> Now personally, I think calling a behaviorist is somewhat more responsible than taking the easy way out by killing the dog, * Never known there were only those two choices*.



Behaviorist 99 times out of a 100 cannot change the detriments of isolating a dog from it's purpose and innate character but they sure will accept your $$$ trying to help a person.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

Willowy said:


> I didn't say that someone who controls their actions is bad/wrong/whatever. Controlling one's actions is essential. I said someone who is capable of causing pain to another being while in full control of themselves is not a nice person (note: yes, I realize there are exceptions. If one feels there is no other choice but to cause pain, hopefully they're being thoughtful and empathetic about how/why they choose to inflict it. I do hope they aren't emotionless about it though. Lack of empathy is scary) . If you think discipline cannot be acheived without causing pain. . .OK. Proves my point.
> 
> I suppose I shouldn't use ableist language such as using "sociopath" as an insult; as one person in a blog I follow said: "I'm diagnosed as sociopathic and even I know better than to strike a child!" I try to work on that but ableist language is pretty well embedded in the culture so it's hard.
> 
> And, yes, a life "like a zoo animal" is probably fueling some of the dog problems nowadays. But that's how it is now----everybody is driving everywhere, staying indoors most of the time, etc. It would be dangerous to let dogs run around loose; even if someone didn't care about the dogs, it's dangerous to the drivers too. I guess we could waste time lamenting the loss of whatever lifestyle was possible when fewer people drove but it wouldn't help much. I will also point out that many dogs back then who weren't as wonderful as those you remember got "disappeared". If they wouldn't stay in the yard or didn't like kids running up to them while tethered, oh well, drop them at the pound to be gassed or get the old rifle out, bam. Now personally, I think calling a behaviorist is somewhat more responsible than taking the easy way out by killing the dog, but I'm sure some people disagree with that.


So ... if I kill a rattle snake in my yard, does that make me a bad person? How about if I shoot a feral hog? or a coyote? Because I would absolutely do all those, the first one is by necessity only (I like them to hunt rats, not be headless in my yard preferably) but hogs and coys? yeah... if I see them, they're dead.


----------



## K9 3X (Apr 17, 2015)

sclevenger said:


> Haha. I know. I've seen mother dogs get down right nasty with her nippy pups, I've almost felt the need to intervene Sometimes it was so harsh.


But humans have evolved more than dogs so we know how to do their job better than they do I guess. Maybe the individual who stated that in response to my comment should remove the mother dog and hop in the whelping box and properly raise the puppies. Seriously, I do not know where some people dream this stuff up.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Imo dogs are isolated more not because of crating but because of the economy. Not many people have a stay at home mom like they used to. I'm not sure if there is a solution to that though. More latch key kids and more latch key dogs. People gotta put bread on the table somehow.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

Laurelin said:


> Imo dogs are isolated more not because of crating but because of the economy. Not many people have a stay at home mom like they used to. I'm not sure if there is a solution to that though. More latch key kids and more latch key dogs. People gotta put bread on the table somehow.


Yes. My dog isn't crated at home but he's still isolated.

Also, dogs used to get run over or lost all the time living without fenced in yards. Sure some of them stayed at home on their own, and those were the ones who lasted. I think people now are more careful and conscientious of their dogs, and dogs are more family members than livestock or casual pets. I don't think that's a bad thing.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

I think people like to attribute a lot of things to training methods, that are equal parts the genetics of the dogs, and the dog's basic temperament to start with. A lot of dogs are going to bite for roughly forever and then stop. A lot of dogs are never mouthy. How much your training method had to do with it is pretty hard to prove.

I mostly use positive training methods, because of the risk of fall out, but I'd never claim that I don't use aversive methods. Mostly that's a kind of mild NRM and removal of opportunity to get a treat or a time out, but I mostly have soft dogs. I've used shock collars (set high), used a prong collar WITH leash corrections, yelled a few times and one memorable occasion picked the dog up by the scruff of the neck and tail and flung him into a crate with a fair amount of force. I also hit that dog once or twice without it making any impact on him at all.

The flinging, for the record, was a spur of the moment act of desperate to stop a dangerous situation, not 'training', the hitting was being unexpectedly bitten and lashing out before I thought but doing so fairly hard, and the shock collar was meant to cause a lasting aversion to a specific stimulus that would get them killed. 

Thud learned nothing from any of them. 

Not.thing.

The thing people want to miss is that a dog who truly LEARNS from aversive methods of training is a dog who cares what you think, anyway. This, I think, is the big thing that is missing. They may be sufficiently hard as not to be destroyed, but when it works it is either because:

The dog goes 'Oops, my bad, I'm sorry' and feels upset and sad and apologetic because you are CLEARLY upset, or
The dog is afraid to engage in that behavior.

If the dog cares about what you want enough to be upset without being fearful (sufficiently hard) then there are other ways to teach it. If the dog doesn't care and you've simply made whatever negative enough to stop behavior, I'm not going to judge you IF you acknowledge what you're doing and do so for a very good reason - and for me that only reason is safety of the dog, other animals, or people, and you are on a time limit because of the level of danger associated with it, or is a last ditch effort.

If it's your go to, I think you're just kind of a crap trainer who has very limited tools in their tool box, and can't train anything complex because of your limitations and your'e trying very hard to act like your own shortcomings are actually strengths. Or you have a nasty ego and have something to prove and odd ideas about dogs RESPECTING YOU OMG (ie: you're just a looney tune with psychological issues to be eye-rolled at rather than listened to.)


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Oh and the other thing I was going to say re: dogs of ye old days:

Humans breed dogs that fit their lives. In ye old golden days the dogs that were breeding were the ones who stuck around those yards long enough to breed rather than wandering off or getting run over by a car and bred dogs in general to fit the lives we used to live.

We no longer live those lives. The idea that dogs are somewhat different now is not a surprise. 

They're not out and about the yard and neighborhood as much, but their involvement in things like dog sports and pet stores and training classes is much higher. What's being bred for now is different. It ain't the training methods. It's lives the dogs are living as a result of the lives PEOPLE are living and the breeding changes in the dogs as a result.


----------



## Shell (Oct 19, 2009)

K9 3X said:


> The neighborhood I grew up in had numerous dogs, mostly all wonderful. Some actually stayed in their own yards with no Invisible Fence baloney. I could play with any and all of them whether they were tethered or trained to stay in the yard. On occasion a neighbor's dog would be loose and even as a kid, we'd play with the dog and then bring them back home. I never thought how impressive that was at the time but when the electric fences and crates became so popular it dawned on me how things have changed, mostly out of convenience I guess, but the average dog has paid the price. Too many people have dogs who shouldn't. Nobody crated a dog when I was kid, today it seems to be the thing to do, for shame, such a horrible practice to isolate a dog for extended periods of time. Dogs evolved to live with people, end of story. Read the book " Animals Make Us Humans" and it will open your eyes as to why dogs today are plagued with so many problems. I'd like to believe that the vast majority of people in this forum care enough about their dogs to think of the dog's welfare first before they look at the "convenience" of their own personal life. Dogs did so much better in the past because they were not isolated and kept like zoo animals. People rationalize their behavior and convince themselves they are doing a dog justice, too many are just fooling themselves and once again, the dog pays. I've had "old school" dogs all my adult life except for one difference, I have a fenced in yard, as a kid there were very few fences.


Basically all the areas I know that don't use crates and/or indoors in general and/or don't use real fencing/secure kennels and don't actively supervise their dogs are "old school" areas in terms of training and dog ownership and yet, none of them have the idyllic scene of kids, dogs and adults out and about that you describe. Instead, dogs don't stay in the yards (no fences including no invisible fences and no supervision) so they get hit by cars, cause traffic accidents, act aggressively towards people and dogs, breed like crazy so the pups are then dumped at the pound or in the woods, and are rarely brought home by anyone since no one bothers or the dog isn't safe to approach. 

The dogs aren't isolated in crates or indoor rooms where they are at least safe from crime, weather, ingesting dangerous objects etc. Instead, they isolated by being left in yards and improper kennels in freezing and steaming weather, ignored except to be taunted by passersby, stolen from unattended yards etc. The number of dogs that turn up with gunshot wounds, arrow wounds, old buckshot in the skin etc is disgusting. 

And when the dogs are trained, they are yanked around on a choke chain or hit until they cower. I see far less behavioral problems in dogs that live indoors (in general) than the old-school outdoor dogs (I am not including those working dogs and LGDs and others that are not just "yard ornaments") because people tend to be a lot more willing to fix problems and prevent problems in dogs they have to share close quarters with than dogs they can more easily ignore outside. 

So I don't really think that it can be said in any sort of blanket statement that dogs were better off in the old days or are better off with that style of ownership and training. 

I can't ask my dogs but I would bet money that they would rather be indoors lounging on the couch or even as one chooses often, in her crate with the door open, and looking out the windows from my climate controlled, safe and secure home until I am done with work where we can then walk and play and enjoy the yard and neighborhood and parks and go visit people etc. Napping the day away indoors is a far cry from isolating a dog. I've had fosters that had been crated for very excessive hours and also ones left to roam (prior to their arrival to me!!) and neither extreme is safe or healthy for a dog.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

You know (and yes, spammy me) I'm coming back to this to think honestly about the dogs I had as a kid

We had a kennel of hunting hounds, but I'm going to remove that - they weren't pets by any stretch of the imagination. 

I had a bunch of dogs who lasted until I guess 4-5 months old before they wandered into the road and got ran over. One was mostly a house dog. She still was left outside for a few hours at a time without supervision - got ran over when she was 3? Maybe 4, I don't know.

I had dogs who were kept on chains, to keep them from getting into the road and getting ran over. Let them off and all that pent up energy made them almost impossible to handle. Heck, they were so desperate for attention they'd leap all over you and they barked at everything, all the time. Basically like the dog I live next door to now. 

One dog who could come and go from inside to outside and didn't get ran over bit one of those neighbhood kids out and about and got put down (was required via animal control)

One of the neighbor's dogs came over and killed our cat (which was of course also allowed outside).

One dog lasted for about 12 years and died of 'natural' causes (was primarily inside but left out to roam) out of, I don't know, 10 dogs? In 15 years? 

Then there was my grandfather's rural property where he kept one dog for about 15 years (collie) and my uncle (also lived htere) had one dog last 4-5. Those two dogs made it mostly by killing other dogs that roamed onto the property. That was a 'family joke' - hahah, Curly and Trouble killed another dog, and they'd toss the body somewhere and that was that. That's not counting the many, many other dogs who were killed by those two, or just plain disappeared. Or were shot for killing chickens/stealing eggs. Or the one who got shot after it got torn up by a mountain lion. Or the fact that 'DON"T TOUCH THAT DOG IT"S EAT UP WITH FLEAS/TICKS" was a normal thing to hear. Or the times they were covered in motor oil for mange. 


So uh. You know, I'm not seeing good old days. I can put on some rose colored glasses and pretend about the good old days and pets, but. 

No. Just no.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

> That's a rationalization and irresponsible as the dog still loses


I guess? I don't know what to do about it though. Take away half the cars in the country maybe. Change the economy entirely. I'm not sure how not to "isolate" my dogs. 

And yes to everything in Shell's post and CptJack's immediately above ^^. That's pretty much how it is here in the rural areas. I suppose the dogs are happy enough when they're not being kicked, if they survived puppyhood, but that happiness usually comes to an abrupt end when they get hit by a grain truck or shot by the neighbor. It's not exactly idyllic. My cousins (who grew up on a farm) had a new puppy every spring and let's just say they didn't have 15 dogs :/.


----------



## parus (Apr 10, 2014)

K9 3X said:


> But humans have evolved more than dogs so we know how to do their job better than they do I guess. Maybe the individual who stated that in response to my comment should remove the mother dog and hop in the whelping box and properly raise the puppies. Seriously, I do not know where some people dream this stuff up.


Me, I want dogs that are both good with other dogs and are good with people, so I prefer if the puppies have an appropriate relationship with the bitch and littermates, and an appropriate relationship with human handlers, relationships which are not wholly similar because we want outcomes that are not wholly similar. 

It's really too bad there's not a dog handling title in hyperbole!


----------



## pawsaddict (Apr 17, 2013)

K9 3X said:


> The neighborhood I grew up in had numerous dogs, mostly all wonderful. Some actually stayed in their own yards with no Invisible Fence baloney. I could play with any and all of them whether they were tethered or trained to stay in the yard. On occasion a neighbor's dog would be loose and even as a kid, we'd play with the dog and then bring them back home. I never thought how impressive that was at the time but when the electric fences and crates became so popular it dawned on me how things have changed, mostly out of convenience I guess, but the average dog has paid the price. Too many people have dogs who shouldn't. Nobody crated a dog when I was kid, today it seems to be the thing to do, for shame, such a horrible practice to isolate a dog for extended periods of time. Dogs evolved to live with people, end of story. Read the book " Animals Make Us Humans" and it will open your eyes as to why dogs today are plagued with so many problems. I'd like to believe that the vast majority of people in this forum care enough about their dogs to think of the dog's welfare first before they look at the "convenience" of their own personal life. Dogs did so much better in the past because they were not isolated and kept like zoo animals. People rationalize their behavior and convince themselves they are doing a dog justice, too many are just fooling themselves and once again, the dog pays. I've had "old school" dogs all my adult life except for one difference, I have a fenced in yard, as a kid there were very few fences.


I'm just curious...what is it that you specifically do so that your dogs are not "isolated". Surely you must leave them alone at some point during the day?


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Dog in a fenced yard isn't isolated - people can wander by and interact with the dog if they want - is my guess.

Honestly, I kind of laugh at the isolation thing. Back in the day, as it were, dogs left their yards to go to the VET. They saw animals and people who lived near them if they were outside. Occasionally maybe a car ride somewhere. Otherwise, nothing. Same piece of land and whatever wandered onto it. They went nowhere, they did nothing. 

You can maybe make an argument I'd buy about today's dogs being OVER exposed and over scheduled like kids with their activities but isolated? LOL, NO. 

Only dogs I know who are isolated now is the dog rotting on a chain next door to me, who barks at everything that moves 24/7, is matted to his skin, and only gets attention from MY family. And we can only manage that after ages, because he was so frustrated by being on the chain he was fearful and snappish for a good long while.

I mean, yeah, I do believe there is an argument for 'exposure breeds confidence' but I don't think it creates nearly the dog whathisname was talking about and I don't think 'outside' comes close to covering it.


----------



## pawsaddict (Apr 17, 2013)

CptJack said:


> Dog in a fenced yard isn't isolated - people can wander by and interact with the dog if they want - is my guess.
> 
> Honestly, I kind of laugh at the isolation thing. Back in the day, as it were, dogs left their yards to go to the VET. They saw animals and people who lived near them if they were outside. Occasionally maybe a car ride somewhere. Otherwise, nothing. Same piece of land and whatever wandered onto it. They went nowhere, they did nothing.
> 
> ...


I guess I would rather my dogs be "isolated" in the home while I am at work than outside in the yard exposed to who knows what. Granted, I live in the city.

I also think that dogs can be "isolated" even when people are around, like the dog CptJack mentioned above or a dog that is inside the home and out and about with the family but ignored anyway. I don't think isolation (edit: as in physically separated from people) is the problem. I could see not making the dog a top priority being more of a factor.

I'm sure the dog is CptJack's example sees passersby regularly. Do most of the people passing (CptJack aside) take the time out of their day to positively interact with the dog, probably not.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

Willowy said:


> I guess? I don't know what to do about it though. Take away half the cars in the country maybe. Change the economy entirely. I'm not sure how not to "isolate" my dogs.
> 
> And yes to everything in Shell's post and CptJack's immediately above ^^. That's pretty much how it is here in the rural areas. I suppose the dogs are happy enough when they're not being kicked, if they survived puppyhood, but that happiness usually comes to an abrupt end when they get hit by a grain truck or shot by the neighbor. It's not exactly idyllic. My cousins (who grew up on a farm) had a new puppy every spring and let's just say they didn't have 15 dogs :/.


Not every rural area is like that, we live here in a rural area and our dogs are VERY well taken care of. Also, I dont see this kind of treatment even where my parents live. Most people there have LGDs and they are very well cared for, because they are valuable. I even saw a couple with a herd of cattle.


----------



## Shell (Oct 19, 2009)

OwnedbyACDs said:


> Not every rural area is like that, we live here in a rural area and our dogs are VERY well taken care of. Also, I dont see this kind of treatment even where my parents live. Most people there have LGDs and they are very well cared for, because they are valuable. I even saw a couple with a herd of cattle.


Of course there are people in rural areas that care well for their dogs and of course there are people in urban and suburban areas who do not. 

But i for one specifically mentioned UNsupervised dogs who are left in unfenced or unsecured areas, which I am assuming your dogs are not. 

I didn't even narrow my commentary on the old school ways of ignoring dogs to rural areas either, just to places where they are left to do their own thing basically which includes plenty of areas in my city even. Slightly less "free roaming" and more just "poorly contained and poorly supervised" in that case, but I was speaking in terms of how it often isn't a pleasant Mayberry scene when dogs do what they want to outdoors.


----------



## K9 3X (Apr 17, 2015)

pawsaddict said:


> I'm just curious...what is it that you specifically do so that your dogs are not "isolated". Surely you must leave them alone at some point during the day?



I have been very fortunate over the years especially in accommodating the dogs I have shared my life with. I was not allowed to have a dog as child, I guess my mom who had to take care of 5 children ( spawn of the devil ) had her hands full already even though we all promised we would take care of a dog if allowed to have one. Obviously, parents are smarter than their children and their decision was the proper one. The moment I was on my own, I wanted a dog, wanted one ever so much but the conditions surrounding my existence and living arrangements didn't suggest a good environment to raise a pup in, so I had to be honest with myself and take a pass. Finally, I had what I thought was the appropriate conditions to offer a dog a quality life and never looked back. Set it up so the pup could come to my work place, what a luxury most people never get. I moved on from that job and started my own business and saw 2 more of my dogs have the same benefit. I also allowed other employees the option to bring their dogs to work with them if they chose. I was rather surprised that two individuals chose not to and one had a problematic dog with pretty severe separation anxiety, I literally pleaded her to bring the dog to work with her which would most certainly alleviate the dog's hardship but she chose not to and it was obviously her prerogative so I quit pushing her. I guess I wasn't that surprised as I was always amused in her choice of dogs, she stated that the choice for the breed she ended up with " matched the color scheme of the interior of the house ", I kid you not. Anyway, I decided to retire early in life and pursue other passions and of course I even had more time to engage my dog to this date. Now, do I ever leave my dog alone ? Yes, of course but never on a regular basis, I take my dog everywhere allowed by law, which leads me to my great disgust for jerks who pretend they have a SD. I have as much contempt for these selfish "special " people as I do for those who park in handicap parking spaces when they are not properly authorized to. I know I could easily take my dog into public places which require SD certification, knowing that I wouldn't be challenged because of the ADA as well as the fact that my dog is more obedient than these frauds and their fake service dogs.

Anyway, all of my dogs over the years when left home by themselves have free rein of the entire house. They never touched a thing and my current girl knows two things better than my previous dogs, one being her "leave it" training and two being, when I am leaving and she follows me to the door, hoping she gets to come with, I tell her to "guard the house" and she proceeds to take her place in the living room on the floor and lays down. I have a few small wireless cameras I originally used to see what the dog was doing in my absence so I could modify any problems I might view. Her conduct is fairly sedate but at times, she actually does her guarding job, it comes naturally for most any dog. She does all the typical behavior whenever there is any disturbance near the house. She'll go to the windows and let the world know she is there if need be but there are many times where she simply observes the activity outside the window, no barking just sizing it all up. All in all, she gets stimulation and a chance to react the same way she would even if I was at home with her. 

So, I have been gifted with the most wonderful situation I could ask for to the greater degree. Do I acknowledge that my situation is different than most others?, of course I do. But here's the deal, I live with my conscience not yours so I really don't care what others feel they are forced to do with their dogs because of their particular situation, I can only control what I offer my dogs over the years, not yours. However, because this forum allows individuals to voice their opinions, I hear many a strong opinion and judgment at times. I do absolutely the same because it is a venue which allows for such " conviction " and sparring. I would never crate a dog and perhaps in many ways my "conviction" created this to happen for ME. Whether others choose to crate their dog, kennel it or leave it outside tethered or in a fenced yard is on your conscience not mine. But, when I hear platitudes from some in here passing their judgement on me, I have no problem returning in kind, it's fair game I guess.

One last thought, the debate over whether it was better back then or today regarding dogs and life in general, this much I will say and debate anybody on, culpability is slowly becoming extinct as the clock moves forward and in some ways one of a few places where it still remains intact is in the community which still holds love for a dog. We do the best we can do ( in spite of the times ) for the creatures which bring such benefit into our lives.


----------



## parus (Apr 10, 2014)

As far as I can tell, the choice in most cases isn't between "these dogs get crated 8 hours a day" and "these dogs go to homes where they will have more freedom!" It's more like "these dogs get crated 8 hours a day" versus "these dogs go to the shelter and most of them get euthanized." Most adults have to work and most workers aren't in dog-friendly environments.

IMO in the majority of cases the former is a preferable choice.

I've videoed my dogs home loose during the day, and unless someone comes to the door or something, they pretty much spend it sacked out in one spot. I don't see a huge difference between spending 8 hours sleeping on the sofa and 8 hours sleeping on a pad in the crate. I don't have any compunction about crating them if they need crated for their own safety.


----------



## parus (Apr 10, 2014)

K9 3X said:


> One last thought, the debate over whether it was better back then or today regarding dogs and life in general, this much I will say and debate anybody on, culpability is slowly becoming extinct as the clock moves forward


Very slowly, since people have been moaning about this since ancient Athens.


----------



## K9 3X (Apr 17, 2015)

parus said:


> As far as I can tell, the choice in most cases isn't between "these dogs get crated 8 hours a day" and "these dogs go to homes where they will have more freedom!" It's more like "these dogs get crated 8 hours a day" versus "these dogs go to the shelter and most of them get euthanized." Most adults have to work and most workers aren't in dog-friendly environments.
> 
> IMO in the majority of cases the former is a preferable choice.
> 
> I've videoed my dogs home loose during the day, and unless someone comes to the door or something, they pretty much spend it sacked out in one spot. I don't see a huge difference between spending 8 hours sleeping on the sofa and 8 hours sleeping on a pad in the crate. I don't have any compunction about crating them if they need crated for their own safety.


We all choose as we decide and live with our choices.


----------



## parus (Apr 10, 2014)

K9 3X said:


> We all choose as we decide and live with our choices.


Wow, deep. lol


----------



## pawsaddict (Apr 17, 2013)

parus said:


> As far as I can tell, the choice in most cases isn't between "these dogs get crated 8 hours a day" and "these dogs go to homes where they will have more freedom!" It's more like "these dogs get crated 8 hours a day" versus "these dogs go to the shelter and most of them get euthanized." Most adults have to work and most workers aren't in dog-friendly environments.
> 
> IMO in the majority of cases the former is a preferable choice.
> 
> I've videoed my dogs home loose during the day, and unless someone comes to the door or something, they pretty much spend it sacked out in one spot. I don't see a huge difference between spending 8 hours sleeping on the sofa and 8 hours sleeping on a pad in the crate. I don't have any compunction about crating them if they need crated for their own safety.


Yep, I am not bothered in the least that my dogs stay in their crates when no one is home. Each crate is spacious, comfy, has water, etc. They are crated for a multitude of reasons, mainly for their safety. 

So long as they have quality time with me before I go to work and when I come home, they are very happy and content. They usually fall asleep within 5 minutes of being crated. Would a work-from-home or a bring-your-dogs-to-work situation be more preferable to me? Of course. But that's not my reality, so I devote pretty much all of my free time to my dogs and we have a blast together.

Yes, we do all have to live with the choices we make....I'll sleep just fine tonight


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

Perhaps I should clarify what I meant. 

I don't physically correct my dog as a mother dog corrects her baby pups because;
A) I am not my dog's mother
B) My dog is not a baby pup
C) I am not a dog

Dogs correct each other, that's the only way they have to communicate when they've had enough. As a human being and not a dog, I have other ways to show my dog what I want and don't want.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Work would be much more fun if they let me bring my dogs!


----------



## K9 3X (Apr 17, 2015)

parus said:


> Wow, deep. lol


I'm not certain what your agenda is but I could make a pretty good guess. You certainly seem to have an axe to grind. Your comment regarding culpability is very telling.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Laurelin said:


> Work would be much more fun if they let me bring my dogs!


I can bring my dogs whenever I want and they pretty much sleep the whole time, anyway. While I'm, you know, _working_.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

I work from HOME, and my dogs are always with me (well almost always), and they have access to the house AND yard.

...They still all just go to sleep. The only moving they voluntarily do is to change their napping spot, follow me to the bathroom, or to come stick their nose in to see if what I'm getting out of the refrigerator might be something for them.


----------



## Effisia (Jun 20, 2013)

Oh I SO wish I could work from home. I just managed to get one day working at home a week. Even though 99% of my job I could do from anywhere, I'm still expected to be in the office so people can "see" me working or something.

BUT I'm actually going to be able to bring the puppy with me to work when we get him, which is awesome! I'm going to have a little pen set up and everything. So excited about that. I think there are a few studies out now that show that dogs in the office decrease stress and actually increase productivity.

Other than that, Annabel really only has one day home alone. I have a work from home day, so does my husband, and then two days at doggy day care, which she loves. The other day she is crated while we're at work because she tries to play with the cats and she gets a little too excited and rough. Also, she has a doggy fetish for electrical cords, but only the ones that are plugged in. Do I feel bad about having her in the crate? Nope. It's very roomy, she has toys and water, classical music playing, and she mostly just naps anyway. Crating is evil and deplorable but 'emotionless correction' is a-ok? Yeah, okay sure...


----------



## K9 3X (Apr 17, 2015)

ireth0 said:


> Perhaps I should clarify what I meant.
> 
> I don't physically correct my dog as a mother dog corrects her baby pups because;
> A) I am not my dog's mother
> ...


Still doesn't change how pups are corrected by their mother and/or peers. As humans we can pick and choose based upon on our opinions and approach to life but nature never ever lies or operates in an artificial self gratifying method. Your " I am not a dog " justification stands out a bit to me as something one might choose to investigate a bit more in depth. Every quality dog trainer and behaviorist I have ever known, strives to understand the dog at a level which is polar opposite to " I am not a dog". Your dog knows you are not a dog but I rather doubt the smartest dog has the capacity to use their intellect to research and apply human behavior in the overall relationship. However, a dog has the capacity to read the human so much more effectively at times in ways humans rarely appreciate or even understand. I know I am not a dog but that certainly doesn't hinder my education of the intricacies of dog behavior and choosing to find the most effective method to communicate to a dog. I'm sure many of you have read books by Susan Clothier and she seems to be very gifted with her ability to understand a dog's mentality and what makes them tick. I'm guessing she is "not a dog" as well but she knows how to think, interact and communicate with a dog at a dog's level better than most.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Nature lies all the time, lol. Cryptic coloration etc. 

"I swear I am a harmless rock not a bigger fish about to eat you."
"I swear I am a boring leaf not a bug for you to eat."
"I swear I am your real baby and not a cuckoo who shoved your real baby out of the nest."

LIIIESSSSSS. All lies.


----------



## Shell (Oct 19, 2009)

Laurelin said:


> Work would be much more fun if they let me bring my dogs!


LOL. Mia might plot to take over the office like a Pinky and the Brain cartoon.

I do sometimes bring one of the dogs with me to the office if I work on the weekends (when the building is nearly empty). They both enjoy the car ride, they both enjoy the walk afterwards in an area we don't visit often, but both basically just tolerate being there. Chester sniffs for crumbs and then flops around a few times trying to get comfortable on the not-very-soft commercial carpet and then naps the rest of the time. Eva tries to relax but gets worried at every beep, buzz and thunk of computers, printers, HVAC etc and is very frustrated that she cannot watch out the windows (I use this as training opportunity to work on "settle"). I like having them there but they are also kind of distracting, not because they are misbehaving but because its so tempting to take little breaks for play or training or a lap around the office, so I tend to just do filing and paperwork rather than anything with major math or analysis.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Oh, I also meant to say once in a very rare while Kylie goes to work with my husband. She doesn't mind it, but she doesn't love it. Basically she goes in, begs the receptionist for food at lunch and... you guessed it, sleeps.

Dogs sleep A LOT. Conserving energy for when there's something interesting/exciting/necessary to do.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

I just want to bring MY dogs. I don't want to deal with other peoples' dogs lol. 

Mia is one of those dogs I think would like going to work with me. She would probably merge with me if she could and is always within a couple feet. Summer would think work is the BEST THING EVER and probably would make rounds around the floor visiting. 

I'm pretty sure Hank would be so annoying we'd not get work done.

I wouldn't want to work from home though. I couldn't handle that. Probably because I live alone so I would bet I would turn into a total hermit and then go nuts from lack of human/human interaction.

I do wish I could get away with working like... half days every day. But alas... I need full time pay.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

Luna would be a great office dog but I could never get my current boss to agree to it, haha. Maybe someday!


----------



## taquitos (Oct 18, 2012)

Meeko goes to work with my sister for "Bring Your Dog to Work Day."

Apparently he started a gang of small dogs and ran around terrorizing all the big dogs...

Yeah he's a bit of a jerkbag but that's why I love him lol. Everyone at the office loves him. She works for a pet supplies company so he always gets free stuff whenever he goes (including beds, treats, toys, etc.).

He's a pretty good office dog actually. He spends most of his time sleeping on a bed on my sister's desk lol!


----------



## K9 3X (Apr 17, 2015)

sassafras said:


> Nature lies all the time, lol. Cryptic coloration etc.
> 
> "I swear I am a harmless rock not a bigger fish about to eat you."
> "I swear I am a boring leaf not a bug for you to eat."
> ...


You're funny and you know it


----------



## K9 3X (Apr 17, 2015)

Effisia said:


> Crating is evil and deplorable but 'emotionless correction' is a-ok? Yeah, okay sure...


It is comments like this that show such a lack of understanding of the basic premise I originally intended. Twisting words around to serve one's purpose I guess. Forget the "great crate debate" for a minute and think outside the necessity of what one must do when they are unable to supervise their dogs while the human is gone. I merely mentioned that crating a dog is a form of punishment when used along with other methods to shape behavior, generally to eliminate undesirable behavior. " Give the dog a time out " for instance, yes isolate the dog, throw the dog in a crate that's most certainly not punishment is it? Dogs evolved to thrive on human companionship, so taking that away from from a dog is punishment, much more severe and longer lasting than a quick correction which lasts a heartbeat. Separation anxiety is testimony to removing the human from a dog's environment and isolating the dog, doesn't matter if it's crated or has full range of the house in the human's absence, it's simply a reaction to being isolated. Does every dog which is isolated exhibit separation anxiety? No. But every case of separation anxiety is due to isolation from the human. So, using isolation to "train" a dog is punishment no matter how you slice it.

So, with this in mind, I chose a different path with my last two pups. All too many new pup owners deal with an obnoxious, rambunctious incessantly barking puppy and come to point where they are at their wit's end. They will do the obvious mistakes and act emotionally toward the pup because of their frustration, anger and inabilities, maybe they will even tell the pup to come to them numerous times and then ultimately try to chase the pup down ( which is really incorrect in so many ways ) and collect it, so they can crate it ( time out ). Everything in this scenario is punishment and working against a quality relationship. I decided my number one priority was to have my pups come to me and ingrain this in them so deeply it would become a reflex. Never has and never will my current dog come to me per my command and receive anything but the best, I don't care if it just dug up every new vegetable plant in my garden. I will go to the dog to correct it, never will the dog come to me for correction. So, since my pup was indoctrinated with a solid recall from the beginning, when she would be acting the part of a puppy which so many "time out" fans utilize a crate to simmer a puppy down, I simply would recall the pup to me and reset the pup through kind and gentle engagement. Even today, on rare occasions when she might be a bit vocal and letting me know she wants something, I just instruct her to come to me and she does, she's still barking at me but once I have her next to me, I soothe all that ails her with gentle physical contact ( such a wonderful redirection). From this point a simple down stay is required and after 5 minutes or so, I reward her duly, almost always engagement in one form or another, generally of a physical nature so she can burn off some of that extra energy she has which created the situation in the first place most likely. So, go ahead and use your crate and isolate your dog as a tool to correct behavior, its a form of punishment I have chosen not to use as there is a "positive" method which will work so much better. And you are all about being positive, correct?


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I don't think anyone here advocates using a crate as punishment or even time-out or in any way as a behavior correction. Crates are for keeping the dog safe while you're not home to keep an eye on them. If people were home and available to distract the puppy they wouldn't need to crate. I guess I'm not sure what you're arguing at this point. You advocated physical corrections, other people argued against that, so now you're making stuff up about how/why people crate their dogs?


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

...No one here uses a crate as punishment. 

All of my dogs get fed in their crates, and all of them CHOOSE to sleep in them about as often as they sleep in the beds and on the couches. In fact, Molly's just now allowed to roam freely at night, and rather than any of the four beds in the house that she has access to, or the couch, or the love seat, she slept all night in her crate - with the door open. Thud does the same thing. They LIKE being there. They're comfy and private and quiet places.


----------



## Effisia (Jun 20, 2013)

Willowy said:


> I don't think anyone here advocates using a crate as punishment or even time-out or in any way as a behavior correction. Crates are for keeping the dog safe while you're not home to keep an eye on them. If people were home and available to distract the puppy they wouldn't need to crate. I guess I'm not sure what you're arguing at this point. You advocated physical corrections, other people argued against that, so now you're making stuff up about how/why people crate their dogs?


This ^

Also, I'm not ALL about being positive, in point of fact. I use R+ and P-, I just don't care for traditional aversives very much when other stuff works better (Annabel, for example, is super soft). However, my dog doesn't find her crate to be punishing or aversive, she rather enjoys it and hangs out in there even when we're home. I think it's because the plastic bottom bit is cooler than the carpet. She likes the bathtub, too, for the same reason. Or shoving her fluffy butt against the AC register...


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

Yea, no. You can use a crate and also use rewards based training, or not use a crate and use punishment based training, or vice versa. I wouldn't consider a crate part of training at all, more of a management tool.

Our crate is also in the living room where we spend most of out time, so if she is crated temporarily while we're home there are still people around, she isn't in an isolated room.

We crate when we aren't home or are sleeping as a management tool. I have crated her when she got too excited about the cats, but just temporarily as a way to contain her so I could safely evacuate the cat in question (and prevent her from chasing), and she is immediately let out again once the situation is under control. (essentially using it as an extra set of hands) She will choose to go in herself during the day as well to chill out. Lately she likes taking her treat ball in there at dinner time, for whatever reason.


----------



## K9 3X (Apr 17, 2015)

Willowy said:


> I don't think anyone here advocates using a crate as punishment or even time-out or in any way as a behavior correction. Crates are for keeping the dog safe while you're not home to keep an eye on them. If people were home and available to distract the puppy they wouldn't need to crate. I guess I'm not sure what you're arguing at this point. You advocated physical corrections, other people argued against that, so now you're making stuff up about how/why people crate their dogs?


When did I advocate physical corrections ?? You are the one making "stuff up".

And nobody here uses "time outs" or withholding a reward? If so, my apologies.


----------



## K9 3X (Apr 17, 2015)

ireth0 said:


> Our crate is also in the living room where we spend most of out time, so if she is crated temporarily while we're home there are still people around, she isn't in an isolated room.
> 
> .


Why in the world would you ever temporarily crate a dog when you are at home???


----------



## K9 3X (Apr 17, 2015)

There's a new one , crate = "management tool" What is it you are trying to manage ? And why in the world would you crate a dog while you are sleeping? And why have you not taught your dog a civil down stay to deal with the cat?


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

K9 3X said:


> There's a new one , crate = "management tool" What is it you are trying to mange ? And why in the world would you crate a dog while you are sleeping? And why have you not taught your dog a civil down stay to deal with cat?


Some dogs eat things when you're not watching/asleep. Rip up the garbage. Annoy the cats.Do you really just give puppies run of the house when nobody is home? How do you keep them from killing themselves?

And some people adopt adult dogs who haven't had previous training and they need to be managed until they can be sufficiently trained. Or they'd eat the cats or the couch. 

Every second someone isn't getting rewarded is "withholding a reward", I'd hardly consider that punishment. Oh noes, I'm not getting rewarded right now, I'm so distraught .

Well, my apologies if your reference to "emotionless corrections" involves no physical pain. Your reactions when I said that someone who can cause pain to an animal isn't very nice reinforced that idea in my head.



> Why in the world would you ever temporarily crate a dog when you are at home???


If you can't watch them to make sure they aren't getting into something. Obviously one would want them to reach a level of training/maturity where this won't be necessary but sometimes you have to take a shower and don't want the pup getting a tummyful of couch foam.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Crate as a management tool is new?!

What's the zipcode on that rock;-) (That's a joke) Crates as management tools have been around since at LEAST the 80s. They're great to keep the dog from electrocuting itself chewing the wires when they're little and untrained and your eyes aren't on them. 

Seriously, though, I want to know too - what DO you do with puppies while you sleep? How do you prevent potty accidents, obstructions from eating inedible things, and property destruction?


----------



## K9 3X (Apr 17, 2015)

I'll quit beating a dead horse since we are all going to do what we do regardless of where this banter goes. I'm sure all of you care deeply for your dogs and give them the best lives possible. 

The few posters who were honest enough to state that they do use forms of punishment, no matter what form, as benign as they might seem, I applaud your honesty.

I am just amused by those who pretend otherwise.

I am always interested in better methods, especially methods which strengthen the bond.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Of course there are lots of forms of punishment, and nobody can get through life without them happening naturally. Just some forms of punishment are (can be) more damaging than others.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

A management tool is a tool to manage while/until a behavior is taught/trained. Unless you leave all your doors and cabinets wide open all day and the garbage out in the middle of the floor and never put a leash on your dog then you, too are using management tools. They're just called leashes and doors in your case instead of crates.

There are even times I choose management permanently. It's not worth my time and effort to train my dog not to get into the kitchen garbage when I can just keep it in a cabinet instead.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

K9 3X said:


> There's a new one , crate = "management tool" What is it you are trying to manage ? And why in the world would you crate a dog while you are sleeping? And why have you not taught your dog a civil down stay to deal with the cat?


My puppy is crated when I leave the house, other than that, he sleeps / stays outside the crate. What is wrong with crates? Of course they can be abused, like everry other training tool, but it doesnt mean they are bad, or that everyone who uses one is bad.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

K9 3X said:


> Why in the world would you ever temporarily crate a dog when you are at home???


For the reason I stated below, in the very post you were quoting. 



K9 3X said:


> There's a new one , crate = "management tool" What is it you are trying to manage ? And why in the world would you crate a dog while you are sleeping? And why have you not taught your dog a civil down stay to deal with the cat?


What am I trying to manage? My dog.
Why would I crate while sleeping? She is not 100% reliable with the cats yet. She wont hurt them but she will sometimes chase and I don't want her to practice the behaviour when I am not there to prevent it.
Training takes time and doesn't happen instantly, good grief. I have been training my dog on how to properly interact with the cats for literally months. We have gone from not being able to be in the same room without issues to headbumps and multi-species calmly cuddling with me on the couch.

Please, tell me what else I'm doing horribly wrong.


----------



## parus (Apr 10, 2014)

K9 3X said:


> I'm not certain what your agenda is but I could make a pretty good guess. You certainly seem to have an axe to grind. Your comment regarding culpability is very telling.


I'm very excited to have an ~*agenda*~ . This is a novel experience, given that ordinarily my only agenda is the one in my phone that beeps at me when I'm late.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

Oh, and for the record, I have never claimed I don't use punishment in my training. I said I don't use physical corrections, which I do not.

I withhold rewards, I use verbal interrupters/corrections (which one people think it is seems to depend on which word I use)... that's all I can think of at the moment.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

K9 3X said:


> So, with this in mind, I chose a different path with my last two pups. All too many new pup owners deal with an obnoxious, rambunctious incessantly barking puppy and come to point where they are at their wit's end. They will do the obvious mistakes and act emotionally toward the pup because of their frustration, anger and inabilities, maybe they will even tell the pup to come to them numerous times and then ultimately try to chase the pup down ( which is really incorrect in so many ways ) and collect it, so they can crate it ( time out ). Everything in this scenario is punishment and working against a quality relationship. I decided my number one priority was to have my pups come to me and ingrain this in them so deeply it would become a reflex. Never has and never will my current dog come to me per my command and receive anything but the best, I don't care if it just dug up every new vegetable plant in my garden. I will go to the dog to correct it, never will the dog come to me for correction. So, since my pup was indoctrinated with a solid recall from the beginning, when she would be acting the part of a puppy which so many "time out" fans utilize a crate to simmer a puppy down, I simply would recall the pup to me and reset the pup through kind and gentle engagement. Even today, on rare occasions when she might be a bit vocal and letting me know she wants something, I just instruct her to come to me and she does, she's still barking at me but once I have her next to me, I soothe all that ails her with gentle physical contact ( such a wonderful redirection). From this point a simple down stay is required and after 5 minutes or so, I reward her duly, almost always engagement in one form or another, generally of a physical nature so she can burn off some of that extra energy she has which created the situation in the first place most likely. So, go ahead and use your crate and isolate your dog as a tool to correct behavior, its a form of punishment I have chosen not to use as there is a "positive" method which will work so much better. And you are all about being positive, correct?


I think you are seriously confused about how people typically use crates, and projecting your confusion. 

And even if people WERE using crates the way you describe here, I think you're also confused about the meaning of the word "isolated." If a dog is in a crate next to the couch, it is no more isolated than when your puppy is in a down-stay next to the couch.


----------



## K9 3X (Apr 17, 2015)

CptJack;4088385
Seriously said:


> I'm so glad someone finally asked. Day one, with all my puppies over the years, I get them home and we go to a specific spot next to the house where I built a rock area for the dog to take care of it's business, it's a smaller area 24 X 15 ft with pavers, enclosed if I choose. I may sit with the pup for 5 minutes or maybe an hour, eventually the pup urinates, if I have to guide the pup to the smaller rocked area 2 X 3, so be it, the scent is now there. First night, pup is in the bedroom, bedroom is dog proofed and door is closed. I sleep on the floor with the pup, pup wakes up and whines we go out to the paved/rocked area and hang out and guidance is needed to ensure the pup pees on the rocks, routine is now created and built upon. Second night, same sleeping arrangements. By the third or fourth night, I'm on the bed and the pup is on the carpeting beside me on the floor, I hang my hand over the side of the bed, providing physical contact and additional scent, pup is content with proximity and sleeps. Pup wakes up and whines, I do the same everyone does, we go outside. She takes care of her business and my neighbors wonder why I am having these parties outside at all hours of the night and early AM hours. Eventually, the bedroom door is open and the pup would give the same signal that she needs to go out and of course we would and once she would walk herself to the rocked area, I didn't escort her after that, just wait by the door and when she was done, I'd recall her and have an indoor party so the neighbors weren't bothered.
> 
> If I absolutely cannot take the pup with me, she will stay in either a dedicated dog proof room or in the outside enclosure. My current dog used the dog proofed room. I purposely leave items in this room after sufficient "leave it " training which she has been trained to not touch along with other items which she can do with as she pleases. Training a "leave it" to a cardboard box is usually where I start. If it is left in the dog proofed room in my absence, it is easy enough to tell if she learned "leave it". Throughout each and every day, "leave it" is taught everywhere in the house especially at ground level and problematic items such as electrical cords. I increase the amount of "leave it" items in her dog proofed room such as the electrical cord, unplugged of course. The disturbance of any "leave it" items is easily discovered upon my return. Of course the proofing of this behavior started while I would only pretend to leave and with remote cameras and watching what takes place, a simple
> "no" from outside the room made the pup understand I have eyes on her at all times even though it must have mystified her. Pup earns its wings and has access to more of the house. Eventually, I could place one of a few chew toys in this room on top of the box and she would not take that particular item because of it's location on the box.
> ...


----------



## K9 3X (Apr 17, 2015)

sassafras said:


> I think you are seriously confused about how people typically use crates, and projecting your confusion.
> 
> And even if people WERE using crates the way you describe here, I think you're also confused about the meaning of the word "isolated." If a dog is in a crate next to the couch, it is no more isolated than when your puppy is in a down-stay next to the couch.


Of course it is different as one would be encroaching on the dog's freedom of range. However, having a dog crated near its human is certainly a better option.


----------



## K9 3X (Apr 17, 2015)

Willowy said:


> Of course there are lots of forms of punishment, and nobody can get through life without them happening naturally. Just some forms of punishment are (can be) more damaging than others.


Agreed. No argument here



OwnedbyACDs said:


> My puppy is crated when I leave the house, other than that, he sleeps / stays outside the crate. What is wrong with crates? Of course they can be abused, like everry other training tool, but it doesnt mean they are bad, or that everyone who uses one is bad.



I agree with that.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

K9 3X said:


> Of course it is different as one would be encroaching on the dog's freedom of range. However, having a dog crated near its human is certainly a better option.


How does a down-stay not encroach on a dog's freedom of range?


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

If one's problem with crating is the isolation, what's the difference between that and a dog-proofed room? I guess there's more room to move around but it's just as isolated.

And what do you do if the dog did touch a "leave it" item?


----------



## Shell (Oct 19, 2009)

K9 3X said:


> Why in the world would you ever temporarily crate a dog when you are at home???


Some of us actually have to sleep and take showers and use the toilet and other such human actions which mean we cannot be staring at a dog 100% of the time. 

Foster pit bull Luna managed to destroy a door frame (heavy wood, old house) within 10 minutes while I took a shower when she was in a "dog safe" room early in her stay with me. There were nails there ready to rip up her face and gums if she'd taken another bite or two. So heck yeah she got crated when I couldn't supervise until she graduated to non-crating. I'll take a dog in a crate rather than a bloody dog at the vet's office any day. 

Management tool. Temporary as possible, tailored to the needs to each dog and the situation around them. Eva doesn't need a crate at home, she has one with her dog bed which she freely chooses to use with the door open. But when we travel? I take the crate. 9 times out of 10, it isn't because I don't trust my dog or because she is untrained, it is because I cannot always control the situation around her if I am not present. She might end up crated an hour or two and sleep the whole time. Big dang deal. Useful for hotels which require crates, useful for vet offices if the dog needs to be kenneled for medical care, useful for dog sports or events which require crates, useful when at other people's homes with their unpredictable kids etc.


----------



## K9 3X (Apr 17, 2015)

ireth0 said:


> She is not 100% reliable with the cats yet. She wont hurt them but she will sometimes chase and I don't want her to practice the behaviour when I am not there to prevent it.
> .
> 
> .


I have to ask a question and please understand I obviously know nothing about cats.

Why can't you crate the cats at night?


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

K9 3X said:


> I have to ask a question and please understand I obviously know nothing about cats.
> 
> Why can't you crate the cats at night?


The cats would be howling/scratching at the door all night if we so much as closed them out of the bedroom at night, never mind crated them. It is very stressful for them to be crated (from experience when I have had to transport them via crate). Also, they were here first, so I do my best to make the transition to living with the dog that -I- wanted (not them) as fair to them as possible. Specifically talking about the bedroom, an area where our scent is very strong, it's important territorially for cats to have access to that space. To not be allowed in that area is a big blow for them.

Luna doesn't mind being crated, and so she is.


----------



## K9 3X (Apr 17, 2015)

Willowy said:


> If one's problem with crating is the isolation, what's the difference between that and a dog-proofed room? I guess there's more room to move around but it's just as isolated.
> 
> And what do you do if the dog did touch a "leave it" item?


First, yes it still is isolation, no two ways about it and the only difference is as you noted plus windows to look out for additional stimulation, the view is not as static as a crate.

Second, I did what anybody would do if she messed with the "leave it" items, revisited, retrained and proofed the behavior. Of course there were no words upon finding the items moved as we all know there is no value in that. In my opinion the advent of cheap remote wireless cameras is an incredible training tool, it allows a person to correct undesirable behavior without being visible to the dog as well as conditioning the dog to perhaps believe you are scrutinizing their behavior in your absence. Before I had any cameras, I used to train certain obedience such as a down stay in the backyard and then go inside the house and view the dog through the window. With the window slightly open and not being visible to the dog, the moment she would budge, I'd give a hearty "AH" and boom, she'd settle back in. There is great value in having a dog experience a "magical" ability such as this, the ever present voice and eyes of their master in a dog's mind and imagination shapes a dog's behavior more than one might think, we have much more than opposable thumbs to train a dog with if we use our intelligence.


----------



## K9 3X (Apr 17, 2015)

sassafras said:


> How does a down-stay not encroach on a dog's freedom of range?




That's a fair question. A down stay is an obedience skill whereas once a dog is in it's crate ( per request/obedience) there is no obedience being exhibited or asked for by the human. The crate is an obedience-free zone I assume or do some people conduct obedience skills with a dog in their crate?


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

K9 3X said:


> That's a fair question. A down stay is an obedience skill whereas once a dog is in it's crate ( per request/obedience) there is no obedience being exhibited or asked for by the human. The crate is an obedience-free zone I assume or do some people conduct obedience skills with a dog in their crate?


Regardless, the dog is not allowed freedom of movement, whether there are tangible barriers or intangible ones.


----------



## K9 3X (Apr 17, 2015)

Shell said:


> Some of us actually have to sleep and take showers and use the toilet and other such human actions which mean we cannot be staring at a dog 100% of the time.
> 
> Foster pit bull Luna managed to destroy a door frame (heavy wood, old house) within 10 minutes while I took a shower when she was in a "dog safe" room early in her stay with me. There were nails there ready to rip up her face and gums if she'd taken another bite or two. So heck yeah she got crated when I couldn't supervise until she graduated to non-crating. I'll take a dog in a crate rather than a bloody dog at the vet's office any day.
> 
> Management tool. Temporary as possible, tailored to the needs to each dog and the situation around them. Eva doesn't need a crate at home, she has one with her dog bed which she freely chooses to use with the door open. But when we travel? I take the crate. 9 times out of 10, it isn't because I don't trust my dog or because she is untrained, it is because I cannot always control the situation around her if I am not present. She might end up crated an hour or two and sleep the whole time. Big dang deal. Useful for hotels which require crates, useful for vet offices if the dog needs to be kenneled for medical care, useful for dog sports or events which require crates, useful when at other people's homes with their unpredictable kids etc.


I do not pretend for one second to suggest much anything I have said is for a fostered dog. I am only addressing my experiences and methods regarding a puppy and starting out with a completely malleable creature with no ingrained behavior beyond the obvious for a 2 month old puppy.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

I crate my dogs at night because I'm a light sleeper and don't want to be woken if they decide to get up and roam around. I also like knowing that if there's a fire or other emergency, I can grab the crates and get right out of the house without having to scramble for leashes or find the dogs. The dogs don't mind being crated; they just sleep all night anyway.

My cats actually sleep in the porch at night with their food/water/cat beds so that they're also easy to find and not roaming around making noise. They don't complain at all.


----------



## K9 3X (Apr 17, 2015)

sassafras said:


> Regardless, the dog is not allowed freedom of movement, whether there are tangible barriers or intangible ones.


If you are not able to see the difference between a commanded down stay and the obedience exhibited versus a dog in a crate which has no choice but to stay, I don't think we will ever agree on much anything regarding dog training.

A dog will lay down whenever it wants to and maybe stay there for an hour if it chooses, is that what you call a successful down stay? A down stay is a learned obedience skill which lends great advantage to other skills. I suppose some might say their dog does an 8 hour down stay every night.


----------



## Shell (Oct 19, 2009)

K9 3X said:


> I do not pretend for one second to suggest much anything I have said is for a fostered dog. I am only addressing my experiences and methods regarding a puppy and starting out with a completely malleable creature with no ingrained behavior beyond the obvious for a 2 month old puppy.


Could have fooled me. Very few people on this board have started all their dogs out as puppies. Some have had a mix of puppies and adults, others only adult dogs. I've wager that the majority of the people here have adopted or purchased adult dogs who have come from a wide variety of backgrounds and with a wide variety of training levels, bad habits, fears etc. Yet, reading your posts, it seems that somehow we are all raising our dogs wrong and isolating them and not recognizing how dogs learn, but then wait, never mind, they aren't puppies so backtrack....

You might notice that you never restricted comments like this--


K9 3X said:


> Why in the world would you ever temporarily crate a dog when you are at home???


to puppies only. 

Even then however, you do not appear to take into consideration that other people have different schedules, households, children, multi-animal situations, health etc than you do. Those sleepless nights can be actually physically harmful to someone with a medical condition for example. A two month old puppy can get into a ton of trouble very quickly and the risk vs reward of crating or penning a dog temporarily can apply to them also. 

People have to take kids to school, they have to work to earn a living, they have to cook dinner without risking a puppy getting hold of dangerous food items. Baby gates, ex-pens, teaching a good solid stay/go to mat, and using a crate can all be part of training the same dog as the dog learns and as the situation changes. Some dogs find a long down-stay on mat harder to deal (more stressful physically or mentally) with than being crated. Etc.


----------



## K9 3X (Apr 17, 2015)

I think I am learning something from all this discourse, something I would not have guessed. But maybe it was Capnjack who stated that much of this is genetic or breed specific. I have only ever had GSDs in my life, I know they are intelligent through experience and maybe the other breeds of dogs like a GSD which demonstrate an elevated level of intelligence are able to maintain a different level of supervision once properly trained. I was told by someone earlier in this thread that many of you are agility competitors and I have to assume any dog which performs agility courses with a certain amount of prowess has to be a reasonably intelligent dog at the very least. So, I guess that is what creates some of my confusion regarding certain measures many of you take to "protect" your dogs. I understand why you do it and it is an admirable quality. I guess I have just taken a different route for all the same reasons.


----------



## K9 3X (Apr 17, 2015)

Shell said:


> Even then however, you do not appear to take into consideration that other people have different schedules, households, children, multi-animal situations, health etc than you do. Those sleepless nights can be actually physically harmful to someone with a medical condition for example. A two month old puppy can get into a ton of trouble very quickly and the risk vs reward of crating or penning a dog temporarily can apply to them also.
> 
> People have to take kids to school, they have to work to earn a living, they have to cook dinner without risking a puppy getting hold of dangerous food items. Baby gates, ex-pens, teaching a good solid stay/go to mat, and using a crate can all be part of training the same dog as the dog learns and as the situation changes. Some dogs find a long down-stay on mat harder to deal (more stressful physically or mentally) with than being crated. Etc.


Yes, I never worked a day in my life or had a schedule with demands. Thanks, now it all makes such sense.


----------



## Shell (Oct 19, 2009)

K9 3X said:


> Yes, I never worked a day in my life or had a schedule with demands. Thanks, now it all makes such sense.


It is a question of degrees though. You explained how you sleep on the floor with the puppy for the first couple nights for example; not practical or healthy for a lot of people. You take a dog to work a lot, not practical for a lot of people. Even the option of a dog-safe room seems simple but requires space that not everyone can dedicate to dog use. Everything you have described about how you raise and train a dog shows a great deal of flexibility in the demands on your time and attention that a lot of people just don't have.


----------



## pawsaddict (Apr 17, 2013)

K9 3X said:


> Of course it is different as one would be encroaching on the dog's freedom of range. However, having a dog crated near its human is certainly a better option.


But your leaving your dogs in a proofed room or in a dog run outside would also be an example of "encroaching on the dog's freedom of range". You must admit that it has to be done.

I have to agree with Sass, that you seem to have a very confused view of crates and the meaning of isolation.

I also am one if those people that does practice obedience skills using a crate. My girls "wait" before exiting, know that "inside" means go in your crate, eat in their crates and do sit/stays or down/stays inside their crates before meals. Also, crate training is practicing for many situations that may require your dog being crated (if they are injured, at the vet's office, flying on a plane, at an agility trial). Edit: I am so happy that Marley is crate trained because she spent over a month straight crated (minus very quick potty breaks) because of IVDD. If she were not comfortable in her crate, that experience would have been a thousand times worse for her.

Also, my dogs sleep better in their crates. When they have the option to sleep out of them, they are more restless and worried about every sound that comes from ouside. They are relaxed in their crates.


----------



## parus (Apr 10, 2014)

K9 3X said:


> I think I am learning something from all this discourse, something I would not have guessed. But maybe it was Capnjack who stated that much of this is genetic or breed specific. I have only ever had GSDs in my life, I know they are intelligent through experience and maybe the other breeds of dogs like a GSD which demonstrate an elevated level of intelligence are able to maintain a different level of supervision once properly trained. I was told by someone earlier in this thread that many of you are agility competitors and I have to assume any dog which performs agility courses with a certain amount of prowess has to be a reasonably intelligent dog at the very least. So, I guess that is what creates some of my confusion regarding certain measures many of you take to "protect" your dogs. I understand why you do it and it is an admirable quality. I guess I have just taken a different route for all the same reasons.


Intelligence and trainability are two very different attributes in animals.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

parus said:


> Intelligence and trainability are two very different attributes in dogs.


Yeah, Thud's brilliant. He's not an agility dog, because he's about as biddable/trainable as a brick wall and about as graceful as a DRUNK, pregnant musk ox. Don't get me wrong, he's trained (now, sort of, mostly)but he has no inherent interest in working for a person or making them happy. 

Kylie is bright, trainable, biddable AND sensible. Kylie was done with the crate by the time she was four months old. She's also the current agility dog. She's easy, peasy. Does the odd really bone-headed thing like climb shelves to get cat food or what have you, but she's a really good dog and pretty much always has been. 

Molly is a border collie. Molly is BRILLIANT, highly biddable and trainable and... about as far from sensible as she can get, because she's also incredibly impulsive and curious. She's only crated when we're out of the house now, but when we do it's to prevent things like her shoving her head in a peanut butter tub (the big ones) she fished out of the garbage, flushing the toilet 900 times or turning on the stove and no one being around to hear the struggle/commotion and save her from suffocation or the house from flooding or burning down. She'll eventually do agility and probably do it well, but. Agility is not something she does on her own, she does it with me. 

Bug is 8 and deaf. She's not super bright, but she's well trained and well behaved. She gets separated when we're gone because she's deaf and rude and irritates the other dogs and can't hear their 'knock it off' snark and I'd rather her not start something and get hurt/hurt someone else.

Jack's dumb as a post AND not particularly trainable, but he's sweet and rarely gets into anything. He's pretty much been uncrated since he came home at 5 years old. He still voluntarily spends a ton of time hanging out in his crate.

It just varies, but basically the truth in there is "Dogs are different and some will get into things another would not, regardless of intelligence, energy level or even level of training." I'm pretty convinced that things like dogs who never get into the garbage or chew the baseboards, even if they're home alone, are born - not trained.


----------



## parus (Apr 10, 2014)

pawsaddict said:


> I also am one if those people that does practice obedience skills using a crate. My girls "wait" before exiting, know that "inside" means go in your crate, eat in their crates and do sit/stays or down/stays inside their crates before meals. Also, crate training is practicing for any situations that may require your dog being crated (if they are injured, at the vet's office, flying on a plane, at an agility trial).


Yes. Both my dogs are crate trained. They have free reign of the house most of the time, but while no adults are home, the elderly terrier now goes in the crate for her own safety, because her vision is going and she's become less reliable in her old age. It's an XXL sized crate with soft bedding in it, and she seems comfortable in there. 

They go into the crates on command. Their trained crate behaviors are the same as their trained "mat" behaviors, which is to settle in place. The difference between the mat and the crate is that they can be left unattended in the crate, because they don't have the option to leave the area. 

They are crate trained for their own safety in case of things like travel, illness, boarding, and participation in dog classes. It is better for them to be comfortable with the crate in good times than to just stuff them into a crate under stressful situations.


----------



## parus (Apr 10, 2014)

CptJack said:


> Yeah, Thud's brilliant. He's not an agility dog, because he's about as biddable/trainable as a brick wall and about as graceful as a DRUNK, pregnant musk ox. Don't get me wrong, he's trained (now, sort of, mostly)but he has no inherent interest in working for a person or making them happy.
> 
> Kylie is bright, trainable, biddable AND sensible. Kylie was done with the crate by the time she was four months old. She's also the current agility dog.
> 
> ...


I have fairly extensive horse-training experience, and a wider range of experience with them than with dogs. Some of the smartest horses I worked with were also the most difficult to train (with the exception of the drafts, which tended to be super bright AND super tractable). The very stupidest were also challenging to train, but at least they tended to stay trained once they were trained, lol.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Yeah, that's Jack. It might take you 6 months or more to teach him something but once you have, by god, he is never going to challenge it or forget it. EVER.


----------



## Shell (Oct 19, 2009)

CptJack said:


> I'm pretty convinced that things like dogs who never get into the garbage or chew the baseboards, even if they're home alone, are born - not trained.


I pretty much agree. I mean, I think you can do some molding along the way and growing up helps a lot, but you work with what you got. I think about dogs like my former foster Freckles who was impeccably behaved from day 1 at 4 months old-- he never had an accident in the house, he walked on a loose leash, he was comfortable in his crate after his surgery, he didn't bark or mouth or anything but he wasn't shut down at all and was playful with Chester, friendly to people and just the easiest. 

And he had been living the prior month in a maintenance facility (since 12 weeks old when his owner dumped him there for not being housetrained...), wandering outside during the day and being locked in the office at night. 

I could have kept him for those 6 weeks and then shown him off to the rescue and adopters as "proof" of how awesome my training is but instead I admitted he was just that easy and good of a dog 

At least the rescue had met the crazy fosters first and were already at their wits end with those dogs so they KNEW how far we had come!


----------



## K9 3X (Apr 17, 2015)

Shell said:


> It is a question of degrees though. You explained how you sleep on the floor with the puppy for the first couple nights for example; not practical or healthy for a lot of people. You take a dog to work a lot, not practical for a lot of people. Even the option of a dog-safe room seems simple but requires space that not everyone can dedicate to dog use. Everything you have described about how you raise and train a dog shows a great deal of flexibility in the demands on your time and attention that a lot of people just don't have.


Hello, I ran a business for 28 years, I spent more time at work than any employee I ever had. Please do not diminish what I have accomplished because it's not "practical" or whatever for others. You are correct, it's not easy and I enjoyed the heck out of it, I dedicated myself to whatever I pursue especially the dogs. 80 plus hour weeks in the early years offered me oodles of "flexibility", please don't go there.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

K9 3X said:


> If you are not able to see the difference between a commanded down stay and the obedience exhibited versus a dog in a crate which has no choice but to stay, I don't think we will ever agree on much anything regarding dog training.
> 
> A dog will lay down whenever it wants to and maybe stay there for an hour if it chooses, is that what you call a successful down stay? A down stay is a learned obedience skill which lends great advantage to other skills. I suppose some might say their dog does an 8 hour down stay every night.


You are arguing something that I am not arguing. I am not saying crating and a down stay are exactly the same. I simply took issue with your assertion that a crate encroaches on a dog's freedom of movement while a down-stay does not. Either way, the dog is not free to move. So there's really no reason to act like one is better or kinder than the other for a reset/time out.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

My troublemaker is also the smartest dog I've ever owned. That intelligence gets her in trouble ALL the time. Because she can problem solve like crazy and her little mind makes connections between things incredibly fast. She's also the least blindly biddable dog I have but I don't really think that has much to do with intelligence at all. Which is why she's still contained when I'm gone at 6 years old.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

I don't know, I'd argue the crate is kinder as a time out/reset because the dog IS free to move, rather than to continue to think and 'work' - at least for some dogs. My dog does much better if she can curl up and maybe nap than if she needs to keep holding a position. But that's assuming my goal is decompression/relaxation for the dog.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

parus said:


> Intelligence and trainability are two very different attributes in animals.


Yea, my dogs run the gamut:
Really smart AND really biddable (Toast)
Really smart but not super biddable (Squash)
So-so smart but really biddable (Pip)
So-so smart and not very biddable (Maisy)


Maisy and Pip never do anything wrong, really. Squash and Toast... ahahaaaaaaaaaa. Guess who is crated when I'm gone? They have too much imagination for my own good.


----------



## K9 3X (Apr 17, 2015)

sassafras said:


> You are arguing something that I am not arguing. I am not saying crating and a down stay are exactly the same. I simply took issue with your assertion that a crate encroaches on a dog's freedom of movement while a down-stay does not. Either way, the dog is not free to move. So there's really no reason to act like one is better or kinder than the other for a reset/time out.


You just don't get it. But thanks for trying. Hey, one last effort: a dog on a down stay is FREE to move if it chooses but makes a CHOICE not to, due to it's training if it is sufficient. A dog which is physically restrained has no CHOICE.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

Someone on this thread doesn't get it, and it's not sassafras.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

K9 3X said:


> You just don't get it. But thanks for trying. Hey, one last effort: a dog on a down stay is FREE to move if it chooses but makes a CHOICE not to, due to it's training if it is sufficient. A dog which is physically restrained has no CHOICE.


If the dog is free to move, then it's not in a down-stay.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Overall Mia is biddable. She's just not the nicest thing in the world. Which is fine. I wouldn't have her any other way.  

Summer (bless her) is my 'But these are the rules! You CANNOT break the rules!" dog.

Mia is my 'Ok she's gone, let's get out all the liquor and trash the house!' dog


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Shell said:


> I could have kept him for those 6 weeks and then shown him off to the rescue and adopters as "proof" of how awesome my training is but instead I admitted he was just that easy and good of a dog
> 
> At least the rescue had met the crazy fosters first and were already at their wits end with those dogs so they KNEW how far we had come!


Lol yeah. I can leave Hank loose with food in the car. He's not going to get into it. Why? Because he's Hank. 

If Mia is in the car and you go to great lengths to lock the food away from her, she WILL get it. In whatever way she can. Because she's Mia.

They're just very different dogs.


----------



## Effisia (Jun 20, 2013)

K9 3X said:


> You just don't get it. But thanks for trying. Hey, one last effort: a dog on a down stay is FREE to move if it chooses but makes a CHOICE not to, due to it's training if it is sufficient. A dog which is physically restrained has no CHOICE.


This is just... Does anyone play Dragon Age? This is like making a doggie version of the Qun. Now I'm picturing canine Qunari and cracking myself up...


----------



## Shell (Oct 19, 2009)

K9 3X said:


> Hello, I ran a business for 28 years, I spent more time at work than any employee I ever had. Please do not diminish what I have accomplished because it's not "practical" or whatever for others. You are correct, it's not easy and I enjoyed the heck out of it, I dedicated myself to whatever I pursue especially the dogs. 80 plus hour weeks in the early years offered me oodles of "flexibility", please don't go there.


How in the world is pointing out that the routine you described as working for you cannot work for many other people diminishing anything? On the contrary, maybe consider that implying that things like crating or containing dogs indoors rather than letting them range are isolating and cruel is diminishing the caring, carefully thought out training that many people posting on here do. 

And in a slight attempt to get back to the whole point of this thread...

The general concepts of using positive reinforcement and negative punishment tend to work for all breeds of dogs, in a wide variety of situations, with minimal risk of physical or mental fallout and also work on many other animals, both domestic like horses and cats and to a degree, wild animals too. In addition, when advising anyone over the internet of training tactics, it is more responsible and safer to provide only positive reinforcement and negative punishment based suggestions.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

> any dog which performs agility courses with a certain amount of prowess has to be a reasonably intelligent dog at the very least.


When you train for a dog to be exceptionally well-behaved, you sacrifice a lot of drive and enthusiasm. Can't be too well-behaved if you wanna rip up the course . I'm sure most agility dogs are reasonably well-behaved in the house but you do have to be careful not to squash their enthusiasm so traditional obedience isn't necessarily a good thing.

If a crate is small enough to hold a dog in one position like a down-stay, it's just way too small. I'd argue that a crated dog has far more range of motion than a dog who's expected to stay still.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Willowy said:


> When you train for a dog to be exceptionally well-behaved, you sacrifice a lot of drive and enthusiasm. Can't be too well-behaved if you wanna rip up the course . I'm sure most agility dogs are reasonably well-behaved in the house but you do have to be careful not to squash their enthusiasm so traditional obedience isn't necessarily a good thing.


Um, no. This is pretty much a myth.

You can squash a dog's drive and enthusiasm, but you don't do it by teaching obedience. Even formal obedience. Even competition level obedience. You want enthusiasm and energy there, too, but even if you didn't you mostly refrain from squashing enthusiasm by not being a hyper control freak and punishing it/taking the fun out of that activity for the dog. 

And, frankly, a lot of the more intense agility dogs need a level of control brought to the game. Ie: They DO get brought down a notch or two, because otherwise they just make their own course. No dog without good obedience is holding a sit stay or downstay while faced with the temptation of a highly rewarding activity (the course) laid out in front of them, anyway. 

I mean, yeah, they're not all great obedience dogs but most pretty well are better trained than your average pet at sit/down/stay/come/ignoring distractions, etc.

None of that, however, will keep them from eating your baseboards or garbage.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Yeah, that's kinda what I meant. In order to prevent baseboard eating/garbage diving, a fair amount of punishment would have to be used. Competition obedience is just more tricks for them. But "well-behaved" so often means "doesn't do anything" and that wouldn't be a good agility dog.


----------



## K9 3X (Apr 17, 2015)

Willowy said:


> When you train for a dog to be exceptionally well-behaved, you sacrifice a lot of drive and enthusiasm. Can't be too well-behaved if you wanna rip up the course . dogs are reasonably well-behaved in the house but you do have to be careful not to squash their enthusiasm so traditional obedience isn't necessarily a good thing.
> .


Oh my, it continues. Any IPO or Modioring dog that is worth it's salt has tremendous drive and "enthusiasm" and are most always incredibly well behaved. You are just shooting from the hip now.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

K9 3X said:


> Oh my, it continues. Any IPO or Modioring dog that is worth it's salt has tremendous drive and "enthusiasm" and are most always incredibly well behaved. You are just shooting from the hip now.


I'm training with an experienced IPO guy right now who has put titles on numerous dogs and we talk every lesson about how easy to squash drive and enthusiasm by training a dog to be a super well mannered pet. It's much harder to do with a dog who is hard in temperament and very high drive so it has a lot of cushion, but with a lower drive dog it can be a big deal. 

You seem to frame everything in terms of GSDs and mals in IPO. These dogs are not the norm for what most people own (not even most people who own GSDs).


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Yep. It takes a very, very specific dog type and sort to handle IPO, from what I understand, and that is a dog that is high drive, high energy, strong nerved, hard tempered, AND somewhat biddable. 

...Most people don't own that, even people who own GSDs and certainly not pet owners or people doing other sports.


----------



## K9 3X (Apr 17, 2015)

elrohwen said:


> but with a lower drive dog it can be a big deal.
> 
> \


"Lower drive dog" makes crappy IPO and Mondioring dog, so I stand on what I said.

Yes, all I have ever trained with is GSDs and Mals and since they are not dogs, what would I know.

Basic obedience is basic obedience. Every class I have ever seen at that level is all breed, nothing specific about it. Nothing I have posted is remotely close to advanced obedience or performance training.


----------



## K9 3X (Apr 17, 2015)

CptJack said:


> Yep. It takes a very, very specific dog type and sort to handle IPO, from what I understand, and that is a dog that is high drive, high energy, strong nerved, hard tempered, AND somewhat biddable.
> 
> ...Most people don't own that, even people who own GSDs and certainly not pet owners or people doing other sports.


Every pink papered WGSL which breeds must accomplish every aspect of an IPO trials as well as a conformation title as well as endurance testing and health standards ( hips and elbows mostly ) per the SV, every single one of them. The best part of all, is they all make for wonderful companion dogs as many of them end up as exactly that.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

So.... basically what I gather from this thread is we should all just get German Shepherds? 

I honestly can't figure out what else you could be trying to argue.


----------



## parus (Apr 10, 2014)

Laurelin said:


> So.... basically what I gather from this thread is we should all just get German Shepherds?
> 
> I honestly can't figure out what else you could be trying to argue.


And train them as protection dogs, regardless of whether they need or want protection dogs, lol.


----------



## K9 3X (Apr 17, 2015)

Laurelin said:


> So.... basically what I gather from this thread is we should all just get German Shepherds?
> 
> I honestly can't figure out what else you could be trying to argue.


That's funny, seriously. I'm sorry if I can only relate my experiences via a GSD but it is my reality. I truly love all dogs, so the breed only becomes a factor when it will be one I choose to share each others lives with and to date, I haven't been let down. 

The way in which this convoluted thread initiated was basically regarding all positive training and I replied in a fashion which solicited some impassioned responses. Knee jerk responses from some members who may have misconstrued my response to a degree which never existed. You know, if you don't subscribe to my mentality than you probably beat your dog into submission or some variant of that. So, with that warm greeting, I decided to play their game and bait them into a position where they would have to defend their approach definitely. Most all have rationalized to their very best effort their "all positive" methods and most have failed because they treat certain training methods as "positive" but they are only fooling themselves and they know it. There have been a few, as I have mentioned before who have been forthright and acknowledge otherwise but yet try their best to use only -P and are honest enough to use the word "punishment" as others refuse to accept that they use any form of punishment. So as this group of posters persisted to regurgitate their rationalizations and berate me, I chose to play the game again. The use of a crate was introduced and this was a real button to push because the defense of the use of the crate solicits very strong responses in those who use them. Personally, I don't give a crap what they choose to do, I just know what I choose to do and as far as my dog's concern goes she only cares what I choose to do. Many people tripped over their words and beliefs when the " crate debate" escalated to a form of -P, they defend the use of a crate to the nth degree. Some went the ridiculous route and pretended I didn't know the difference between using a crate for management or many other reasons versus -P, you know the "time out" baloney. Anytime a crate is used for a "time out" or anything similar, it simply is -P, there is no debate. I have seen hundreds of dogs in crates at every show or competition I have attended, never once did I view this as anything other than a solution which benefited simple logistics, there's no foul, no punishment, just simple logic being employed. I learn through those who are honest not through those who rationalize. A dog doesn't deal with rationalizations, a dog deals with reality in the here and now. And now we are somewhat making a return to breed specificity and the intricacies which come with them, spearheaded by the agility group. Which once again allows me to play the game. As I am being accused by you that "we should just get German Shepherds", is such a far fetched comment which I know you truly don't mean but it is the barb you chose to use. And then you get characters like parus who think people get a PP dog whether they need one or not just further displays the ridiculousness of people in her/his boat. People like parus are a great example of a phrase I like to use at times, "those who expect tolerance are generally the least tolerant", I sure hope her/his dog(s) are tolerant. Anyway, enough of that drivel, you asked and I responded.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

"Time out" baloney. Yes, it IS baloney to suggest that a down-stay for a time out is somehow different and superior to a crate for a time out... and is apparently not punishment?

You're guilty of your own blinders here, obviously exacerbated by your desire to bait people into... giving their opinions? For some reason? I'm not sure anyone has claimed they use no punishment whatsoever, simply questioned several ridiculous claims you've made and countered them.

But get on with your bad self.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

One thing to remember is a lot of these discussions online are from relative newbies. (No offense OP if you're still reading but I believe that user is on their first dog) People asking 'Does positive training work?' 'Should I use positive training methods?'

It's not an easy thing to really discuss with people who have never trained a dog before. 

Maybe all they know is Cesar Milan. 

So what do you say? Do you go into all the nuances or do you just say yes positive training works in a hope that they will start to look into and learn about training that truly uses a dog's drives and has a dog working happily because it wants to and has fun doing so? Also MOST the time (new) people talk about positive versus punishment they mean physical punishment. 

I don't use all positive training. I too don't think it exists. I think even the most positive trainers DO use 'punishment' even if it is very light. I personally think a lot of people take the 'all positive' thing wayyyy too far. I don't even strive to be 'all positive'. It's not even on my radar. 

The best idea to get across to new people is to break the idea that training is a static, drill sergeant like operation and to challenge them to discover what their dog likes and what their dog will work for. But that's a bit more complicated than 'do you use positive training?'


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

I like the "LIMA" descriptor that's starting to get used more. I think most people here would generally fall into that category.


----------



## dagwall (Mar 17, 2011)

sassafras said:


> I like the "LIMA" descriptor that's starting to get used more. I think most people here would generally fall into that category.


Yeah, I just saw something with LIMA descriptor recently and really liked the way they explained it. It's what I aim for most of the time.


----------



## chimunga (Aug 29, 2014)

Laurelin said:


> One thing to remember is a lot of these discussions online are from relative newbies. (No offense OP if you're still reading but I believe that user is on their first dog) People asking 'Does positive training work?' 'Should I use positive training methods?'
> 
> It's not an easy thing to really discuss with people who have never trained a dog before.
> 
> ...


I read a couple of Cesar Milan's books before I got a dog. And it all seemed great in theory. One simple thing to make your dog behave? Heck yes. He makes it sound so easy. The problem is, it's not really that easy. Nothing is as easy as he makes it seem. 

Luckily, I read Ian Dunbars books before I got Watson, and even though it sounded ridiculous, it made me do a complete 180 almost instantly. The science spoke to me. 

There's a chapter in the beginning of _The Power of Positive Dog Training _by Pat Miller that just beautifully explains why positive is better than negative/dominance. Essentially she explains that with negative or dominance based training, your dog is not going to have fun with training. It's going to feel at best a chore, and at worst scary. How engaged are you when learning is a chore? And its very hard to learn when you're scared. When you use positive reinforcement, training is fun all around. Your dog has more stamina, because they get less frustrated, and they're more engaged, because they get rewarded for being awesome.


----------



## parus (Apr 10, 2014)

sassafras said:


> You're guilty of your own blinders here, obviously exacerbated by your desire to bait people into... giving their opinions? For some reason?


To reveal their _agendas_, lol.


----------



## 2Dogfarm (Apr 23, 2015)

I have a lot of thoughts I'd like to add to this thread, but to start, I have a bit of a problem with the idea of using a crate as a "time out" for a puppy. 

I think it's simply too far removed from any behaviour that you are trying to stop, for the dog to make a connection. 

No matter what behaviour you are giving a "time out" for, after that behaviour you have to get the pup to the crate. So you may have to reach for pup, pick up pup, carry pup, put pup into crate, or tell pup to go into the crate. By the time all those things happen, the initial behaviour is gone out of the pup's mind, in my opinion. If the pup was agreeable to being caught/picked up/carried/put into the crate, one should be praising all those things along the way.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

parus said:


> To reveal their _agendas_, lol.


I have so much agenda, you don't even know.



2Dogfarm said:


> I have a lot of thoughts I'd like to add to this thread, but to start, I have a bit of a problem with the idea of using a crate as a "time out" for a puppy.
> 
> I think it's simply too far removed from any behaviour that you are trying to stop, for the dog to make a connection.
> 
> No matter what behaviour you are giving a "time out" for, after that behaviour you have to get the pup to the crate. So you may have to reach for pup, pick up pup, carry pup, put pup into crate, or tell pup to go into the crate. By the time all those things happen, the initial behaviour is gone out of the pup's mind, in my opinion. If the pup was agreeable to being caught/picked up/carried/put into the crate, one should be praising all those things along the way.


Yea, this IMO is one of the main reasons a crate would work as a punishment or correction. Sure, if the puppy is getting unruly and needs some time to simmer down and cool off, by all means help them to do that. (similar to human toddlers that throw a tantrum because they are overtired) But I don't think they correlate that as a punishment relating to the behaviour they did.


----------



## K9 3X (Apr 17, 2015)

sassafras said:


> "Time out" baloney. Yes, it IS baloney to suggest that a down-stay for a time out is somehow different and superior to a crate for a time out... and is apparently not punishment?
> 
> You're guilty of your own blinders here, obviously exacerbated by your desire to bait people into... giving their opinions? For some reason? I'm not sure anyone has claimed they use no punishment whatsoever, simply questioned several ridiculous claims you've made and countered them.
> 
> But get on with your bad self.


Ummmm..I never suggested I either use a "time out" / isolation/punishment or more importantly a down stay as a form of "time out"/punishment. A simple basic down stay even if it is extended for 1/2 an hour is not a form of punishment it is an obedience skill. At times, I might use a down stay as a mechanism to reset the dog if it is giving in to distraction but never as a form of punishment, the idea of using any simple trained obedience skill as a form of punishment is absurd and hard to even comprehend. Generally, during training when the dog fails, I will take the dog back to where we commenced the drill from and let the dog think about it for a minute and then proceed anew as my normal reset. During any training drill, the moment the dog fails at the level of which it is capable of from previous displays, I just use a verbal marker which the dog knows and it knows it failed the drill. I don't even think I need a verbal marker ( for fail ) as human body postures and the consistency of our physical displays are probably read by a dog quicker and better than our words at times.

I have no equivalent to a "time out" because I never use isolation as a tool in training. I previously described how I redirect a dog when it is being a pain in the rear and it is the antithesis of isolation. Once a dog learns it has options and chooses to exercise the correct option they connect the dots and behave appropriately.

I'm kind of thinking that your original comment was an attempt to "play the game" with me, if so, nice job!


----------



## K9 3X (Apr 17, 2015)

2Dogfarm said:


> I have a lot of thoughts I'd like to add to this thread, but to start, I have a bit of a problem with the idea of using a crate as a "time out" for a puppy.
> 
> I think it's simply too far removed from any behaviour that you are trying to stop, for the dog to make a connection.
> 
> No matter what behaviour you are giving a "time out" for, after that behaviour you have to get the pup to the crate. So you may have to reach for pup, pick up pup, carry pup, put pup into crate, or tell pup to go into the crate. By the time all those things happen, the initial behaviour is gone out of the pup's mind, in my opinion. If the pup was agreeable to being caught/picked up/carried/put into the crate, one should be praising all those things along the way.



This makes sense.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

I would feel punished if I was made to sit in a specific spot in a specific way for a half hour and not move, but maybe that's just me.


----------



## K9 3X (Apr 17, 2015)

parus said:


> To reveal their _agendas_, lol.




I sure hope you are using a Hackamore or some variant of it on all your horseys


----------



## K9 3X (Apr 17, 2015)

ireth0 said:


> I would feel punished if I was made to sit in a specific spot in a specific way for a half hour and not move, but maybe that's just me.


How about 3 minutes then ?


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

K9 3X said:


> How about 3 minutes then ?


If I still wasn't allowed to move out of a particular position? Yea probably.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

K9 3X said:


> Ummmm..I never suggested I either use a "time out" / isolation/punishment or more importantly a down stay as a form of "time out"/punishment. A simple basic down stay even if it is extended for 1/2 an hour is not a form of punishment it is an obedience skill. At times, I might use a down stay as a mechanism to reset the dog if it is giving in to distraction but never as a form of punishment, the idea of using any simple trained obedience skill as a form of punishment is absurd and hard to even comprehend.


IF you are using the down-stay to "reset," then you are using it in exactly the same way that someone who uses a crate as a short time out for an overstimulated puppy is using it. My whole point is that your distinction between this being a positive method and crating being punishment is completely artificial as they are essentially the same thing. (ETA: For the purpose specifically of calming an overstimulated puppy, personally I don't think either one is positive OR punishment - they're both just tools.). In one case the dog is physically confined (not necessarily isolated) and in the other the dog is behaviorally confined (not necessarily isolated). Either way, the dog has limited freedom and takes a few minutes to simmer down. Why you insist that there is a difference is beyond me. 



> I have no equivalent to a "time out" because I never use isolation as a tool in training. I previously described how I redirect a dog when it is being a pain in the rear and it is the antithesis of isolation.


Again, you are conflating crating and isolation. Using a crate for a quick time out/reset doesn't necessarily involve isolation. 

This is your description of your method:




K9 3X said:


> So, since my pup was indoctrinated with a solid recall from the beginning, when she would be acting the part of a puppy which so many "time out" fans utilize a crate to simmer a puppy down, I simply would recall the pup to me and reset the pup through kind and gentle engagement. Even today, on rare occasions when she might be a bit vocal and letting me know she wants something, I just instruct her to come to me and she does, she's still barking at me but once I have her next to me, I soothe all that ails her with gentle physical contact ( such a wonderful redirection). From this point a simple down stay is required and after 5 minutes or so, I reward her duly, almost always engagement in one form or another, generally of a physical nature so she can burn off some of that extra energy she has which created the situation in the first place most likely. So, go ahead and use your crate and isolate your dog as a tool to correct behavior, its a form of punishment I have chosen not to use as there is a "positive" method which will work so much better. And you are all about being positive, correct?


Your simple down-stay IS a time-out, reset, or whatever else you want to call it. Your baseline assumption that a time out in a crate is necessarily isolating is creating a false dichotomy in your argument that completely invalidates it. Your down-stay is essentially crating for a time-out, just without a crate. Being in a crate in the same room is no more isolating than being in a down stay at an owner's feet.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Like, where do you think people keep crates? In a shed out back, or in a root cellar? My crated dogs' crates are in the living room.


----------



## InkedMarie (Mar 11, 2009)

I never understood people not approving of crates (as long as the crate is plenty big enough). People say their dogs sleep when they're gone; mine sleep in their crates when we're gone. Whats the difference except if there is a fire, mine are safer than yours are. 

I have a dog, now four, who chewed a computer cord & got quite the jolt. For that reason, she's crated when we are gone. The other can be loose in the cold months when windows are closed. He's reactive to the outside world, don't need him barking out the window. 

Our crates are in the livingroom. They are open all day & both dogs spend part of their days in the crates. I assume this is because we view crates as a positive thing; so do they.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

I couldn't find Hank this morning. He had gone in his crate to sleep. I wish I didn't have to crate them while I worked. I don't think it's completely ideal but it's what works for us. And they do get a break mid-day to run for a bit.


----------



## dagwall (Mar 17, 2011)

K9 3X said:


> Ummmm..I never suggested I either use a "time out" / isolation/punishment or more importantly a down stay as a form of "time out"/punishment. A simple basic down stay even if it is extended for 1/2 an hour is not a form of punishment it is an obedience skill. At times, I might use a down stay as a mechanism to reset the dog if it is giving in to distraction but never as a form of punishment, the idea of using any simple trained obedience skill as a form of punishment is absurd and hard to even comprehend. Generally, during training when the dog fails, I will take the dog back to where we commenced the drill from and let the dog think about it for a minute and then proceed anew as my normal reset. During any training drill, the moment the dog fails at the level of which it is capable of from previous displays, I just use a verbal marker which the dog knows and it knows it failed the drill. I don't even think I need a verbal marker ( for fail ) as human body postures and the consistency of our physical displays are probably read by a dog quicker and better than our words at times.
> 
> I have no equivalent to a "time out" because I never use isolation as a tool in training. I previously described how I redirect a dog when it is being a pain in the rear and it is the antithesis of isolation. Once a dog learns it has options and chooses to exercise the correct option they connect the dots and behave appropriately.
> 
> I'm kind of thinking that your original comment was an attempt to "play the game" with me, if so, nice job!


You are ignoring what a punishment actually is. Something that causes a decrease in a certain behavior is a punishment. Whether that is putting the dog in a down/stay or putting them in a crate, if there is a decrease in the unwanted behavior that prompted you to put them in a down/stay or crate it's a punishment. Both are okay but don't try to act like one is different than the other because they aren't.


----------



## K9 3X (Apr 17, 2015)

sassafras said:


> IF you are using the down-stay to "reset," then you are using it in exactly the same way that someone who uses a crate as a short time out for an overstimulated puppy is using it. My whole point is that your distinction between this being a positive method and crating being punishment is completely artificial as they are essentially the same thing. (ETA: For the purpose specifically of calming an overstimulated puppy, personally I don't think either one is positive OR punishment - they're both just tools.). In one case the dog is physically confined (not necessarily isolated) and in the other the dog is behaviorally confined (not necessarily isolated). Either way, the dog has limited freedom and takes a few minutes to simmer down. Why you insist that there is a difference is beyond me.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm sorry, I guess I have my blinders on as a down stay is an obedience skill whereas isolating a dog in a crate is the absolute furthest thing from an obedience skill. How about if I put the dog through a series of other obedience skills such as some focused heeling or send outs or recalls rather than a down stay ? Is that a "time out " as well? I use a down stay with this particular dog because it is bullet proof and it always executes 100% and allows the dog time to "think" while we are training. When my dog gets a fail on a particular skill we are working on and I sense we need to revisit the mentality of no fail 100% success a down stay works wonderfully in our situation. I also believe a down stay builds some anticipation in my dog as well when we are training, like "come on coach, put me back in the game". There are other times a down stay is simply just a means for us to hang out together off leash in public places with lots of distractions. My dog knows the difference. I cannot stress enough that a dog in any obedience position has a CHOICE, this is paramount as the dog is making a decision and displays it's ability to make the proper choice. A dog which is confined and has NO choice, has absolutely no opportunity to utilize it's decision making abilities.

Oh, most always when my dog is on a down stay while training, she is rarely at my feet. I wander around, I might go back into the house and get a drink of water, I might walk over her, not on her. I might work in the garden but rarely is she at my feet. The only time she might be beside me is when we are not training and out in public as I mentioned previously. Also, when company comes over, dependent on the guests and anyone's apprehension of the big scary dog, I'll put her on a down stay in the living room or deck, wherever us humans are congregating and she'll eventually just lay on her side after she sizes up the activity. 

Hey, I have an idea, how about for arguments sake I agree that a down stay and putting a dog in a crate are both exactly the same and both are isolation and a "time out". Your dog per your command will execute a down stay for 5 minutes and of course your dog will stay confined in its crate for 5 minutes, what choice does it have. Which would you use?


----------



## K9 3X (Apr 17, 2015)

dagwall said:


> You are ignoring what a punishment actually is. Something that causes a decrease in a certain behavior is a punishment. Whether that is putting the dog in a down/stay or putting them in a crate, if there is a decrease in the unwanted behavior that prompted you to put them in a down/stay or crate it's a punishment. Both are okay but don't try to act like one is different than the other because they aren't.


So a dog willingly punishes itself by executing a down stay? Interesting concept, the self correcting masochistic dog theory, is that new one?


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

Could you please explain how putting a dog in a crate is isolating them?


----------



## Effisia (Jun 20, 2013)

I must not be reading this right. You keep your dog in prolonged down-stays while you go out and garden or basically just wander off and leave the dog in the down-stay, but you're against crating because you think crates are isolating, but what you do isn't?


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

K9 3X said:


> Also, when company comes over, dependent on the guests and anyone's apprehension of the big scary dog, I'll put her on a down stay in the living room or deck, wherever us humans are congregating and she'll eventually just lay on her side after she sizes up the activity.


So eventually she breaks the down stay?

Also, a dog choosing to assume a position is different than you asking them to be in a position. My dog voluntarily goes to her bed when we eat in the living room. She is choosing to be there, and thus making a decision, as you say. If I -asked her- for a down stay, she would no longer be making her own decision, I would be directing her behaviour. So, no, she wouldn't really have the freedom you're describing. Of course she could choose to blow me off I suppose, but then she isn't in a down stay.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Punishment, in learning theory language, doesn't mean something bad happens. It just means something that decreases a behavior. So if you don't walk down a particular street because you don't like the smell from the Indian restaurant, I guess that means that smell is a punishment. But if someone beats their dog and it doesn't decrease the unwanted behavior it's not punishment. So I guess it's only considered punishment if it's effective punishment. I don't quite understand that myself but whatever, lol. 

So if you put your dog in a down/stay for acting up, and it reduced the incidence of him acting up, that would be punishment. If he goes and lies down himself, it's not reducing the incidence of any behaviors so it's not a thing. 

But I will say that if someone made me lie down in my bed, I'd consider that a punishment, but I certainly don't consider going to bed myself a punishment . I won't say that a trained dog has any choice in the matter of doing a trained behavior if they're going to be corrected for not doing it. That's sort of like saying a bank clerk with a gun to his head has a choice whether to give the robber the money or not. Technically true, but it's not exactly free will here. (Not saying that a gun to the head is comparable to whatever corrections one wishes to use, just using that as an example of not-really-a-choice)


----------



## 2Dogfarm (Apr 23, 2015)

Willowy said:


> Punishment, in learning theory language, doesn't mean something bad happens. It just means something that decreases a behavior. So if you don't walk down a particular street because you don't like the smell from the Indian restaurant, I guess that means that smell is a punishment. But if someone beats their dog and it doesn't decrease the unwanted behavior it's not punishment. So I guess it's only considered punishment if it's effective punishment. I don't quite understand that myself but whatever, lol.
> 
> So if you put your dog in a down/stay for acting up, and it reduced the incidence of him acting up, that would be punishment. If he goes and lies down himself, it's not reducing the incidence of any behaviors so it's not a thing.
> 
> But I will say that if someone made me lie down in my bed, I'd consider that a punishment, but I certainly don't consider going to bed myself a punishment . I won't say that a trained dog has any choice in the matter of doing a trained behavior if they're going to be corrected for not doing it. That's sort of like saying a bank clerk with a gun to his head has a choice whether to give the robber the money or not. Technically true, but it's not exactly free will here. (Not saying that a gun to the head is comparable to whatever corrections one wishes to use, just using that as an example of not-really-a-choice)


So you feel that it's a punishment to a dog each time we ask it to come/sit/down/do a back flip, if such action stops it from doing something else? In that case, I punish my dog all the time. Probably don't get through 15 minutes without punishment.


----------



## K9 3X (Apr 17, 2015)

ireth0 said:


> Could you please explain how putting a dog in a crate is isolating them?


When I see the advice given to many a frustrated dog owner as "ignore the dog" give it a "time out put it in it's crate" etc, is this not isolating the dog? I probably have this procedure wrong because I have never used it.

Here, I educated myself, from the ASPCA web site " If you don’t have a convenient room nearby or if you’re working with your dog outside,* you can use a crate or exercise pen as the time-out area.* Some people worry about using crates for *punishment, **but it’s okay a time-out every once in a while.* If your dog usually enjoys hanging out in his crate, using it for time-out is like *sending a child to his room. You’re just taking him away from the fun. If your dog starts to dislike his crate after multiple time-outs, you may need to use a different area."*

" If he steals things from the trash, for example, letting him make that mistake so you can* punish him with a time-out* may result in a trip to the vet when he scarfs down something toxic. "

" Dogs are highly social creatures who love to take part in group gatherings and who hate to be excluded more than almost anything else, which is what makes the canine *time out *such an extremely effective form of* punishment*. "

We are discussing using the crate as a tool for "time outs". If you are strictly talking about crating a dog while you are gone, I have no argument. Whether a dog is in a crate or loose in the house, the absence of the human is mostly dealt with all the same. We might choose different methods to secure a dog while we are away but we cannot change the fact that we are not there.


----------



## Shell (Oct 19, 2009)

2Dogfarm said:


> So you feel that it's a punishment to a dog each time we ask it to come/sit/down/do a back flip, if such action stops it from doing something else? In that case, I punish my dog all the time. Probably don't get through 15 minutes without punishment.


Operant conditioning terms, not general colloquial use of the term "punishment"


----------



## K9 3X (Apr 17, 2015)

Effisia said:


> I must not be reading this right. You keep your dog in prolonged down-stays while you go out and garden or basically just wander off and leave the dog in the down-stay, but you're against crating because you think crates are isolating, but what you do isn't?




Oh come on, why take things out of context? I'm in a training mode when I do this. The examples I gave last 3 minutes to maybe 5 minutes. I purposely give her opportunity to break her down stay. The AKC obedience requirement for a sit stay is 1 minute for Novice and a 3 minute down stay with handler across the room. In more advanced classes of AKC competition, all the handlers leave the ring and go to an area where they are not visible to the dog and all the dogs are laying next to each other. I'm not sure of the overall duration but I bet somebody in here knows because they are a competitor. So, I train for a minimum of 3 minutes on a down stay when we are training as well as leaving my dog's sight for part of that at times.

If we are not training and I am out in the backyard with the dog, the dog can do whatever she wants while I am working in the garden or whatever. Usually, the dog will go to her favorite shaded area, lay down and watch life go by. Always waiting for me because most of the time, I'll take a short break from my chores and we'll play numerous times.

I enjoy going to dog shows and competitions, although tracking isn't the most viewer friendly discipline. Since there many agility competitors in here, I will say watching agility competitions is another motivator for me. It shows me what a dog is capable of and raises my awareness of what dogs are capable of doing with the proper guidance and leadership. IPO and Mondioring are also wonderful examples. I observe dogs and the behavior they exhibit, at most all of these venues I see dogs willingly doing their "thing", usually they are the best. On occasion you might see a 'broken" dog or two and it speaks volumes of the methods used on the dog, it's refreshing that the majority of these performance dogs do not display this behavior. It tells me they are enjoying the discipline in which they perform.


----------



## dagwall (Mar 17, 2011)

K9 3X said:


> So a dog willingly punishes itself by executing a down stay? Interesting concept, the self correcting masochistic dog theory, is that new one?


The dog isn't punishing itself, you did. For all your talk about "all positive" trainers using punishments but not admitting it you seem to have issues accepting what areas of your training qualify as punishments. 


The only time I've used isolation as a training punishment is when I brought my dog home from the shelter at 2 years old and he was super mouthy. He had bite inhibition in that he wasn't breaking skin but he was leaving bruises because his level of inhibition was strongly lacking. He wanted attention and the only "game" he really knew and loved was chew on the human. The quickest and best way to get the message across to him that it was not okay was to remove myself from his presence. He'd get a warning that he was being too rough and if he didn't back off I'd leave and put a door between me and him. Usually only for a minute or two but if he was being really bad some days it'd be much longer. I'd grab a book and go read in my room, read a few pages then go back out and see how he was behaving. Still only wants to chew on me, back into my room to read a few more pages. Worked great.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

K9 3X said:


> I'm sorry, I guess I have my blinders on as a down stay is an obedience skill whereas isolating a dog in a crate is the absolute furthest thing from an obedience skill.


First of all, please look up "isolation" in the dictionary, or stop using it. Unless someone keeps their crate in the tool shed or old abandoned hotel, the dog isn't necessarily isolated by being crated. 

Second of all, yes down stay is an obedience skill. But if you are _using_ that obedience skill to achieve the end of a "reset" (if you don't want to call it a time out) then you are achieving the same end as crating. Either way the dog is confined in space for a brief period of time. It is possible for down-stay to be both an obedience skill AND a means to an end. 



> How about if I put the dog through a series of other obedience skills such as some focused heeling or send outs or recalls rather than a down stay ? Is that a "time out " as well?


lolz




> Hey, I have an idea, how about for arguments sake I agree that a down stay and putting a dog in a crate are both exactly the same and both are isolation and a "time out". Your dog per your command will execute a down stay for 5 minutes and of course your dog will stay confined in its crate for 5 minutes, what choice does it have. Which would you use?


I have never, ever said that a down stay and putting in a crate are _exactly the same thing_. Once again you are arguing points I am not making. Is English perhaps not your first language? What I am saying is that a down-stay is not superior tool for a time out simply by virtue of not being a crate. You are achieving the same end either way through exactly the same technique. The same way I can dig with a shovel or spade - it doesn't mean a shovel and a spade are exactly the same thing.


----------



## parus (Apr 10, 2014)

K9 3X said:


> I sure hope you are using a Hackamore or some variant of it on all your horseys


I used a bosal or a bitless bridle for most things, yes. Mild snaffles for dressage.


----------



## pawsaddict (Apr 17, 2013)

ireth0 said:


> I would feel punished if I was made to sit in a specific spot in a specific way for a half hour and not move, but maybe that's just me.


Isn't that what parents do for children in a time out? Maybe not for half an hour, but the basic premise is the same.


----------



## trainingjunkie (Feb 10, 2010)

If I am in need of a reset, I might use a crate OR a down-stay. They are very similar. However, the down-stay is still requiring something of the dog: The dog must stay in a down. In a crate, my dog can entirely relax, both mentally and physically. For my very high-drive dog, I am much more likely to use the down-stay as a reset. For my softer dogs, I am more likely to crate them for a few minutes. The mental pressure of the down-stay would dissipate some of their energy, energy that I would rather apply to whatever I am working on. I would work their "stays" as an exercise in their own rights, not add them into my ordinary training picture. 

Either way, my dogs are not isolated. 

Oh, and the out of sight stays are 3 minutes on the sit and 5 minutes on the down. They exercises are performed back to back with the handler briefly returning to reposition the dog between exercises.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

pawsaddict said:


> Isn't that what parents do for children in a time out? Maybe not for half an hour, but the basic premise is the same.


Yes, but a child has the capacity to understand "You did this bad thing, so you need to sit here for x minutes as punishment." Where a dog does not, IMO.


----------



## K9 3X (Apr 17, 2015)

ireth0 said:


> So eventually she breaks the down stay?
> 
> Also, a dog choosing to assume a position is different than you asking them to be in a position. My dog voluntarily goes to her bed when we eat in the living room. She is choosing to be there, and thus making a decision, as you say. If I -asked her- for a down stay, she would no longer be making her own decision, I would be directing her behaviour. So, no, she wouldn't really have the freedom you're describing. Of course she could choose to blow me off I suppose, but then she isn't in a down stay.


No, you have it completely backwards. Unless you trained the dog to go her bed while you eat, then the dog is making the proper choice it was trained to do. A dog with no training on any particular behavior will default to it's instincts usually, barking while at the window when it sees something it's trying to send a signal to is a good example. You certainly can train this barking at the window to cease but left unchecked the dog most likely will continue its instinctual predisposition. Your notion of "directing behavior" resulting in no freedom of choice is flawed. Just because a child is directed towards certain behavior does not guarantee the child will perform as directed because they ultimately still have a choice. Once a dog as well as a child understands that making the right choice has benefits it exercises its freedom of choice with better consistency. A dog most always has a choice and the solidness of the training and proofing it, in as many varying conditions possible strengthens the correct choice. Example, dog has a pretty good tight focused heel trained into it, so you go to a wooded area and perform the drill off leash. The dog is doing as expected and then a rabbit pops out and runs, the dog gets to make a decision, continue in a tight heel or yield to it's prey drive. I guarantee you the dog will be forced to make a split second decision even though you have it under a command and as you stated earlier " she could choose to blow me off I suppose". The dog gives in to it's prey drive and accomplishes a fail, all because of choice while under command. As I have tried to suggest, a dog always has choices and is constantly making them, even if you think you are ordering the dog to perform as trained, the dog is making calculated choices based on its training, experiences and predictable outcome.

Oh, when she decides to break her down stay by laying on her side when company is over, I don't consider that a foul since it might be 15-20 minutes later. Some might consider that a break in the discipline as their goals and standards are different than mine. I'm content that she is relaxed and laying down in this situation so there is no need for me to be so strict.


----------



## petpeeve (Jun 10, 2010)

K9 3X said:


> I'm sorry, I guess I have my blinders on as a down stay is an obedience skill whereas isolating a dog in a crate is the absolute furthest thing from an obedience skill.


 Skill? debatable to some I suppose. I don't consider it a skill per se myself, but rather 50 or 60 "free" points in terms of comp obedience scores. Very seldom if ever does any dog receive anything less than full marks when qualifying.

fyi, length of exercises are 3 and 3 in CKC Open and 3 and 5 in AKC I believe, for s/d respectively. We're wimpy up here lol, we even allow coats for the group stays.


----------



## pawsaddict (Apr 17, 2013)

ireth0 said:


> Yes, but a child has the capacity to understand "You did this bad thing, so you need to sit here for x minutes as punishment." Where a dog does not, IMO.


Totally agree with everything you have said. Just trying to illustrate to K9 3X that a down-stay used to calm a dog down is a time out. Physically, a dog staying in the same position and not allowed to move is the same as a child having to stay in a time out corner.


----------



## trainingjunkie (Feb 10, 2010)

petpeeve said:


> fyi, length of exercises are 3 and 3 in CKC Open and 3 and 5 in AKC I believe, for s/d respectively. We're wimpy up here lol, we even allow coats for the group stays.


Oh how I wish I could put a coat on my whippets for their stays!!! Life would be so much better!


----------



## petpeeve (Jun 10, 2010)

trainingjunkie said:


> Oh how I wish I could put a coat on my whippets for their stays!!! Life would be so much better!


Not sure but I think for the most part it's the minpins, the BTs, etc and of course the whippets who take advantage of this. Not a bad rule I guess but it can be manipulated by some. A judge-friend of mine told me she once dismissed a team because the handler inadvertently commented while being led in for the group ex's that her dog 'probably won't be as rambunctious with the coat on now'.


----------



## K9 3X (Apr 17, 2015)

dagwall said:


> The dog isn't punishing itself, you did. For all your talk about "all positive" trainers using punishments but not admitting it you seem to have issues accepting what areas of your training qualify as punishments.


I have absolutely no misconceptions about the punishment I use when I train. I utilize punishment, I never suggested I didn't. I don't fool myself about the use of punishment to make myself feel good like too many others in here do. I choose to use corrections which are the most effective and quick, as quick as I can humanly react without getting emotional therefore it is evenhanded. Being a GSD fan all these years makes me no stranger to a dog which bites quite a bit as pups. Unfortunately, too many GSD owners never get the bite problems worked out when the dog was a pup and then they have their hands full when the dog becomes an adolescent and much more formidable. Many times these dogs are headed for an unpleasant future or no future at all because they tried to use a method which failed to solve the problem and the response they get from those advocating the failed method they used was " you didn't do it properly". The dog ends up paying the price, probably getting the needle. Certain breeds and mentalities require different procedures its just how it works.

One more thought, even though your method "worked great", your form of punishment and correction lasted minutes if not longer. My version lasts less than a second and never have I punished a dog by purposely taking away one of it's strongest desires, to be in the company of its human. This is not a bargaining chip in my book because after the dog's requirements for food and water, the dog's desire to be with its human is top of the list. I don't deprive a dog of the human presence it so desires because I am building a relationship based on loyalty and dedication which the GSD breed is noted for. It's a form of punishment which compromises the final product. We have differing opinions obviously, you are no more right or wrong than I am, we just go about it differently.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

I don't really care to read through this thread, instead, responding to the OP. 


ormommy said:


> In browsing, it seems like everyone here does a "no punishment" method obtaining. Does that work? It seems....unrealistic, slower,...I don't know.


False. There's no such thing as a "no punishment" method. The dog decides what's appetitive or not, and we are to learn what gets behavior in the least harmful way for the animal. I believe what you're browsing is a care to use less punitive methods than more. This is ideal, and the time factor is dependent on the human/dog relationship, regardless of someone's opinion/experience with their dog. 



> I have far more kid experience then dog  but I've never found punishment free methods effective. I read Ian Dunbar...he seems far more dogmatic that you can ruin your puppy with one mistake then any "harsh" trainer I read. Not to mention everything that goes wrong is your fault.  I'm not trying to put down the method, I just wonder what happens I'd your puppy couldn't care less for Kong's, for example, or if a yelp doesn't stop a really painful bite.


Dunbar uses punishment but also speaks for an ideal. I wouldn't confuse those ideals with some kind of "must be". We're ultimately responsible for the dog's behavior, this is his POV. That said, it's not "a" yelp that stops biting. In fact, he doesn't really intend to stop biting with the yelp method at all. The yelp is one part, among many over time, to reduce bite inhibition. In play, my dog will bite a toy with a lot of force, until this stupid human (me) puts a hand in the way. The yelp method helps the dog be more aware of their teeth, so when this stupid human makes a mistake, she has learned to use less pressure. In her case, with amazing consciousness. But it's certainly not something learned in one day.


----------



## trainingjunkie (Feb 10, 2010)

petpeeve said:


> Not sure but I think for the most part it's the minpins, the BTs, etc and of course the whippets who take advantage of this. Not a bad rule I guess but it can be manipulated by some. A judge-friend of mine told me she once dismissed a team because the handler inadvertently commented while being led in for the group ex's that her dog 'probably won't be as rambunctious with the coat on now'.


I can see how some would abuse it that way. For me, my whippets have an aversion to cold rubber mats. They truly hate being chilled. Makes proofing a little harder and a little less kind. They would be so willing to work if they were just a little more comfortable. They are rock stars when they aren't worried about freezing to death. This is a concern for them if temps dip below, say, 75! Sissies.


----------



## K9 3X (Apr 17, 2015)

sassafras said:


> I have never, ever said that a down stay and putting in a crate are _exactly the same thing_. Once again you are arguing points I am not making. Is English perhaps not your first language? What I am saying is that a down-stay is not superior tool for a time out simply by virtue of not being a crate. You are achieving the same end either way through exactly the same technique. The same way I can dig with a shovel or spade - it doesn't mean a shovel and a spade are exactly the same thing.



Was that an answer to my simple question? " Is English perhaps not your first language? " Hmmmmmmmmm. Here, I'll try again, Hey, I have an idea, how about for arguments sake I agree that a down stay and putting a dog in a crate are both exactly the same and both are isolation and a "time out". Your dog per your command will execute a down stay for 5 minutes and of course your dog will stay confined in its crate for 5 minutes, what choice does it have. Which would you use? 

It's a simple yes or no question. If need be and you are having trouble with the question, I am more than happy to draw big elephant pictures to help if the question is confusing.


----------



## K9 3X (Apr 17, 2015)

petpeeve said:


> Skill? debatable to some I suppose. I don't consider it a skill per se myself, but rather 50 or 60 "free" points in terms of comp obedience scores. Very seldom if ever does any dog receive anything less than full marks when qualifying.
> 
> fyi, length of exercises are 3 and 3 in CKC Open and 3 and 5 in AKC I believe, for s/d respectively. We're wimpy up here lol, we even allow coats for the group stays.


Thanks for the info and as far as the use of "skill" a most basic example of obedience, yes.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

K9 3X said:


> Was that an answer to my simple question? " Is English perhaps not your first language? " Hmmmmmmmmm. Here, I'll try again, Hey, I have an idea, how about for arguments sake I agree that a down stay and putting a dog in a crate are both exactly the same and both are isolation and a "time out". Your dog per your command will execute a down stay for 5 minutes and of course your dog will stay confined in its crate for 5 minutes, what choice does it have. Which would you use?
> 
> It's a simple yes or no question. If need be and you are having trouble with the question, I am more than happy to draw big elephant pictures to help if the question is confusing.


LOL, it's not actually a yes or no question at all. It's a which would you choose question. But I'm the one who's confused aheeeee. 

And it's not simple anyway. Which one I would choose would depend on where I was and which of my dogs was involved. If I'm in the house with all four dogs, I will often choose the crate to get some physical separation if one or more are getting overstimulated. If I'm at class, in public, or in the yard I'll choose a sit stay since the crate isn't an option. My adult dogs know "CORNERS!" and "ENOUGH!" which both basically means everybody get away from everybody else for a minute and cool off, but I don't even care where you go - usually I use that in the yard if play is getting too intense. Sometimes with Toast I'll hold his collar, brace his hip against my leg and just wait until he calms down. It all depends on the context, I don't always do the exact same thing.


----------



## K9 3X (Apr 17, 2015)

pawsaddict said:


> Totally agree with everything you have said. Just trying to illustrate to K9 3X that a down-stay used to calm a dog down is a time out. Physically, a dog staying in the same position and not allowed to move is the same as a child having to stay in a time out corner.


How is the dog "not allowed to move", in a down stay ? The dog has every option to move if it chooses, it chooses based on it's training. Now, throwing a dog in a crate for punishment's sake "time out", I wholeheartedly agree the dog has no option to move. Treating the two the same is just ridiculous.


----------



## petpeeve (Jun 10, 2010)

> never have I punished a dog by purposely taking away one of it's strongest desires, to be in the company of its human. This is not a bargaining chip in my book because after the dog's requirements for food and water, the dog's desire to be with its human is top of the list. I don't deprive a dog of the human presence it so desires because I am building a relationship based on loyalty and dedication which the GSD breed is noted for. It's a form of punishment which compromises the final product.


 I'm confuzled. 

So, if you're proofing a down-stay and your dog breaks by standing and moving forward for example ... you allow the dog to come to you and ... that's it ???


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

K9 3X said:


> How is the dog "not allowed to move", in a down stay ?


Because that's literally what "stay" means?


----------



## K9 3X (Apr 17, 2015)

sassafras said:


> LOL, it's not actually a yes or no question at all. It's a which would you choose question. But I'm the one who's confused aheeeee.
> 
> And it's not simple anyway. Which one I would choose would depend on where I was and which of my dogs was involved. If I'm in the house with all four dogs, I will often choose the crate to get some physical separation if one or more are getting overstimulated. If I'm at class, in public, or in the yard I'll choose a sit stay since the crate isn't an option. My adult dogs know "CORNERS!" and "ENOUGH!" which both basically means everybody get away from everybody else for a minute and cool off, but I don't even care where you go - usually I use that in the yard if play is getting too intense. Sometimes with Toast I'll hold his collar, brace his hip against my leg and just wait until he calms down. It all depends on the context, I don't always do the exact same thing.


All I am hearing is obfuscation hence the answer is " yes a down stay "


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

K9 3X said:


> All I am hearing is obfuscation hence the answer is " yes a down stay "


I'm sorry you seem to be unable to grasp the concept of having more than one possible solution to a situation depending on the context. Sadly for the unimaginative, everything is not, in fact, a nail.


----------



## taquitos (Oct 18, 2012)

op2:

(too short)


----------



## MrsBoats (May 20, 2010)

K9 3X said:


> How is the dog "not allowed to move", in a down stay ? The dog has every option to move if it chooses, it chooses based on it's training. Now, throwing a dog in a crate for punishment's sake "time out", I wholeheartedly agree the dog has no option to move. Treating the two the same is just ridiculous.


A down stay in my world is the dog remains in a down and is to stay there until I return and release it from that down. In my world, there is no shifting, no sniffing, etc. They can place their head on ground or look around casually. 

Crates are a necessity in my world also. I can be at an agility trial for 8 hours...I'm not holding on to my dog for 8 hours so they hang out in a crate. Same thing with obedience trials...I can be there for 4 hours, I'm not holding on to my dog for 4 hours there either. They ride in crates in my car when we travel because of safety (I've had a good number of friends be in car accidents with their dogs and they were not injured or lost because of those crates.) My younger dog is crated when we are not home because I have two intact male rottweilers. I really don't want to come home to a bloodbath if one of them decided that the other one needed to die while I was off grocery shopping. Crates are awesome!


----------



## pawsaddict (Apr 17, 2013)

K9 3X said:


> How is the dog "not allowed to move", in a down stay ? The dog has every option to move if it chooses, it chooses based on it's training. Now, throwing a dog in a crate for punishment's sake "time out", I wholeheartedly agree the dog has no option to move. Treating the two the same is just ridiculous.


The whole point of a down-stay is that the dog stays in a down position...where is the movement? A dog in a crate can move...lay down, sit, stand, whatever. Yes, they are resticted in how far they can move...but what do you do when your dog decides it wants to break the down-stay and move somewhere else? I would wager that you guide the dog back into a down-stay...where it cannot move until you give the okay (just like how a dog in a crate cannot leave until I open the door).

You give the impression that because the dog is following your instruction and working with you, it's somehow not the same as a dog being crated. So what if I instruct my dogs to go "inside" (that is what I say to them when I want them to go inside their crates)? They listen. They are following my command and working with me. Same as your down-stay.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

I have no idea what's going on anymore or what is being argued.


----------



## K9 3X (Apr 17, 2015)

sassafras said:


> Because that's literally what "stay" means?


So, all I have to do is say "stay" and it magically happens ? I missed that training manual I guess. I bet that was the same manual that states " no means no", all you have to do is say the magic words and the dog becomes a creature with absolutely no choice in the process. When you find the manual that includes all I have to say is " do the dishes " and the dog complies, please let me know. The sooner you appreciate that a dog makes choices the sooner you will appreciate the way to work with your dog more effectively.

Seems to me, every dog I ever worked with on basic obedience never mastered an extended down stay the first time it understood the concept of a down stay. The dog would eventually break in the beginning, I'm guessing the dog didn't understand literally what I meant, probably a language barrier thing since it's German.

The best line I have heard yet in this thread was something to the effect, any time a dog is commanded to maintain a position in which it is not allowed to move is a form of punishment. Not sure who posted it but its a classic. Maybe they are selling the invisible crate on TV, 2 for the price of one, plus additional shipping and handling of course.



Laurelin said:


> I have no idea what's going on anymore or what is being argued.


Neither do I but it's kind of fun and amusing


----------



## K9 3X (Apr 17, 2015)

petpeeve said:


> I'm confuzled.
> 
> So, if you're proofing a down-stay and your dog breaks by standing and moving forward for example ... you allow the dog to come to you and ... that's it ???


Huh ? No, the dog failed. Rinse and repeat


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

If you reset the dog because it 'failed' at saying then it is not, in fact, free to move. 

I'm back with Sass wondering if English isn't your primary language. You really aren't making any sense at all.


----------



## taquitos (Oct 18, 2012)

Laurelin said:


> I have no idea what's going on anymore or what is being argued.


Just enjoy the show, Laurelin


----------



## K9 3X (Apr 17, 2015)

sassafras said:


> I'm sorry you seem to be unable to grasp the concept of having more than one possible solution to a situation depending on the context. Sadly for the unimaginative, everything is not, in fact, a nail.


Hypothetical questions exist and that is exactly what it was. Hypothetical questions can be answered but many times are of no value, like this one because ultimately one cannot compare apples to oranges but since I gave you your way, for arguments sake, you still cannot answer it. I appreciate why, you painted yourself into a corner.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

K9 3X said:


> Huh ? No, the dog failed. Rinse and repeat


How does the dog know they failed?


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

K9 3X said:


> Hypothetical questions exist and that is exactly what it was. Hypothetical questions can be answered but many times are of no value, like this one because ultimately one cannot compare apples to oranges but since I gave you your way, for arguments sake, you still cannot answer it. I appreciate why, you painted yourself into a corner.


I'm pretty sure Sass did answer your question. I got "It would depend on the circumstances"


----------



## K9 3X (Apr 17, 2015)

CptJack said:


> If you reset the dog because it* 'failed' at saying* then it is not, in fact, free to move.
> 
> I'm back with Sass wondering if English isn't your primary language. You really aren't making any sense at all.


Huh? what language are we speaking?


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

I LIKE my dog to make mistakes (provided they arent life threatening)because a mistake is an opportunity to learn


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

K9 3X said:


> Huh? what language are we speaking?


Well, if you can't infer a dropped t to figure out what I am talking about, when I'm quoting *you*, then it certainly gives credence to the idea that you are not a native, or proficient English speaker!


----------



## trainingjunkie (Feb 10, 2010)

"If I am in need of a reset, I might use a crate OR a down-stay. They are very similar. However, the down-stay is still requiring something of the dog: The dog must stay in a down. In a crate, my dog can entirely relax, both mentally and physically. For my very high-drive dog, I am much more likely to use the down-stay as a reset. For my softer dogs, I am more likely to crate them for a few minutes. The mental pressure of the down-stay would dissipate some of their energy, energy that I would rather apply to whatever I am working on. I would work their "stays" as an exercise in their own rights, not add them into my ordinary training picture. " page 10 


The only issue I have with the down-stay to reset a dog is that if the dog is not successful at the down-stay, you have to work on the down-stay. Depending on the skill that you are working on, this might really clutter up your training or even derail a session. Whether or not I would want to deal with that would depend entirely on what I was working on, where we were working on it, and what the dog needed in the moment. It think that the answer, "It depends" is probably the only right answer. The dog, the goals, and the context determine everything.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Personally I prefer a crate for recharging a dog. That way they can just kind of completely 'turn off' and clear their mind. They don't have to be focused on the down/stay. To me a down stay is totally different than a general 'settle'.

I do a lot of work to make the crate the recharging place. It is beneficial for trials and classes having that be the dog's space for relaxation. I also like the clear distinction for the dog between 'we are out of the crate so we are working now' versus 'I am in the crate so now I can relax'.


----------



## pawsaddict (Apr 17, 2013)

K9 3X said:


> Huh? what language are we speaking?


You know your argument is crumbling around you when pointing out a spelling error is your rebuttal.


----------



## K9 3X (Apr 17, 2015)

pawsaddict said:


> You know your argument is crumbling around you when pointing out a spelling error is your rebuttal.



Ummmm...no. I pointed that out because Cpt Einstein was challenging my command of the English language and being insulting as well and while doing so, stepped in it. I always love that when that happens. I can play "petty" also.


----------



## K9 3X (Apr 17, 2015)

Just asked my dog what she thinks about all of this. She said " thanks for not using a crate whatever that might be and as far as a down stay out in the yard, I like that better than a sit stay, you try getting placed on a sit stay with your butt on a few acorns and tell me what you think".


----------



## pawsaddict (Apr 17, 2013)

K9 3X said:


> Ummmm...no. I pointed that out because Cpt Einstein was challenging my command of the English language and being insulting as well and while doing so, stepped in it. I always love that when that happens. I can play "petty" also.


I stand by what I said. There have been a lot of very good points made that you have neglected to respond to. Your choice to be "petty" (your words) instead of answering the questions people are asking or refuting the points they are making is telling.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

pawsaddict said:


> I stand by what I said. There have been a lot of very good points made that you have neglected to respond to. Your choice to be "petty" (your words) instead of answering the questions people are asking or refuting the points they are making is telling.


Yep. Like what part of "If the dog failed to stay, and it is corrected for not staying (by any definition of correction - anything not letting the dog just decide to leave), then it IS NOT FREE TO MOVE. I have yet to see an explanation for how that makes any freaking sense.

My remark about command of English was not a snark, it was a legitimate question because 'free to move' and 'stay' are, actually and literally, complete opposites.

That is a far cry from a typo.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

You know, we can do better without the personal remarks. That's all I will say on this matter.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

K9 3X said:


> So, all I have to do is say "stay" and it magically happens ?


Whut? Who said THAT? 

I don't ask my dog for a down-stay unless I've... previously trained a down-stay. 

Is that magic? GUYS I'M A MAGICIAN. EVERYONE WHOSE DOG KNOWS A DOWN-STAY IS A MAGICIAN.



K9 3X said:


> Just asked my dog what she thinks about all of this. She said " thanks for not using a crate whatever that might be and as far as a down stay out in the yard, I like that better than a sit stay, you try getting placed on a sit stay with your butt on a few acorns and tell me what you think".


Yea acorns on the belly and chest are sooooo much better, lol.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

K9 3X said:


> Hypothetical questions exist and that is exactly what it was. Hypothetical questions can be answered but many times are of no value, like this one because ultimately one cannot compare apples to oranges but since I gave you your way, for arguments sake, you still cannot answer it. I appreciate why, you painted yourself into a corner.


You didn't "give me my way," you asked me a question and I answered it. It's not my fault you don't understand my answer or don't like it.


----------



## parus (Apr 10, 2014)

sassafras said:


> Whut? Who said THAT?
> 
> I don't ask my dog for a down-stay unless I've... previously trained a down-stay.
> 
> Is that magic? GUYS I'M A MAGICIAN. EVERYONE WHOSE DOG KNOWS A DOWN-STAY IS A MAGICIAN.


If one of my dogs is good at down-stays and the other one isn't, am I a half-magician?


----------



## K9 3X (Apr 17, 2015)

CptJack said:


> Yep. Like what part of "If the dog failed to stay, and it is corrected for not staying (by any definition of correction - anything not letting the dog just decide to leave), then it IS NOT FREE TO MOVE. I have yet to see an explanation for how that makes any freaking sense.
> 
> My remark about command of English was not a snark, it was a legitimate question because 'free to move' and 'stay' are, um, complete opposites.


Oh gosh, we've been through this all so many times already. But I am very persistent and will try once more. Today, I was working on a running heel with a platz ( down ) using a hand signal as I continue running, the dog does the drill without failure. So, I decide to mix it up and throw in the signal for a standing wait as we are running and the dog stops on a dime but decides to sit as I continue running. So, at least the dog didn't down but she also didn't stand, she sat. I proceed to do some positions drills and set her up for success by commanding more stands than other positions. I end this quick session on a stand command and rerun the running drill and she succeeds. I know I have read you saying that you like a dog to be able to make quick decisions on their own especially if you screw up on the direction given, all of this implies the dog has choices. I viewed my dog's situation as having numerous choices in this drill. The dog could not stop running or not take the proper position when commanded to stop running and take the appropriate position on a stay, so it has choices to make. All of this holds true for a simple down stay as well. If the dog decides to not remain in a down stay position it obviously will break position and be FREE TO MOVE. The choices are just as you cited "complete opposites". I always give the dog credit for making the proper choice and decision. The dog always has the option to choose, every dog does when it comes to obedience and other skills. It's what separates good dogs from great dogs, great dogs make the right decisions more than good dogs and it shows in their skill set. A trainer is integral in teaching the dog to make the proper decision but ultimately the dog executes and makes the choice not the handler or trainer. I experience days where my dog chooses to not really give a rip and makes poor choices, I know the dog knows the routine and certainly has the ability but there are those days where they just are rather nonchalant about their accuracy and effort, could be for numerous reasons and difficult to pinpoint at times. So, regardless of the reason, the dog has made an obvious choice to do differently than it is capable of and this is called choice. The choice to not remaining in a down stay is freedom to move about, it always exists in the equation always, one cannot deny this. I always train knowing that the dog is exercising it's ability to choose and reward heavily for proper choices because the dog is not a programmed robot without thought process. Oh, when they are firing on all cylinders they may look robotic but what you are seeing is a dog choosing all the correct options. So, as I have said all too many times but will say it one more time, when a dog is on a simple down stay it always has the option to freely move about if it chooses. I know you will disagree and perhaps deflect somehow but if you can honestly tell me that a dog is not faced with choices no matter how simple the request is, then we simply train using different mentalities and approaches.


----------



## K9 3X (Apr 17, 2015)

parus said:


> If one of my dogs is good at down-stays and the other one isn't, am I a half-magician?


Read the The Amazing Kreskin book about dog training, it deals exactly with your situation. The chapter is, Is the glass half empty or half full, or just twice as big as it should be?


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

In all seriousness, your dog already knows that down-stays are optional (as per your description of your expectation when you have guests). For many people, they're not. I think that's why we're all incredulous about a down-stay allowing movement - for many of us, it really doesn't. If my dogs are in a down-stay (once they've been trained and proofed), they don't get to move. If they do, they're replaced. Because they're supposed to be... staying.


----------



## K9 3X (Apr 17, 2015)

sassafras said:


> In all seriousness, your dog already knows that down-stays are optional (as per your description of your expectation when you have guests). For many people, they're not. I think that's why we're all incredulous about a down-stay allowing movement - for many of us, it really doesn't. If my dogs are in a down-stay (once they've been trained and proofed), they don't get to move. If they do, they're replaced. Because they're supposed to be... staying.


Different situations create different expectations. I don't think it's fair of me to be too picky when company is over and she already has been on a down stay for 10-15 minutes, if she chooses to roll on her side, I have no problem with that. Yes, it's not strict but the need for a strict positioned down stay of that duration is something I have thought is not that important to the overall picture. Oh, if I stated that she can get up from her downed position wherever she chooses when company is over I apologize I know that option is available but she chooses otherwise.. I just meant she can lay on her side or whatever makes her most comfortable as long as she is staying where I downed her.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Yea, lying on her side is technically breaking the down stay. I'm not criticizing, I'm just saying that your definition of an acceptable down-stay is a lot different than other people's definition.


----------



## K9 3X (Apr 17, 2015)

sassafras said:


> Yea, lying on her side is technically breaking the down stay. I'm not criticizing, I'm just saying that your definition of an acceptable down-stay is a lot different than other people's definition.


You can criticize, I don't mind. When we are formal training, she would never choose to lay on her side on a down as she is too amped up for that. When we are in other situations and I put her on a down and it's not of any formal concerns, she can choose to lie however as long as she stays. At the lake, in the boat, in the motorhome, in the car, out on the deck for "yappy" hour in the afternoon, she gets treats and I enjoy a cold beer or two, by the fire in the evening etc. All these times in my opinion to not require a formal down but the stay component is what matters. Sometimes when she is in this relaxed version of a down stay she will take her two front legs and tuck them under herself, it looks like she has no front legs and certainly looks uncomfortable but must not be since she chooses to be that way.


----------



## Shell (Oct 19, 2009)

Something that seems lacking in this convoluted discussion is the context of individual dogs and what an individual dog, not even breed type but dog, might consider as a "punishment" or something unpleasant. For example, one dog might find a down-stay in a room full of guests to be very stressful as someone might trample on their tail, another dog might walk into their space, whatever, and yet that dog might find a time-out or reset or quiet time in a crate to be relaxing and calming as they are able to burrow into a bed and curl up in comfort with confidence that no one will encroach in their area.

Chester hates crates so that would be a very negative thing for him in almost any context. Eva loves her crate with the layers of blankets that she can cuddle into and a cover on top to make it snug in the winter. Asking her to go to her crate is like asking a kid that loves to read to go sit on the couch with a book. Contained to one spot sure, but content in that space.

Taking away attention from Eva would be a minor negative as she is human oriented but Chester doesn't really give a hoot if you're even in the room half the time if there is something else he prefers to do. Taking a toy away from my friend's acd mix just ruins her day but taking a toy away from Chester doesn't warrant a shrug as he is not toy driven in the least.

Context to the dog and context to the situation, not just in regards to competative training goals.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

K9 3X said:


> You can criticize, I don't mind. When we are formal training, she would never choose to lay on her side on a down as she is too amped up for that. When we are in other situations and I put her on a down and it's not of any formal concerns, she can choose to lie however as long as she stays. At the lake, in the boat, in the motorhome, in the car, out on the deck for "yappy" hour in the afternoon, she gets treats and I enjoy a cold beer or two, by the fire in the evening etc. All these times in my opinion to not require a formal down but the stay component is what matters. Sometimes when she is in this relaxed version of a down stay she will take her two front legs and tuck them under herself, it looks like she has no front legs and certainly looks uncomfortable but must not be since she chooses to be that way.


Yea, that's generally referred to as a settle, not a down-stay. A down-stay is "You are to stay in the sphinx down position until I tell you otherwise", a settle is more what you're describing "keep to this general spot and relax, you're going to be there for a while".


----------



## K9 3X (Apr 17, 2015)

petpeeve said:


> Skill? debatable to some I suppose. I don't consider it a skill per se myself, but rather 50 or 60 "free" points in terms of comp obedience scores. Very seldom if ever does any dog receive anything less than full marks when qualifying.
> 
> fyi, length of exercises are 3 and 3 in CKC Open and 3 and 5 in AKC I believe, for s/d respectively. We're wimpy up here lol, we even allow coats for the group stays.



I noticed at the upper end of competition obedience levels the dog is required to do a 10 minute down, no handler in sight. 50 points. Does AKC and CKC have this level as well?


----------



## pawsaddict (Apr 17, 2013)

ireth0 said:


> Yea, that's generally referred to as a settle, not a down-stay. A down-stay is "You are to stay in the sphinx down position until I tell you otherwise", a settle is more what you're describing "keep to this general spot and relax, you're going to be there for a while".


Yes. (Too short)


----------



## K9 3X (Apr 17, 2015)

Hmmmmmmmm... a new variant on the verbal cue or hand signal for behavior the dog already displays. I kind of like that. Even though the dog is solid on a down stay "sphinx " style during our training sessions for long periods because the dog knows we are training. I rather like the idea of a "settle" command being different than the command for down stay. I guess the dog has always known the difference because of the particular situation. It's not imperative in my situation that the distinction exist but this dog thrives on learning/obedience and needs to be developing its repertoire in order to be fulfilled so it seems. Introduced some tracking challenges to her a while ago and I can see the wheels turning and it is a great test of her perseverance. " Settle " it shall be in those instances. Thanks.


----------



## lil_fuzzy (Aug 16, 2010)

I know some traditional trainers where the dog isn't free to move when in a stay, as in they will physically hold it in position in the early stages of training, even if the dog is struggling. When the dog relaxes, they release and let go of the dog. More advanced training means they're not holding the dog down, but they have their foot on the leash, so the dog can struggle more, but can't physically leave the down. So the dog learns that they are unable to move, unless they hear the release, and so they stop trying.

If the dog can get up, but getting up means some type of punishment, and staying down means some kind of reward, the dog has a choice. Choose to stay = good stuff happens, choose to get up = bad stuff happens. That's what I think choice based training is. The dog can choose, and then the owner controls the consequences of that choice.


----------



## trainingjunkie (Feb 10, 2010)

lil_fuzzy said:


> I know some traditional trainers where the dog isn't free to move when in a stay, as in they will physically hold it in position in the early stages of training, even if the dog is struggling. When the dog relaxes, they release and let go of the dog. More advanced training means they're not holding the dog down, but they have their foot on the leash, so the dog can struggle more, but can't physically leave the down. So the dog learns that they are unable to move, unless they hear the release, and so they stop trying.
> 
> If the dog can get up, but getting up means some type of punishment, and staying down means some kind of reward, the dog has a choice. Choose to stay = good stuff happens, choose to get up = bad stuff happens. That's what I think choice based training is. The dog can choose, and then the owner controls the consequences of that choice.


We differ in what we think "choice-based" training is. I think that choice-based training means that the dog can comply/stay in the game for a reward. Or they can quit, and the training session ends. When the session ends, the opportunity for reward ends too, but nothing unpleasant happens other than the trainer and the food disengages. 

Totally not saying you're wrong! Just saying that I see it differently. But I train whippets, so I see everything differently!


----------



## lil_fuzzy (Aug 16, 2010)

trainingjunkie said:


> We differ in what we think "choice-based" training is. I think that choice-based training means that the dog can comply/stay in the game for a reward. Or they can quit, and the training session ends. When the session ends, the opportunity for reward ends too, but nothing unpleasant happens other than the trainer and the food disengages.
> 
> Totally not saying you're wrong! Just saying that I see it differently. But I train whippets, so I see everything differently!


I don't see how that's different from what I said. The "bad thing" could very well be the end of the training session and no more rewards. I wasn't talking about corrections, necessarily. I don't use physical corrections, but if they break from position or don't do as I say, I might move them further away from what they want, and keep moving them further away until they do it, or I will put them back where they were and there is no reward until they do it properly. If they repeatedly mess it up, and I think they should know better, I might just end the training session and there's no more fun and games (obviously wouldn't use that as a punishment for a new behaviour, only for stuff they know well). That's the dog's choice. Do it properly, and it's all fun and games. Don't do it, and there's no reward. The dog chooses, I control the consequence.


----------



## K9 3X (Apr 17, 2015)

lil_fuzzy said:


> I don't see how that's different from what I said. The "bad thing" could very well be the end of the training session and no more rewards. I wasn't talking about corrections, necessarily. I don't use physical corrections, but if they break from position or don't do as I say, I might move them further away from what they want, and keep moving them further away until they do it, or I will put them back where they were and there is no reward until they do it properly. If they repeatedly mess it up, and I think they should know better, I might just end the training session and there's no more fun and games (obviously wouldn't use that as a punishment for a new behaviour, only for stuff they know well). That's the dog's choice. Do it properly, and it's all fun and games. Don't do it, and there's no reward. The dog chooses, I control the consequence.


I agree with your view because you appreciate the essence of "choice" As you stated " Choose to stay = good stuff happens, choose to get up = bad stuff happens. That's what I think choice based training is. The dog can choose, and then the owner controls the consequences of that choice. " Good stuff and bad stuff can be debated all day long but it will never change the basic premise that consequences are associated with choices. Trainer and food disengaging = bad stuff happening.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Relevant to the original question.

https://positively.com/contributors/rethinking-the-do-as-i-say-attitude-is-it-really-the-best-way/


----------



## petpeeve (Jun 10, 2010)

K9 3X said:


> I noticed at the upper end of competition obedience levels the dog is required to do a 10 minute down, no handler in sight. 50 points. Does AKC and CKC have this level as well?


 Maybe there is one and I'm unaware but I don't know of any discipline that requires a 10 min down for 50 points. To my knowledge the maximum time is 5 min / 50 pts for an AKC Open down stay. 

I was looking through some IPO rules this morning and I found this. Basically, it's an honour with a duration of whatever time period the other dog is working for. Anyway I thought it was interesting to note that the honour dog IS allowed to move and break position significantly imo, without NQing. 




> 9. Down under distraction 10 points
> 
> a) One verbal command to: “Down”, “Sit”
> 
> ...


http://www.dvgamerica.com/rules.html
(secondary link, just below banner)


----------



## Flaming (Feb 2, 2013)

I use both a down settle and a crate based on which dog needs the reset.

Manna is claustrophobic and well enough trained so she gets settle.

Vitae willingly goes in and out of the crate without me even being in the same room. Her settle is non existant yet as we are still in early stages of training but if I say "crate" she happily goes in and snuggles her blankets until I call her out. I usually don't close the door.
If we're outside then I use the dog house as a crate (it's large enough to fit 3 adult humans ) and it has no closable door.


----------



## K9 3X (Apr 17, 2015)

"
Class C
Open to all dogs at Open and Championship shows. At Limited shows dogs who have won an Obedience Certificate may not compete.
The exercises are Heel Free at normal, slow and fast pace. While doing normal pace the dog will also be required to do positions i.e. Stand, Sit and Down in any order while the handler continues alone until directed to collect the dog back to heelwork. Sendaway, Drop and Recall and Retrieve as in Class B. Distance Control. Scent is judges scent with either one or two decoys in any pattern, again minimum of 6 maximum of 10 cloths in total.
Sit Stay (2 minutes out of sight)* Down Stay (10 minutes out of sight)]*
Again extra commands and signals will be penalised as in Class B. "

I noticed this 10 minute down stay when watching videos of the recent Crufts obedience competition. Probably not the norm and maybe only applicable to UKC rules ??? I don't know that much about it.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

K9 3X said:


> But humans have evolved more than dogs so we know how to do their job better than they do I guess. Maybe the individual who stated that in response to my comment should remove the mother dog and hop in the whelping box and properly raise the puppies. Seriously, I do not know where some people dream this stuff up.


Wish I knew, but I'm sure most of my neighbors would also know how to live my life.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

Flaming said:


> I use both a down settle and a crate based on which dog needs the reset.
> 
> Manna is claustrophobic and well enough trained so she gets settle.
> 
> ...


Lincoln has to be tethered before he'll settle yet lol, Josefina was like that too, in his crate he will settle right away. But he is only 7 1/2 months old so I can't really expect him to have a settle button yet, but he is learning, after a couple of redirections, he lies down and chews on his bone, he goes to sleep.


----------



## luv mi pets (Feb 5, 2012)

One day I am going to train a dog using opposite commands. Down will mean sit, sit will mean down, come will mean stay, and stay will mean come. It is up to the owner to teach the dog what the word should be associated with the action. I am just that kind of person who at times just does not want to blend in with the rest of the pack.


----------



## PatriciafromCO (Oct 7, 2012)

luv mi pets said:


> One day I am going to train a dog using opposite commands. Down will mean sit, sit will mean down, come will mean stay, and stay will mean come. It is up to the owner to teach the dog what the word should be associated with the action. I am just that kind of person who at times just does not want to blend in with the rest of the pack.


lol if you can keep the commands straight when your giving them real time.. that will be an interesting feat to really mess with peoples heads lol lol lol lol ...


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

PatriciafromCO said:


> lol if you can keep the commands straight when your giving them real time.. that will be an interesting feat to really mess with peoples heads lol lol lol lol ...


I couldnt do that, I would be confusing MYSELF LOL


----------

