# Was the Result worth it?



## Corinthian (Sep 21, 2009)

Since the Millan thread is going way too long, I thought I would start a new one not based on Millan but about what happened to one dog and a newsreporter too stupid to know better.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/unleashed/2009/01/cesar-millan-sa/comments/page/1/

According to the article the problem was pulling and maybe some barking at the door

_Oscar's affliction was constantly pulling on the leash

He has stopped his wee-hour charges down the hall barking, howling and shocking me out of sleep._​
So after applying Millan's techniques the dog no longer pulls but something else happened as well. She killed her dog's "spirit"

_When I go to bed, he goes to bed. He's a whole new dog.

Sort of a robot dog.

My Oscar used to dance when I returned from work. Doesn't anymore. My Oscar used to scamper into the kitchen, take a bite of food, run back out to the living room to make sure everything was cool and jog back for another couple of chunks. Not doing that. My Oscar used to run down the hall ahead of me looking over his shoulder with a big old grin. Doesn't do that anymore either._​

Forgetting about Millan and only focusing on the result and the dog. Would you follow this path knowing the result? Would you trade no pulling for a dog that isn't happy to see you? Doesn't celebrate your arrival? A dog that has lost its playfulness? Would that trade off be worth it to you?


----------



## Niraya (Jun 30, 2011)

Nope. I'd keep her the way she is.

(just putting 'nope' was too short)
(I also wish my phone wasn't dumb and showed the poll >:[)


----------



## Mheath0429 (Sep 4, 2011)

I don't agree with his practices and I don't like his show. He seems to treat dogs like property and to apply ownership. It's ridiculous. No dog is owned, in fact my girl owns me. Dogs are to be loved and shown affection not turned into an obedient robot. Jeeze if Delilah didn't do some of the crazy, husky things she does....well life wouldn't be nearly as fun. In fact, I like when she pulls and gets into prey drive for a minute...it's beautiful watching her natural instincts come in..


----------



## petpeeve (Jun 10, 2010)

Excuse me for being slightly obtuse, perhaps ... but ...



Why can't a person have a dog who doesn't pull, AND, still remains happy to see you ?

The entire notion of trading one at the expense of the other is unneccessary, and just seems ... silly 



IMO, this merely highlights another flaw with the "dog-trainer-in-a-box" ideology.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

petpeeve said:


> Excuse me for being slightly obtuse, perhaps ... but ...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Agreed you can have a dog that does not pull and remains happy.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

So.......the dog doesn't act like a crazed idiot when s/he arrives home, and that's a bad thing? A dog can exhibit calm, non-insane behavior and still _be_ happy.

BTW, it generally requires a lot of training and/or systematic abuse to produce a truly robotic dog. Very few people are ambitious/mean enough to put in the time. If the author slackens the regimen, the dog will revert to his former stoopid self. I'd bet a week's pay on it.


----------



## Niraya (Jun 30, 2011)

I think that the point the OP was trying to make was simply that IF this were the circumstances would you choose to have your dog the previous way, or would you like them to be the way they were after.

Not this "Well you can have the dog be happy and -not- pull" stuff. Obviously I think we all know that. They aren't asking for advice. They're asking simply under those circumstances as a hypothetical question, would having a dog that Ceasar Milan "trained" to not pull who is now essentially a robot worth the loss of everything that the dog formerly was -before- the training.

A Ceasar Milan thread in disguise discussing the methods he uses on dogs and their results. (At least that is what I got from this thread when I read it. I apologize if that's not what the OP meant, hence the 'I think')


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Well then maybe if the owner would have followed Cesar's instructions on don't do this at home he/she might not have produced a hypothetical robot. While I have seen some very good/serious working dogs I have never seen a robot type dog hypothetical or in real life. (except the Jetson's TV dog)


----------



## katielou (Apr 29, 2010)

Actually i think it is incredibly easy to shut down a dog.

Why people want a quick fix at the expense of the dog i will never understand.


----------



## Corinthian (Sep 21, 2009)

Niraya said:


> I think that the point the OP was trying to make was simply that IF this were the circumstances would you choose to have your dog the previous way, or would you like them to be the way they were after.
> 
> Not this "Well you can have the dog be happy and -not- pull" stuff. Obviously I think we all know that. They aren't asking for advice. They're asking simply under those circumstances as a hypothetical question, would having a dog that Ceasar Milan "trained" to not pull who is now essentially a robot worth the loss of everything that the dog formerly was -before- the training.
> 
> A Ceasar Milan thread in disguise discussing the methods he uses on dogs and their results. (At least that is what I got from this thread when I read it. I apologize if that's not what the OP meant, hence the 'I think')


 Yes, more interest in the trade offs people are willing to make to extinguish an unwanted behavior than talking about technique. [Hopefully people read the linked article] The author seemed fine with the idea of a robotic dog as long as she wasn't pulled, for her it was worth it. Would it be for other people.


----------



## Niraya (Jun 30, 2011)

wvasko said:


> Well then maybe if the owner would have followed Cesar's instructions on don't do this at home he/she might not have produced a hypothetical robot. While I have seen some very good/serious working dogs I have never seen a robot type dog hypothetical or in real life. (except the Jetson's TV dog)


Astro wasn't a robot :O?!


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Niraya said:


> Astro wasn't a robot :O?!


Dementia strikes again, I just assumed and you know what they say about assumptions.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

Niraya said:


> I think that the point the OP was trying to make was simply that IF this were the circumstances would you choose to have your dog the previous way, or would you like them to be the way they were after.
> 
> Not this "Well you can have the dog be happy and -not- pull" stuff. Obviously I think we all know that. They aren't asking for advice. They're asking simply under those circumstances as a hypothetical question, would having a dog that Ceasar Milan "trained" to not pull who is now essentially a robot worth the loss of everything that the dog formerly was -before- the training.


It all depends on the individual owner's interpretation of what the dog has become. And is that interpretation worth the ink (digital or analog) used to communicate it to us? Most dogs who run around picking things up and dropping them, chase their tails, whine, wiggle, and ricochet off walls are dogs who don't know what to do next. The calm tail-wagger who waits for you to put your packages down, is more likely a dog who knows what comes next (i.e., the happier dog). 

It seems more likely (to me) that the author has lost something--the emotional thrill of seeing the dog lose his [email protected]#$%^& mind at his return home at the end of the day. It's not exactly uncommon for people to put their own emotional needs before their dogs' genuine happiness. D'ya ever see the satisfied look some people exhibit when the dog sits on her lap and lashes out at everyone else in the family? It's weird, but not the least bit uncommon. How much credence do we give that owner's lament that about the dog not being allowed to be a dog? I give it zero.

It also depends on your definition of "robotic". Many people think well trained, well behaved dogs are "robot dogs". I see that interpretation, most often, as a rationalization for the owner's inability or unwillingness to properly control their animals. I define "robotic" as a dog who is shut down (i.e., afraid to move for fear of punishment which is never predictable or consistent). A dog *properly* trained to an extremely high standard of obedience knows he can initiate play with "the boss". He still has a personality even if he doesn't act like a jerk all the time.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Marsh Muppet said:


> It all depends on the individual owner's interpretation of what the dog has become. And is that interpretation worth the ink (digital or analog) used to communicate it to us? Most dogs who run around picking things up and dropping them, chase their tails, whine, wiggle, and ricochet off walls are dogs who don't know what to do next. The calm tail-wagger who waits for you to put your packages down, is more likely a dog who knows what comes next (i.e., the happier dog).
> 
> It seems more likely (to me) that the author has lost something--the emotional thrill of seeing the dog lose his [email protected]#$%^& mind at his return home at the end of the day. It's not exactly uncommon for people to put their own emotional needs before their dogs' genuine happiness. D'ya ever see the satisfied look some people exhibit when the dog sits on her lap and lashes out at everyone else in the family? It's weird, but not the least bit uncommon. How much credence do we give that owner's lament that about the dog not being allowed to be a dog? I give it zero.
> 
> It also depends on your definition of "robotic". Many people think well trained, well behaved dogs are "robot dogs". I see that interpretation, most often, as a rationalization for the owner's inability or unwillingness to properly control their animals. I define "robotic" as a dog who is shut down (i.e., afraid to move for fear of punishment which is never predictable or consistent). A dog *properly* trained to an extremely high standard of obedience knows he can initiate play with "the boss". He still has a personality even if he doesn't act like a jerk all the time.


Oh my, what he said.


----------



## KodiBarracuda (Jul 4, 2011)

Marsh Muppet said:


> It all depends on the individual owner's interpretation of what the dog has become. And is that interpretation worth the ink (digital or analog) used to communicate it to us? Most dogs who run around picking things up and dropping them, chase their tails, whine, wiggle, and ricochet off walls are dogs who don't know what to do next. The calm tail-wagger who waits for you to put your packages down, is more likely a dog who knows what comes next (i.e., the happier dog).
> 
> It seems more likely (to me) that the author has lost something--the emotional thrill of seeing the dog lose his [email protected]#$%^& mind at his return home at the end of the day. It's not exactly uncommon for people to put their own emotional needs before their dogs' genuine happiness. D'ya ever see the satisfied look some people exhibit when the dog sits on her lap and lashes out at everyone else in the family? It's weird, but not the least bit uncommon. How much credence do we give that owner's lament that about the dog not being allowed to be a dog? I give it zero.
> 
> It also depends on your definition of "robotic". Many people think well trained, well behaved dogs are "robot dogs". I see that interpretation, most often, as a rationalization for the owner's inability or unwillingness to properly control their animals. I define "robotic" as a dog who is shut down (i.e., afraid to move for fear of punishment which is never predictable or consistent). A dog *properly* trained to an extremely high standard of obedience knows he can initiate play with "the boss". He still has a personality even if he doesn't act like a jerk all the time.


I like this...

And that said, 
I don't know the situation fully, the article was useless IMO, and I don't want to make a blind statement without knowing how the dog reacted before and after the training from someone other than the owner (because we owners know that things can get skewed when we talk about our dogs.  )


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

KodiBarracuda said:


> And that said,
> I don't know the situation fully, the article was useless IMO, and I don't want to make a blind statement without knowing how the dog reacted before and after the training from someone other than the owner (because we owners know that things can get skewed when we talk about our dogs.  )


And then there's this. We don't know anything about the author or his dog--before or after. We don't know how well or badly he adhered to the prescribed training methods. We only know what he said, but we can't know how high a value we should place on his opinion about his dog's behavior.


----------



## hanksimon (Mar 18, 2009)

"[email protected]#$%^& mind" - I think you made wvasko blush .... BTW, I remember that Tom&Jerry did have a robot dog in one cartoon. And, I think the Jetsons may have had a Robot dog in one episode, causing Astro to run away. I'm positive that's what he meant 

"satisfied look some people exhibit when the dog sits on her lap and lashes out at everyone else" ==> Armpit Piranha!!

I agree with this:
"I define "robotic" as a dog who is shut down (i.e., afraid to move for fear of punishment - excessive +P - which is never predictable or consistent). A dog *properly* trained to a [..] high standard of obedience knows he can initiate play with "the boss". He still has a personality."


----------



## Sparrow (Jul 17, 2011)

I have to agree with the lovely post from Marsh Muppet. 

The fact that someone things you have to trade the happy dog for the obedient dog just goes to show how little folks really understand dogs. It's peculiar to me. I've had very highly trained dogs & the more intelligent they are & the more they're worked with the better their personality comes out. I've shared my life with some major serious dogs but they certainly were not robots. My dogs are expected to think. I set up puzzles in training & I expect them to use their heads to get out of it & still do their jobs. These are also the same dogs who play tricks on me, who make me laugh the most & who are real characters. One that pops into my mind is a dog I trained who has a deadly serious job but he plays a dog joke on his handler. He takes the high ground & will jump out on his handler. Now he doesn't jump on the man but it's always a near miss. Then the dog will run with his butt tucked under him & running like a maniac. When the show's over, the dog comes & sits down in front of the man & it's time to get serious. My male Dobe would greet me with his teeth showing, licking & chomping & drumming his front feet. People were terrified when I'd squat down & hold my arms out. He never bowled me over. My dog who would deploy up onto roof tops was the same goofy clown who would stick her head between her front legs & would roll & then lay on her back, legs splayed out with a goofy grin on her face & open one eye to see if I was laughing yet. These were all dogs who many thought must not have much of a life, they were robots, they were (blah, blah, blah). It's not an either or. If it's an either or, in someone's opinion they need to dump what they think they know & get some higher learning concerning dogs.

I have a new pup laying at my feet who won't ever know what it's like to be a robot but she'll be well behaved, well mannered & she'll have a training roster longer than my leg of things she will know how to do. And she'll be a lot of fun. Training doesn't break the spirit it builds communication between human & canine... it makes it possible for the dog to live in humansville happily.


----------



## Nil (Oct 25, 2007)

Sparrow said:


> Training doesn't break the spirit it builds communication between human & canine... it makes it possible for the dog to live in humansville happily.


Beautifully said, Sparrow.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Corinthian said:


> Yes, more interest in the trade offs people are willing to make to extinguish an unwanted behavior than talking about technique. [Hopefully people read the linked article] The author seemed fine with the idea of a robotic dog as long as she wasn't pulled, for her it was worth it. Would it be for other people.


Except effective training requires no trade offs.

So I guess, no, I wouldn't make any trades because if I know what I'm doing to get whatever behavior, I will get it USING the dog the way he is, not in spite of it. I will know how to HARNESS a dog's personality, way of thinking/learning, and energy, not suppress it or force the dog to change.

Plus, his/her [the writer's] definition of a "robot dog" doesn't make sense - at least from the quotes in the opening post.

The dog doesn't running around barking late at night/early in the morning and doesn't run back and forth between eating and the living room, and sleeps when he/she does. 

And that's a "robot dog"? 

It also assumes the dog has lost playfulness. How do we know the dog won't play? Just because he doesn't run around the house anymore? That's not play. That's excess energy needing an outlet (sometimes called "zoomies"). Play is in control, even between dogs. It's active, energized, sometimes rough/physical, but it's still controlled, purposeful action. Not just charging around - unless it's a chase game. (Play is often "practice" for instinctive/needed behaviors like chasing, pouncing, fighting, hunting, reproduction, etc)

The dog isn't happy to see his person because he doesn't dance? Maybe he wags his tail and sniffs to see where his person has been - i.e. true greeting behavior. He could still be panting happily, even dog laughing (the "hah hah hah hah" sound dogs can purposefully make to express excitement/happiness) while doing this. That would indicate a happy dog to me. Same for "bouncy" steps or excited walking or even a play bow.

So, for me, there's not enough information to know that the path alluded to has actually resulted in a "robot dog".


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

hanksimon said:


> I agree with this:
> "I define "robotic" as a dog who is shut down (i.e., afraid to move for fear of punishment - excessive +P - which is never predictable or consistent). A dog *properly* trained to a [..] high standard of obedience knows he can initiate play with "the boss". He still has a personality."



I consider shut down even beyond "robotic". At least from my experience with shut down (i.e. the Wally used to be) I couldn't get him do _anything_. He'd just sit there shaking and hyperventilating like he's given up on life.


----------



## SassyCat (Aug 29, 2011)

I also completely agree with what Marsh Muppet said. The dog doesn't go bonkers when its leader arrives home - it is selfish to actually WANT your dog to be only happy when you're there. Often dog's psychotic behaviour seems fun and cute to us humans so we think he's happy. I'll tell you a sad story as well: my old time neighbour has a cocker spaniel also named Oscar who (to people) looked quite "happy" by going completely insane outside on walks and in the car and "cute" from suffering serious separation anxiety issues. Then, her boyfriend moved in. Long story short, Oscar is now following him everywhere and sleeping with him (they had separate beds) and having more fun times outside with him.... road to rehabilitating this dog was quite literally bloody, but not for the dog. Oscar bit him several times in first couple of days but that is because of all the frustrated energy he had to collect and suppress for so long. Previous owner was randomly giving affection to the dog when he was obviously frustrated and nervous with constant (and I mean non stop) super-annoying barking.

As for the walks, Millan is only showing people how to use choke/prong collars. It is a simple fact that prong collars work and IMO that is better than killing the dog which is what people intent before resorting to Millan. It is always better to dish out 5k dollars for rehabilitation center but some people won't/can't do that and choke collar ends up saving the day. If you don't want to see your pet calm submissive, following you with a wagging tail wherever you go without barking, pulling, biting etc. then you're a selfish person..... and it is absurd to label that behaviour "robotic".


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I agree that some people can have a happy and obedient dog. Then again, some people can't. I personally, have found that I cannot train my dogs without "breaking" them. Without making them extremely unhappy. So I don't train them. And I don't know how to improve my training skills without practicing on my dogs, which would make them unhappy, which I'm not willing to do. So for some people it IS a tradeoff, only because they have no idea how to train without making their dog shut down (Penny shuts down if I get even slightly frustrated, even if I'm frustrated with myself and not her. Which makes me more frustrated, which makes her shut down more. . .ugh). And I would rather have a happy dog than an obedient dog.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Well I've said this before, an owner brings a dog to a trainer, the dog comes with a full glass of water, in the water is a mixture of ego/personality/drives etc. etc. etc. (least this is what I tell my clients) a good trainer is gonna get the dog/glass back to the owner trained with very little water removed from glass. Problem is some trainers send the dog home trained but with very little or sometimes no water left in the glass. This is not a pretty picture.


----------



## hanksimon (Mar 18, 2009)

"the dog comes with a full glass of water, in the water is a mixture of ego/personality/drives"

My dog's glass runneth over... as does his owner's  .... Maybe we both need a trainer!


(I don't have any suggestions to alleviate frustration, but it's good to recognize it.)


----------



## Inga (Jun 16, 2007)

wvasko said:


> an owner brings a dog to a trainer, the dog comes with a full glass of water, in the water is a mixture of ego/personality/drives etc. etc. etc. (least this is what I tell my clients) a good trainer is gonna get the dog/glass back to the owner trained with very little water removed from glass. .


Oliver 98% personality 2% drive 0% ego

Carsten 60% Ego, 30% personality, 10% drive

I should send them both to you to switch up the ratios a little.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

Inga said:


> Oliver 98% personality 2% drive 0% ego
> 
> Carsten 60% Ego, 30% personality, 10% drive
> 
> I should send them both to you to switch up the ratios a little.


Rusty: 98% ego, 98% personality, 98% drive, 98% love, 2% fat.

The thing with some people is that they want to squash the ego, and often the drive. Both can make achieving solid obedience problematical, but they make for great dogs. You can definitely use that ego to your advantage. I can totally relate to a self-centered jerk. The drive sometimes appears (to some people) as hardheadedness. Those attitudes are how people achieve obedient dogs who slink through their paces.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Corinthian said:


> Forgetting about Millan and only focusing on the result and the dog. Would you follow this path knowing the result? Would you trade no pulling for a dog that isn't happy to see you? Doesn't celebrate your arrival? A dog that has lost its playfulness? Would that trade off be worth it to you?


Fortunately, there's no need for that sort of "trade-off" you can keep a dog's happy spirit and enthusiastic, AND get the behavior you want.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

wvasko said:


> Well I've said this before, an owner brings a dog to a trainer, the dog comes with a full glass of water, in the water is a mixture of ego/personality/drives etc. etc. etc. (least this is what I tell my clients) a good trainer is gonna get the dog/glass back to the owner trained with very little water removed from glass. Problem is some trainers send the dog home trained but with very little or sometimes no water left in the glass. This is not a pretty picture.


I like that analogy.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Inga said:


> Oliver 98% personality 2% drive 0% ego
> 
> Carsten 60% Ego, 30% personality, 10% drive
> 
> I should send them both to you to switch up the ratios a little.



Oh if only I could borrow some of Carsten's ego!


Wally: 10% Ego, 20% drive, 55% nosiness...er...curiosity...er I mean personality, 10% fear/wariness

Wally (food involved): 5% ego, 60% drive, 30% personality/"curiosity", 5% fear/wariness

Getting there...trying to get some of that drive to carry over...it's working...slowly.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Pawzk9 said:


> I like that analogy.


Well it was just something old school simple that I and the people could understand, even if I had known about quadrants then there was no way I could explain them. High school dropouts don't come equipped with the necessary explanation skills. (at least this one didn't) Geeze I still get lost on DF sometimes.


----------



## lisahi (Jun 19, 2011)

Coco....

30% ego
30% drive
40% personality

I admit I haven't put in the training time I wanted to. I've been slacking. But I honestly think that she started to become more behaved when I backed off and stopped stressing so much about whether she knows how to "leave it" on command or not. She's probably picking up on my emotions. If I could be unstressed while attempting to train her, it would be great. But I haven't gotten there yet.

She does know that "uh uh!" means stop doing that, and I was rather surprised this weekend when she listened and stopped going for the pee pad when I "uh uh"ed her. Then I looked at her cute little face, sitting there staring at me and, for a brief moment, thought I must have broken her spirit by not letting her throw around a pee pad.

Of course, I snapped out of it. That's just dumb. I didn't hit her or cause her fear. I just said "uh uh" and she stopped. Sure, she's cute when she's throwing around objects (she's cute when she does anything), but that's no reason to let her run around like a mad puppy chewing up things she's not supposed to.


----------



## mom24doggies (Mar 25, 2011)

I answered no, that trade-off would not be worth it to me. However, as most others have said, I believe that you can train your dog (even using Milan's methods, I've used milder forms of them myself without a problem before) to behave himself and he will still have plenty of personality and spirit.  I know all four of mine do!!


----------



## Lindbert (Dec 12, 2010)

Brody's glass was almost completely empty when he came to me. He wouldn't play (with me, by himself, or with toys), followed commands in an entirely robotic fashion (perfectly precise but tail never wagged, recall was slow, head down and ears back when he was in a stay) and I could best describe him as a shedding slightly smelly statue when he was in the house. He sat in one place and tried to blend in with the carpet. All this disappeared when he saw a young male between late teens and 30 years old, then he became a reactive growling lunging monster. 

With a lot of time, patience, and the right kind of training class, his glass is now almost overflowing and he is a dog that loves life. He plays at any opportunity he can get (even if it's just picking up a stuffing free squirrel and thrashing it around by himself), His tail is almost always wagging, and he happily approaches all people and rolls over for a belly rub. His response to commands is still just as precise, however he runs to me when I call him, his tail wags and he maintains eye contact when he's heeling, and he watches me alertly when I have him in a stay. There was some lasting damage from the methods used to train him previously. If he hears a high pitched beep he will roll over and urinate on himself, which makes me think he was improperly trained using an e-collar. In my opinion, I don't know how anyone could trade the real Brody (the dog I have now) for the sad and pathetic shell of a dog that came to me.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Lindbert said:


> Brody's glass was almost completely empty when he came to me. He wouldn't play (with me, by himself, or with toys), followed commands in an entirely robotic fashion (perfectly precise but tail never wagged, recall was slow, head down and ears back when he was in a stay) and I could best describe him as a shedding slightly smelly statue when he was in the house. He sat in one place and tried to blend in with the carpet. All this disappeared when he saw a young male between late teens and 30 years old, then he became a reactive growling lunging monster.
> 
> With a lot of time, patience, and the right kind of training class, his glass is now almost overflowing and he is a dog that loves life. He plays at any opportunity he can get (even if it's just picking up a stuffing free squirrel and thrashing it around by himself), His tail is almost always wagging, and he happily approaches all people and rolls over for a belly rub. His response to commands is still just as precise, however he runs to me when I call him, his tail wags and he maintains eye contact when he's heeling, and he watches me alertly when I have him in a stay. There was some lasting damage from the methods used to train him previously. If he hears a high pitched beep he will roll over and urinate on himself, which makes me think he was improperly trained using an e-collar. In my opinion, I don't know how anyone could trade the real Brody (the dog I have now) for the sad and pathetic shell of a dog that came to me.


As I said above, not a pretty picture.


----------



## wil.wish (Sep 6, 2011)

petpeeve said:


> Excuse me for being slightly obtuse, perhaps ... but ...
> 
> Why can't a person have a dog who doesn't pull, AND, still remains happy to see you ?
> 
> ...


I think you misunderstood the question. The meaning was to ask if you would follow such a training ideology that creates a perfectly behaved dog without spirit. I'm not interested in "over-training" my dogs, even with positive reinforcement. My only concerns are that my dogs return to me when called, don't knock me on my ass when greeting me (or do the same to visitors), and are generally well-behaved and don't leave a trail of destruction in their paths. I could care less if they'll lay in a down position for 30 minutes without moving (I saw this as a requirement in some online trainer's claims of instilling good behavior).


----------



## wil.wish (Sep 6, 2011)

SassyCat said:


> I also completely agree with what Marsh Muppet said. The dog doesn't go bonkers when its leader arrives home - it is selfish to actually WANT your dog to be only happy when you're there. Often dog's psychotic behaviour seems fun and cute to us humans so we think he's happy. I'll tell you a sad story as well: my old time neighbour has a cocker spaniel also named Oscar who (to people) looked quite "happy" by going completely insane outside on walks and in the car and "cute" from suffering serious separation anxiety issues. Then, her boyfriend moved in. Long story short, Oscar is now following him everywhere and sleeping with him (they had separate beds) and having more fun times outside with him.... road to rehabilitating this dog was quite literally bloody, but not for the dog. Oscar bit him several times in first couple of days but that is because of all the frustrated energy he had to collect and suppress for so long. Previous owner was randomly giving affection to the dog when he was obviously frustrated and nervous with constant (and I mean non stop) super-annoying barking.
> 
> As for the walks, Millan is only showing people how to use choke/prong collars. It is a simple fact that prong collars work and IMO that is better than killing the dog which is what people intent before resorting to Millan. It is always better to dish out 5k dollars for rehabilitation center but some people won't/can't do that and choke collar ends up saving the day. If you don't want to see your pet calm submissive, following you with a wagging tail wherever you go without barking, pulling, biting etc. then you're a selfish person..... and it is absurd to label that behaviour "robotic".


You're right in that using a prong collar is better than killing a dog, but it could also be truthfully said that it's better to beat a wife than to shoot her. Truthful, but kind of missing the point. Better by far to do neither. I don't see a need to dump $5000 on a rehab for your dog (where is that even possible?) as the only alternative to a prong collar or death. The 'robotic' response is referring to a point where your dog follows your instructions out of fear rather than desire. They are lacking in happiness and enthusiasm, because their only aim in life is to avoid pain and fear, not to enjoy time with their human.


----------



## Tofu_pup (Dec 8, 2008)

wil.wish said:


> I think you misunderstood the question. The meaning was to ask if you would follow such a training ideology that creates a perfectly behaved dog without spirit. I'm not interested in "over-training" my dogs, even with positive reinforcement. My only concerns are that my dogs return to me when called, don't knock me on my ass when greeting me (or do the same to visitors), and are generally well-behaved and don't leave a trail of destruction in their paths. I could care less if they'll lay in a down position for 30 minutes without moving (I saw this as a requirement in some online trainer's claims of instilling good behavior).


And a dog doesn't have to lose its spirit to train at the OTCH level.


----------



## Tofu_pup (Dec 8, 2008)

wvasko said:


> Well I've said this before, an owner brings a dog to a trainer, the dog comes with a full glass of water, in the water is a mixture of ego/personality/drives etc. etc. etc. (least this is what I tell my clients) a good trainer is gonna get the dog/glass back to the owner trained with very little water removed from glass. Problem is some trainers send the dog home trained but with very little or sometimes no water left in the glass. This is not a pretty picture.


I love this!^


----------



## wil.wish (Sep 6, 2011)

Tofu_pup said:


> And a dog doesn't have to lose its spirit to train at the OTCH level.


I'll defer to you on this, as I don't know anything about the OTCH level. I've found that dogs will do pretty much anything, and with relatively little effort, if you approach it the right way. Treats, praise, and not punishing them when they don't obey as well as you'd like - that's my method. I'm not a trainer, expert, or anything, but I've had very good results this way. I've trained my hairy horde to stop jumping up on people, sit, and a few other tricks, of course including excellent recall. That's as much as I require from them, except that they be happy.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Willowy said:


> I agree that some people can have a happy and obedient dog. Then again, some people can't. I personally, have found that I cannot train my dogs without "breaking" them. Without making them extremely unhappy. So I don't train them. And I don't know how to improve my training skills without practicing on my dogs, which would make them unhappy, which I'm not willing to do. So for some people it IS a tradeoff, only because they have no idea how to train without making their dog shut down (Penny shuts down if I get even slightly frustrated, even if I'm frustrated with myself and not her. Which makes me more frustrated, which makes her shut down more. . .ugh). And I would rather have a happy dog than an obedient dog.


That's very sad.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Pawzk9 said:


> That's very sad.


Well Clint Eastwood in Dirty Harry said "a man's got to know his limitations" I suppose he should have said "a person got to know their limitations" I think that's a good thing because if more people knew, maybe less dogs would get dumped.

Good read of one's self Willowy, lacking dog training genes sometimes happens. It could be worse, if my wife should die I will be dead in 3 weeks as I have never cooked anything so starvation is definitely a possibility. After all who can afford to eat out.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Pawzk9 said:


> That's very sad.


*shrug* I can think of lots sadder things, all involving someone attempting to formally train their dog when they aren't good at it.

I will say that I recognize that there is no such thing as NO training. . .all interaction you have with your dog is teaching him/her something. Avoiding teaching the dog bad things is the most important. Management, I guess.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Willowy said:


> *shrug* I can think of lots sadder things, all involving someone attempting to formally train their dog when they aren't good at it.
> 
> I will say that I recognize that there is no such thing as NO training. . .all interaction you have with your dog is teaching him/her something. Avoiding teaching the dog bad things is the most important. Management, I guess.


I guess it's sad to me because it really isn't that hard, and there are so many options to train dogs without fear or intimidation, and to have dogs who just blossom when you ask them to learn.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

It IS hard for poeple who have no natural training ability. It's not really something that can be learned without a lot of experience and trial and error. And an average dog owner has no way of gaining extensive experience, and may not be willing to put their dog through the trial and error part.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Willowy said:


> It IS hard for poeple who have no natural training ability. It's not really something that can be learned without a lot of experience and trial and error. And an average dog owner has no way of gaining extensive experience, and may not be willing to put their dog through the trial and error part.




I work with people every day who have no "natural training ability". I would say that my own ability as a trainer was much less "natural" than the result of hard work and determination to learn. And I'm so glad that with methods we have available now, nobody's dog has to suffer through the trial and error part. Mistakes may be made, but that's a part of life. 
With so much information at our fingertips these days, there's no secret to good training anymore. It's all out there and available to anyone who wants to use it. If it doesn't interest one to do so, that's a choice.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Pawzk9 said:


> I work with people every day who have no "natural training ability". I would say that my own ability as a trainer was much less "natural" than the result of hard work and determination to learn. And I'm so glad that with methods we have available now, nobody's dog has to suffer through the trial and error part. Mistakes may be made, but that's a part of life.
> With so much information at our fingertips these days, there's no secret to good training anymore. It's all out there and available to anyone who wants to use it. If it doesn't interest one to do so, that's a choice.


Yes I do agree it's all out there, but if it were that easy to do there would be no need for DF even. Oh my, no DF.


----------



## saitenyo (Sep 9, 2011)

I voted no. In a hypothetical situation I would not ever want to sacrifice my future dog's personality for obedience, as personality is the thing I love most about pomeranians. 

That said, I get the impression part of the debate here is that different people have different perceptions of what behavior is tolerable and/or desired. Which is totally okay and makes sense. This is partially why different breeds or different individual dogs are better or worse for different people. If someone does not want a high-energy dog that is bouncing all over the place all the time, then a quiet, mild-mannered dog is obviously seen as a well-trained and preferable dog.

But if part of what someone enjoys about their dog is a certain level of "bounciness" then having that dog suddenly become quiet, calm, and mild-mannered could be seen as undesirable and "robotic."

It's also worth saying that well-trained and bouncy are obviously not mutually exclusive states for a dog to be in. My pomeranian was a very well-behaved dog. He certainly didn't have the training of a show dog or working dog. He didn't know to sit on command nor roll-over. He would get extremely excited and bouncy when greeting people he knew and liked. If something outside excited him or the doorbell rang he'd bark a bit. But he was trained in all the ways that were important to my family and what was tolerable and needed in our household. He scratched at the door to alert us when he needed to go outside and was trained to use a potty-pad if needed. He never pulled at his leash or took off after things on walks. He didn't bite, he wasn't aggressive. He didn't bark excessively and was trained to stop when told. These were the things that were important to us, and as far as we could tell, he was a happy, well-adjusted, well-behaved dog even though people who would prefer a calmer dog would probably have found him too hyper.

So I can certainly understand why someone might be disappointed to find a previously energetic dog is suddenly far more subdued, even if that behavior may be preferred by others. I don't necessarily thing there's a "right" or "wrong" to this, and feel it's important to remember that when deciding what training is needed for a dog, the key is determining what is needed to make your household and your relationship with them a harmonious place and decide what training goals you want to achieve.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

wvasko said:


> Yes I do agree it's all out there, but if it were that easy to do there would be no need for DF even. Oh my, no DF.


Not so. Us behavior geeks would still need a place to argue quadrants. I recognize that not everybody even knows where to look for all the wonderful stuff available. After all you have to know what to type into Google. So, I look at forums like this as an entry level into what is available.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

saitenyo said:


> I voted no. In a hypothetical situation I would not ever want to sacrifice my future dog's personality for obedience, as personality is the thing I love most about pomeranians.
> 
> That said, I get the impression part of the debate here is that different people have different perceptions of what behavior is tolerable and/or desired. Which is totally okay and makes sense. This is partially why different breeds or different individual dogs are better or worse for different people. If someone does not want a high-energy dog that is bouncing all over the place all the time, then a quiet, mild-mannered dog is obviously seen as a well-trained and preferable dog.
> 
> ...


The thing is, training doesn't need to subdue a dog. Even high level training can produce sparkly, enthusiastic workers.


----------



## saitenyo (Sep 9, 2011)

Pawzk9 said:


> The thing is, training doesn't need to subdue a dog. Even high level training can produce sparkly, enthusiastic workers.


 Oh I'm not disagreeing there. I was just referring to the fact that different people have different tolerance levels for bounciness in dogs. As I saw some posters express confusion that this woman would be disappointed by her dog's behavior change (ex. the fact that he no longer danced when she came home from work). They seemed to be suggesting that the new behavior should automatically be considered more desirable, but I think some owners (myself included) would consider it disappointing if a previously spunky dog who had a manageable level of bounciess lost those traits and became more calm and stoic. 

I've known people who, for example, find it terribly annoying the way pomeranians hop about and do little twirls in the air to greet the people they love. But if I had a pom who stopped doing that, and just calmly wagged their tail to greet me, I'd admittedly be saddened by the loss of that extra spunk.


----------



## CricketLoops (Apr 18, 2011)

Willowy said:


> I agree that some people can have a happy and obedient dog. Then again, some people can't. I personally, have found that I cannot train my dogs without "breaking" them. Without making them extremely unhappy. So I don't train them. And I don't know how to improve my training skills without practicing on my dogs, which would make them unhappy, which I'm not willing to do. So for some people it IS a tradeoff, only because they have no idea how to train without making their dog shut down (Penny shuts down if I get even slightly frustrated, even if I'm frustrated with myself and not her. Which makes me more frustrated, which makes her shut down more. . .ugh). And I would rather have a happy dog than an obedient dog.


I guess I just don't understand this. Likely it's because I find training extremely enjoyable, and if the only animal left on earth was a chicken, I would train that, too. I even use classical conditioning on the cats I foster (conditioning them to tolerate/enjoy pets and handling). I've taught my parent's cat to sit, come, high five, low five, and target her ducky toy strapped to a pole with both paws. It's just something I do whenever I visit -- train the cat.

Maybe it's that I don't understand what's difficult about clicker training. Dog does something, anything, you click, and give a treat. If it's timing you're interested in, you actually CAN practice on not-your-dogs. When I first got crazy-obsessed into animal training (okay, fine, I'm still crazy-obsessed into animal training), I would "practice" on lots of things. Like if I was in a coffee shop, I'd watch somebody on the other side of the room drink their coffee, and every time they put their cup to their lips I would "click" in my head. Or when I was watching a commercial, I'd click for every time a human blinked, or every screen change, or every time a female appeared on screen. I'd go outside sometimes and watch doves pecking the ground and click (with a real clicker) every time they pecked the ground. There are lots of things you can practice "clicking" that aren't your dogs. 

And then you can pick a behavior that's really easy for dogs, like nose-to-hand touches to start with. Or you can pick one that you don't really care if your dog learns, like scratching himself (simple capturing) or looking at one of your other dogs. 

I don't really understand how one can "break" a dog with positive reinforcement training, especially when the dog has complete choice over whether or not to participate in training with you. 

It seems to me like you've given up without really trying (sorry if I'm misjudging you) because you don't really consider training a priority. Which is fine, but then I think you should view it as a personal choice you've made to stop trying to learn or find someone to teach you as opposed to something that "some people" just can't do. I haven't met one of those people yet. Maybe they're out there. I would like to meet one.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

What if the dog is scared of the clicker? Penny is, really scared (even of a pen click or baby food top), and no amount of "charging" helps. Because of prior mistakes, she goes away when she sees treats come out, because that means training to her. She'll only take a treat from me if it's offered completely free, not asking anything of her. She won't even sit for a treat.

And she's not "broken" because of positive reinforcement training, it's because I took her to an obedience class when she was young and they insisted on using a prong collar (and I didn't know any better). Their method was "treat for doing it right, "correct" for doing it wrong", so now she associates treats with getting "corrected". She hated the training (although she was best in the class--she's a show-off), and so now when I ask her to do almost anything she gets sad. The boys have issues from their previous homes, so if they're "broken" it's from that, because I've never tried anything formal with them. At least they trust me.

But enough pity party-ing. They're 8 years old and I'm not going to annoy them with training now. Maybe when I get a new dog, although I'm sort of scared to try.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Willowy said:


> What if the dog is scared of the clicker? Penny is, really scared (even of a pen click or baby food top), and no amount of "charging" helps. Because of prior mistakes, she goes away when she sees treats come out, because that means training to her. She'll only take a treat from me if it's offered completely free, not asking anything of her. She won't even sit for a treat.
> 
> And she's not "broken" because of positive reinforcement training, it's because I took her to an obedience class when she was young and they insisted on using a prong collar (and I didn't know any better). Their method was "treat for doing it right, "correct" for doing it wrong", so now she associates treats with getting "corrected". She hated the training (although she was best in the class--she's a show-off), and so now when I ask her to do almost anything she gets sad. The boys have issues from their previous homes, so if they're "broken" it's from that, because I've never tried anything formal with them. At least they trust me.
> 
> But enough pity party-ing. They're 8 years old and I'm not going to annoy them with training now. Maybe when I get a new dog, although I'm sort of scared to try.


The click is a sound. There are many sounds, and almost any of them can be a marker. I'm sorry you went to a compulsion class that poisoned the joy of learning for you and your dog. And I'm sorry that you never saw a reason to try with your other two. But that's clearly your choice. I think the relationship between owner and dog is greatly enhanced by shared positive learning experiences and sorry that your dogs haven't gotten to experience that (and that you haven't as well). I also think that our animals do better if we help them work through issues instead of avoid them. I'm sure they are loved and happy though.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Willowy, I got to say the beauty of positive is that there's not much your gonna do to hurt the dog. I'm not advising, just throwing it out here to confuse the issue more. I personally think training a dog is the greatest thing since bubble gum was invented but it may not be like that for everybody. 

I'm an x-biker loved the ride but had buddies that enjoyed working on them cause if I picked up a wrench, a nut or bolt was gonna fly off the bike (Harley) and hurt me.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Willowy said:


> What if the dog is scared of the clicker? Penny is, really scared (even of a pen click or baby food top), and no amount of "charging" helps. Because of prior mistakes, she goes away when she sees treats come out, because that means training to her. She'll only take a treat from me if it's offered completely free, not asking anything of her. She won't even sit for a treat.


Then use another marker.

A clicker is just a marker. Use one that doesn't scare the dog. I don't think it's all that hard. *shrug* I guess I don't get why the "clicker" is such the stumbling block for some. If there's a sound your dog isn't scared of, then charge that and use it as the marker. Be creative!

Wally was fearful and "trained" with such methods (more like abused) - and look at him now. 

If asking puts her off...don't ask. Consider going with some shaping-type methods. Let her think it's her ideas that's getting her the reward while the whole time, she's going exactly where you want her.


----------



## KodiBarracuda (Jul 4, 2011)

KBLover said:


> If asking puts her off...don't ask. Consider going with some shaping-type methods. Let her think it's her ideas that's getting her the reward while the whole time, she's going exactly where you want her.


If you don't ask, how do you get your dog to do anything? Stare at them until they do something? How does that get anyone anywhere?


----------



## CricketLoops (Apr 18, 2011)

KodiBarracuda said:


> If you don't ask, how do you get your dog to do anything? Stare at them until they do something? How does that get anyone anywhere?


Pretty much, actually. Shaping is rewarding successive approximations to a behavior. So you're like "Hi dog, I have food" and the dog is like "cool gimme" but then you don't. So the dog tries to get the food and fails, then maybe he looks away. Click and treat. Repeat, maybe this time he looks away and you don't click, so he looks up at you to say "what, are you paying attention?" so you click and treat for looking at you. Repeat, add a "watch me" command and you've taught the dog to make eye contact on cue.

Or, for example, teaching a high-five. First reward for looking at your hand, then for approaching your hand, then sniffing, then touching, then maybe they try pawing (or you move your hand in such a way that makes them more likely to paw) and you reward for that and then they figure it out. 

Shaping is all about asking the dog to just try things. A clicker-seasoned dog in a shaping session is a joy to watch, because they just keep throwing out behavior after behavior for you to ignore or reward as you choose. 

You'd be surprised at what a dog who understands how to learn does if you just stare at them until they do something.


----------



## KodiBarracuda (Jul 4, 2011)

Thats nice and fine and all, but I don't want to have to stare at my dog every time I want it to do something. If a dog shuts down if you even give them a command then shaping would do no good because eventually you will have to give them the command or there would be no reason for shaping in the first place.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

KodiBarracuda said:


> If you don't ask, how do you get your dog to do anything? Stare at them until they do something? How does that get anyone anywhere?


You look for very small things that can lead to a behavior, and reward that. Fer instance: you want your dog to go to a bed - what will get her there? You click for glancing at it. You click for a more extended look at it. You click for a step towards it, then two steps, then one paw on, then two, etc. etc. until you have a behavior you can use. While I'm doing this, I'm not telling my dog to go to bed until I have the entire behavior. I'm mostly just marking the dog's offered behavior. Sometimes if I want a dog to lie down and am having trouble getting the whole thing, I might click them for just LOOKING at the floor. If you just stare at them until they do something you are looking for way too big a behavior. It's a conversation, not an order. (note to people whose dogs don't like the click - I say click because that's what I use. Insert marker of your choice)


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

KodiBarracuda said:


> Thats nice and fine and all, but I don't want to have to stare at my dog every time I want it to do something. If a dog shuts down if you even give them a command then shaping would do no good because eventually you will have to give them the command or there would be no reason for shaping in the first place.


Different strokes, different folks. and all dogs created differently or molded through life so that different strokes are needed/necessary.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

KodiBarracuda said:


> Thats nice and fine and all, but I don't want to have to stare at my dog every time I want it to do something. If a dog shuts down if you even give them a command then shaping would do no good because eventually you will have to give them the command or there would be no reason for shaping in the first place.


I really don't think you get the concept. If my dog knows the cue (I only give commands to computers) I don't need to shape. If I am shaping, I probably haven't named that behavior yet. Shaping is a way to get the behavior so I can add a word and then the dog can respond to the word. Dogs shut down. Especially dogs who have been trained with compulsion. You can try to force the dog (which will probably keep the dog shut down), you can say it is impossible to train the dog because it is broke and give up on training, or you can give the dog a new way to learn. Dogs trained traditionally (even traditionally without compulsion) tend to let the human take the lead, because making wrong choices can get you in trouble. Honestly, the most rewarding training sessions I have been a part of are the ones when you see that formerly shut down dog suddenly realize that it's okay to try things, and it's okay to communicate back to their handler.


----------



## KodiBarracuda (Jul 4, 2011)

Sorry, you guys posted before me, I will revise my post.

1. I know how shaping works.

PawzK9 -we are talking about a dog that shuts down at a command (I am talking a theoretical dog because I don't know Willowy's actual situation), shaping was suggested, I am asking how that helps a dog that shuts down at commands. If the dog shuts down when it hears "sit" even though it knows sit, how will shaping help?

Just learning here, not trying to argue, although my words don't always come out as poetically as I like, lol.

And for the cues commands thing, its semantics, i don't care what you call them. I prefer commands, you prefer cues, tom(ay)toe, tom(ah)toe, etc etc.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

wvasko said:


> Different strokes, different folks. and all dogs created differently or molded through life so that different strokes are needed/necessary.


http://smartdog.typepad.com/smart_d...ed-this-and-other-dogs-need-that-hogwash.html


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

KodiBarracuda said:


> Sorry, you guys posted before me, I will revise my post.
> 
> 1. I know how shaping works.
> 
> ...


If a dog shuts down when you tell them to do something, re-teach the behavior in another way (allow the dog to volunteer the behavior) and replace the poisoned cue. As to cues and commands - two totally different things. A command tells the dog to do something or else. A cue tells the dog that they now have a great opportunity to earn reward.


----------



## wil.wish (Sep 6, 2011)

Willowy said:


> It IS hard for poeple who have no natural training ability. It's not really something that can be learned without a lot of experience and trial and error. And an average dog owner has no way of gaining extensive experience, and may not be willing to put their dog through the trial and error part.


I don't believe in "natural training ability". There may be some people that seem to instinctively understand dogs more than others, but to say that you can't train a dog unless you're born with the talent isn't true. I had absolutely no idea what I was doing, and one day realized I had to learn. I couldn't understand why my dog wouldn't stop peeing all over the floor, even after rubbing his nose in it dozens of times. I got snapped at by a dog of mine "for no reason", and was really angry and hurt by this. I'd come home and see my stuff all over the place and my dog looking guilty, and would get so mad I thought my head would explode. Two of my dogs started to get in fights, and no matter how I scolded them, it didn't help.

I couldn't deal with the ways things were, so I decided to learn more about dogs and how to train them. I thought I'd get them to perform an instant down/stay if I could pick up a clicker and some treats or something. Yeah... that didn't happen. Then I learned how dogs don't generalize well and don't respond well to punishment, and the peeing issue made more sense. I gave treats when my dog went outside, and a few weeks later - no more pee issue. I read and saw pictures of dog body language, and realized that I was given a lot of warning before my dog snapped at me. I just hadn't been paying attention. At the same time I came to understand that the 'guilty look' was only my dog seeing me tense and offering calming signals. I used behavior modification training on my two fighting dogs by offering them treats and praise just for being around each other, trained them together, and walked them together. Now they don't fight. 

The thing is, I made nearly every mistake it is possible to make. I never have had what I would consider any great talent at dog training. But with the good advice I've found in articles, books, and kikopup videos, I've learned many methods that work, and work well. Now my dogs love training time, and they're coming along really well. There's still work to do (and always will be), but we're all making progress. My only advice to you is not to sell yourself short by thinking dog training is simply beyond you. Here's a few quick-start guides:

If your dog pees on the floor - clean up the mess and blow it off. 
If your dog chews up something important - clean up the mess and blow it off. 
If your dog steals your food - fix up some more and blow it off.

This was very, very difficult for me at first, but I came to truly understand the punishment is not the way to train your dog. I always train my dogs to do something, but I rarely train them not to do something, and when I do there's never any punishment. You'll get good behavior when your dog wants to give it to you. Make certain good behavior is very rewarding and you're set.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

wil.wish said:


> If your dog pees on the floor - clean up the mess and blow it off.
> If your dog chews up something important - clean up the mess and blow it off.
> If your dog steals your food - fix up some more and blow it off.
> 
> This was very, very difficult for me at first, but I came to truly understand the punishment is not the way to train your dog. I always train my dogs to do something, but I rarely train them not to do something, and when I do there's never any punishment. You'll get good behavior when your dog wants to give it to you. Make certain good behavior is very rewarding and you're set.


 Um, yeah, did I say my dogs weren't well-behaved? We live together quite agreeably, although they may not be up to other people's standards. How else would one live with 3 massive dogs? They just aren't trained. I don't consider normal living to be training. If I had a human roommate, we would learn to live together after a while just by getting to know each other. We wouldn't be "training" each other. Like I said, every interaction you have with your dog teaches him/her something. As long as it's not something bad things will probably work out.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Willowy said:


> Um, yeah, did I say my dogs weren't well-behaved? We live together quite agreeably, although they may not be up to other people's standards. How else would one live with 3 massive dogs? They just aren't trained. I don't consider normal living to be training. If I had a human roommate, we would learn to live together after a while just by getting to know each other. We wouldn't be "training" each other. Like I said, every interaction you have with your dog teaches him/her something. As long as it's not something bad things will probably work out.


Funny, I was having a discussion with a student just today about "training" her roommate using positive reinforcement. Behavior is behavior. Whether it's cute freestyle tricks, or precise obedience or understanding the rules of the house. Do you ever have expectations that your dog will do something you asked of them? Did they get there by osmosis?


----------



## Niraya (Jun 30, 2011)

I havent been a part of this thread mainly because I didn't have anything to add, at least up until now. And even then it's probably pretty useless.

I've noticed that when someone says 'my dog isn't trained' it is more often then not assumed that said dog 'isn't well-behaved'. Often times people associate training with manners.

Having said that- Bella isn't the best trained dog -however- I do expect her to have manners. I expect her not to run out of the door when it is open, or to not jump on peoeple when they come in. I expect her to sit quietly when we eat dinner and also to not drag me down the street when we're walking.

My boyfriend however feels that by teaching her manners im 'not allowing her to be a dog'. He loves having her jump on him to show she's excited. We fight all of the time about to train or not to train.

I also feel that just because a dog had been broken previously and now shuts down because of things that happened before. I think that given any amount of time and effort a dog can be shown that they don't have to shut down because they are asked to do something. 

I also think that it's okay that some people dont train their dogs. It's a personal choice/opinion. I think it is quite a different thing to say 'i -can't train my dog' for this reason or another. Especially when the information is basically at your fingertips to find and look at and when there are people out there willing to help and offer advice.

But that's just how I feel. It wasn't directed at anyone or anything. Only my opinion! Dun shoot meh!


----------



## +two (Jul 12, 2011)

I have a dog right now that, IMO, doesn't enjoy the training process. I still expect him to have manners. He is 'trained' to be quiet when I say enough, not run out the door, not eat the neighbors dog, ect ect ect. However, if I bust out a bait bag or a ball and ask him to learn, he doesn't _enjoy_ it. I would have to force him to stay in the room and engage with me, let alone 'obey'. He just isn't interested. He's always been trained through positive methods and rewarded for good behavior, but its not his cup of tea.

And thats okay with me.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

+two said:


> I have a dog right now that, IMO, doesn't enjoy the training process. I still expect him to have manners. He is 'trained' to be quiet when I say enough, not run out the door, not eat the neighbors dog, ect ect ect. However, if I bust out a bait bag or a ball and ask him to learn, he doesn't _enjoy_ it. I would have to force him to stay in the room and engage with me, let alone 'obey'. He just isn't interested. He's always been trained through positive methods and rewarded for good behavior, but its not his cup of tea.
> 
> And thats okay with me.


What's his favorite thing in the world? Not all dogs are motivated by balls and cookies. The ones who are tend to be easy. But I've never met a dog who isn't motivated by something.


----------



## CricketLoops (Apr 18, 2011)

KodiBarracuda said:


> Thats nice and fine and all, but I don't want to have to stare at my dog every time I want it to do something. If a dog shuts down if you even give them a command then shaping would do no good because eventually you will have to give them the command or there would be no reason for shaping in the first place.


Um, right. I don't think you understand how shaping/adding a cue works in positive reinforcement. You get the behavior first, and you get it so that you can make it happen reliably -- usually the dog figures out that in a certain situation when certain conditions are met, doing that behavior makes rewarding things happen. Then you add a cue to the front of that behavior, and get it so the dog associates that cue with the behavior. Then you can give the cue... and I have never seen a dog shut down when a cue is added in this manner.

There also doesn't need to be a purpose for shaping, really, in my experience. I hold "freestyle" shaping sessions a lot that are just pure fun for me and the dog, that reinforce the concept to the dog that he has the power and the choice to make good things happen to him. Shaping, especially with a dog who has had negative experiences with harsh training methods in the past, is more about teaching the dog how to learn, and teaching the dog how to get it wrong and recover from that. It's teaching the dog that it's okay to do the wrong behavior, that pain isn't a part of training anymore. It's about teaching the dog that engaging in these sessions with you is the most rewarding life decision he can make.

Once you've got a dog who knows how to learn and who loves learning, then you can focus on teaching "commands" and getting errorless behavior. But you have to undo the damage first.


----------



## wil.wish (Sep 6, 2011)

Willowy said:


> Um, yeah, did I say my dogs weren't well-behaved? We live together quite agreeably, although they may not be up to other people's standards. How else would one live with 3 massive dogs? They just aren't trained. I don't consider normal living to be training. If I had a human roommate, we would learn to live together after a while just by getting to know each other. We wouldn't be "training" each other. Like I said, every interaction you have with your dog teaches him/her something. As long as it's not something bad things will probably work out.


Sorry, I misunderstood your meaning.


----------



## Tofu_pup (Dec 8, 2008)

KodiBarracuda said:


> Sorry, you guys posted before me, I will revise my post.
> 
> 1. I know how shaping works.
> 
> ...


Kaki was a shut down dog and I'm using KB's definition of shut down. If I had a clicker and treats, she quivered, licked her lips, and craned her head so far away from my face that I thought she might be part owl.

Advice from zim made the biggest difference: remove the social pressure. I pretended to be doing the dishes with a quiet button clicker and stinky hot dogs at the ready.

Now training is so much fun that she's more than happy to work for dinner. Training is more rewarding than the food itself. I changed several cues because they were "poisoned". Come predicted bad things so you know what her new recall cue is? "Oy." I worked with a dog who's new recall cue is "party on!". Both dogs come running like recall is the coolest thing since scared squirrels.



CricketLoops said:


> Um, right. I don't think you understand how shaping/adding a cue works in positive reinforcement. You get the behavior first, and you get it so that you can make it happen reliably -- usually the dog figures out that in a certain situation when certain conditions are met, doing that behavior makes rewarding things happen. Then you add a cue to the front of that behavior, and get it so the dog associates that cue with the behavior. Then you can give the cue... and I have never seen a dog shut down when a cue is added in this manner.
> 
> There also doesn't need to be a purpose for shaping, really, in my experience. I hold "freestyle" shaping sessions a lot that are just pure fun for me and the dog, that reinforce the concept to the dog that he has the power and the choice to make good things happen to him. Shaping, especially with a dog who has had negative experiences with harsh training methods in the past, is more about teaching the dog how to learn, and teaching the dog how to get it wrong and recover from that. *It's teaching the dog that it's okay to do the wrong behavior, that pain isn't a part of training anymore. It's about teaching the dog that engaging in these sessions with you is the most rewarding life decision he can make.*
> 
> Once you've got a dog who knows how to learn and who loves learning, then you can focus on teaching "commands" and getting errorless behavior. But you have to undo the damage first.


To add to what you said(very well might I add), shaping is teaching the dog that there's no wrong response, just a responses that are or are not handsomely rewarded.

I still have to give Kaki a high frequency of rewards when we venture into new things. If she gets it "wrong" too many times, she gets all scaredy pants on me so every thing is taken with the tiniest of baby steps and she is a MUCH more confident dog because of it. She is a different dog because of it.


----------



## casey15 (Sep 24, 2011)

no it wouldn't be worth it, my dog greeting me when I come home from school is the best part of my day.


----------



## Michiyo-Fir (Jul 25, 2009)

I will not tolerate things like stealing food or pulling on leash from my dog but it doesn't mean I'll use Milan's method and basically shut my dog down and take all the joy she has in life...


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

KodiBarracuda said:


> Thats nice and fine and all, but I don't want to have to stare at my dog every time I want it to do something. If a dog shuts down if you even give them a command then shaping would do no good because eventually you will have to give them the command or there would be no reason for shaping in the first place.


Incorrect.

You can use shaping to have the dog act on the environment. I don't have to tell Wally to close the basement door. I come out of it (he's already out) and I'm past a certain point - he closes it. No command needed. He picks up on the pattern of events.

I don't have to stare at him. It happens because it's been well-rewarded, often practiced (I do LOTS of shaping - the criteria just gets higher and higher to where it's the whole behavior or nothing). 

Likewise, shaping can create something that just happens. I don't have to tell Wally to get on his scale. I put it on the ground, he gets on it.

Wally was very much a fearful and shut down kind of dog. Shaping broke him out of it in a number of ways - one was giving him a sense that he's not a victim of his environment (something bad isn't waiting to happen to him) but he can "make things happen". Plus, there's little social pressure. I'm not looking at him, looming with my 6 foot height over him "barking" at him. 

Plus, his confidence improving, he no longer fears cues/commands/whatever you want to call it. It changes his overall demeanor. 

I don't just say this because I made it up. I spent 3 years working him 90% of the time is via shaping.


----------



## +two (Jul 12, 2011)

Pawzk9 said:


> What's his favorite thing in the world? Not all dogs are motivated by balls and cookies. The ones who are tend to be easy. But I've never met a dog who isn't motivated by something.


What is Ozzie's favorite thing in the world? Hmm... *thinks*

I would say hiking. He is in his 'element' when he is loose in the dense woods, free from society and the big scary world. Last I checked though I can't stuff the wilderness into a bait bag and bring it with me. Regular walks, even if they are off leash, don't really peak his interest.


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

Mheath0429 said:


> I don't agree with his practices and I don't like his show. He seems to treat dogs like property and to apply ownership. It's ridiculous. No dog is owned, in fact my girl owns me. Dogs are to be loved and shown affection not turned into an obedient robot. Jeeze if Delilah didn't do some of the crazy, husky things she does....well life wouldn't be nearly as fun. In fact, I like when she pulls and gets into prey drive for a minute...it's beautiful watching her natural instincts come in..


Sorry but I disagree. I have ranch dogs that must do as they are told WHEN they are told so every command weather it is or not is treated ss critical. I will never be owned by a dog, I am the colonel of this army . 

Theynstill get to use their instincts, I incorporate them into everyday life, they must use their instincts for almost everything here.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

dogdragoness said:


> Sorry but I disagree. I have ranch dogs that must do as they are told WHEN they are told so every command weather it is or not is treated ss critical. I will never be owned by a dog, I am the colonel of this army .
> 
> Theynstill get to use their instincts, I incorporate them into everyday life, they must use their instincts for almost everything here.


I'm between the two approaches.

There are times where he has to do something, but there's a lot of times where it's a two-way communication between us. After all, he can see and detect things I can't, especially at night. Believe me, if he stops suddenly on a night-time walk and starts growling, I'm not going to be thinking "OMG, he's trying to take over my leadership", I'm thinking...What is he seeing? What could make him do this?

Sometimes it's just a snowman that wasn't there in the day, or an overturned basketball hoop that wasn't there the last time we passed. One time it was a girl running out of a car crying and someone had tried to do...stuff to her, and I was able to get help for her. Wally saw her and probably heard her long before I saw or heard her. 

So, I don't take everything as a "do it or you're in mutiny" - I take his "refusals" serious, because, in his mind, something is amiss - and I've seen it may be something I need not ignore.


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

Oh im not "that" kind of person, I do not think that my dog is out to "rule the world" starting with me lol we are also a partnership, dogs lead the way on walks etc... BUT I control the direction we go, so its all good.

I am not insecure about losing my "position" BC humans are already "pack leaders" dare I say that phrase :S BC we control all the dogs needs to survive/thrive. It is a barter-ship... I feed you (good, expensive food might I add) give you a roof, toys, fun enrichment , companionship (actually we give each other that  ) & in turn I expect you to obey when I ask for it & behave your self... Not that hard.

In fact my friends say that if they get reincarnated as animals that want to come back as one of my dogs


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

dogdragoness said:


> Sorry but I disagree. I have ranch dogs that must do as they are told WHEN they are told so every command weather it is or not is treated ss critical. I will never be owned by a dog, I am the colonel of this army .
> 
> Theynstill get to use their instincts, I incorporate them into everyday life, they must use their instincts for almost everything here.


Treats are for the learning stage. My dogs do what I ask whether it is or is not treated. Because they are taught that behavior. It's a common misconception that clicker trainers always push cookies for every little thing. Also that the dogs don't understand what is asked for.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

dogdragoness said:


> I am not insecure about losing my "position" BC humans are already "pack leaders" dare I say that phrase :S BC we control all the dogs needs to survive/thrive. It is a barter-ship... I feed you (good, expensive food might I add) give you a roof, toys, fun enrichment , companionship (actually we give each other that  ) & in turn I expect you to obey when I ask for it & behave your self... Not that hard.


I'm not sure it's a very dog-accessable concept that "I feed you, I shelter you, and therefore you must obey" It makes sense to humans, but dogs don't think that way (kids generally don't get that concept either.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

dogdragoness said:


> Oh im not "that" kind of person, I do not think that my dog is out to "rule the world" starting with me lol we are also a partnership, dogs lead the way on walks etc... BUT I control the direction we go, so its all good.
> 
> I am not insecure about losing my "position" BC humans are already "pack leaders" dare I say that phrase :S BC we control all the dogs needs to survive/thrive. It is a barter-ship... I feed you (good, expensive food might I add) give you a roof, toys, fun enrichment , companionship (actually we give each other that  ) & in turn I expect you to obey when I ask for it & behave your self... Not that hard.
> 
> In fact my friends say that if they get reincarnated as animals that want to come back as one of my dogs


Sounds like a decent plan for most, me included.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

dogdragoness said:


> Oh im not "that" kind of person, I do not think that my dog is out to "rule the world" starting with me lol we are also a partnership, dogs lead the way on walks etc... BUT I control the direction we go, so its all good.
> 
> I am not insecure about losing my "position" BC humans are already "pack leaders" dare I say that phrase :S BC we control all the dogs needs to survive/thrive. It is a barter-ship... I feed you (good, expensive food might I add) give you a roof, toys, fun enrichment , companionship (actually we give each other that  ) & in turn I expect you to obey when I ask for it & behave your self... Not that hard.
> 
> In fact my friends say that if they get reincarnated as animals that want to come back as one of my dogs



Thing is, I don't even think of it like that.

I just see it as - he does something I like - he gets rewarded for it. So he does it again. And we are both happy. I don't have to micromanage/give lots of cues, he still does what's "right". 

And, especially given his personality, if he actually does refuse to do something - the last thing in my mind is going to be "I feed you so you do what I want, never mind what you see/hear/smell/sense."

What enters my mind is "what's up? what's going on?" Anything from like that scenario to something as mundane as him not staying on his bed because he hears the tea kettle whistling or oven beeping and he's trying to tell me to go get it you forgetful idiot.


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

I think it all comes down to knowing your dog, I can't explain it to someone else... Esp on an online forum LOL how I "know" when they are disobeying foe a reason & when they are not. "Im excited, I don't want to stay while you unclip the leash" (they are on tie down at the barn during the morning for their safety & the safety of the riders/horses) is not acceptable. Barking after a command to quiet os cause for checking out, exp with Izze. She never disobeys without a reason... Jo does sometimes, she is a rebellious, aggravating teenager :S.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

I agree that it comes to knowing your own dog(s). Basically, everything in training comes down to that. I think of myself as being a "Wally trainer". I.e. take his personality and demeanor as #1 above anything else and tailor every other dog training "rule" towards that. Sounds like you do the same with your crew.


----------

