# Competition Obedience and Posit. Reinf. training Discussion



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

I enrolled in the local dog club competition obedience class for 'attention.' The instructor is correction based, and she uses collar corrections to get the dog to return her attention to the handler. While she does not preclude positive reinforcement from her class, she obviously is "against" using this tool. This particular instructor has the handler pop the dog's collar if the dog looks away. 

Her competition obedience Golden Retriever that she uses as an example is absolutely focused and appears to be "happy" (tho I question his expression.. ). It seems he is more afraid to look away as he is heeling than happy.. he is a bit wall eyed.. and he absolutely does not take his eyes off his handler _no matter what!)_ It seems artificial.. tho outwardly to the untrained eye you might be very inclined to say, "Look at that happy, fcoused, dog." He seems more robotic than happy.. tho I will say his tail is not down or between his legs. I may be wrong. He may be happy.. but there is something there that seems unnatural. 

She describes this as a "game" where the dog looks away and the handler pops the dog and makes a big fuss when the dog looks back.. sort of an "Oooh.. you looked away.. GOTCHA!" She says that dogs shut down because we allow it. If your dog looks submissive because it has been popped, her thinking is that the owner is allowing the dog to take that stance and that stance should not be played into or allowed. Dogs quickly determine that taking such a stance "ends work." I don't know about THAT.. and those are her words, not mine.

I mentioned the clicker to her and she said you can shape behavior w/o a clicker.. and while I think you can, it would seem to me the clicker makes it ever so much faster and easier once the dog gets the idea (and the handler does too). 

I understand we are always competing with the environment for our dog's attention. We cannot always be more interesting than the "stuff" out there. For competition the dog is supposed to look at the handler's face during heel work. 

Realizing the limitations of both correction based training and positive reinforcement based training, what is suggested for training attention retention through an entire competition obedience Trial test/class? I have been using Pos. Reinf. and a clicker.. increasing duration etc. and I have it in most situations with intermittant reinforcement and jackpots. If the environment really calls, my dog answers and loses focus and attention by watching and the clicker and I can be hanged LOL. 

In another class I am taking, we are training moves (recalls, remote stays, heel position etc. etc.). One of the owners has a lovely GSD dog (W. German lines). In a long remote sit/stay the other night, her dog decided to lay down. The dog's handler said "uh uh" not very loudly and her dog immediately took a very submissive stance.. ears down.. sad submissive look etc. This says to me this dog has been over corrected and under rewarded. It also says to me the dog has no idea why it was corrected or what it has done.. just that "uh uh" is followed by something unpleasant from the handler. This is exactly what the instructor in the other class said you shoud not "allow..." 

Ultimately, some of this I find confusing. I try not to pass any confusion on to my dog. Even with her lack of attention, she is a happy soul who believes in flinging herself thru exercises (people laugh at her when I ask for a lie down.. she _throws_ herself on the ground and looks at me truly happy to have done this). 

Sooo.. here is the question:
What in the heck does the one instructor mean by "not allowing a dog to shut down?" Anyone here heard of this? (I am going to ask so I will be making a report in a week). 

Do you think it is possible that a dog can view leash pops as a "gotcha" game? 

If I want to use Pos. Reinf. to train a dog in competiton obedience and to train for attention in all distractions, how do I use this methodology to better compete with the environment for that face watching attention? I have been spitting food at my dog.. and that has helped a lot.. especially with the food being grilled steak, chicken etc. 

BTW my dog has awesome attention in most places.. but competition obedience attention is very very intense. I have taught her an attention word ("attention" is the word) and she does understand that cue and she does it in most situations. Now I want it in ALL situations.... 

Book suggestions, DVD's etc. are welcome. I cannot watch U-tube (blocked at work and dial up at home).


----------



## TooneyDogs (Aug 6, 2007)

Oh, jeez...you hit my hot button!
Let me start by saying you've got a really good grasp of the situation. My instructors 
(me included) have used the "look away from me and I'll hurt you approach"....old school Koehler method. The long term results are not pretty. The dogs become robotic and 'burn out' early in their 'careers'. These same dogs often will not look at other people or dogs and only interact with a few special others.

Here's the kicker....it works. I'm fortunate to personally know and watch some of the USA World Team members and some of the highest scoring handlers in the country....they all use heavy correction. One of those handlers once asked me to be a post while she heeled her dog around me. The second the dog looked at me she grabbed the dog by the scruff of the neck with two hands and hoisted him in the air, screaming like he was about to die. 

After decades of competing I understand the choices and the reality of the alternatives. Heavy correction will produce more consistent show results. Positive usually produces a mixed bag...most days spot on and often sharing a placement with a World Team member and other days falling flat on your face.

For me, the scores and the placements are not that big a deal. Sure, I want our training to be solid/good and validated at trial but, far more important to me is our relationship and how I want to personally handle my dog. I do use light leash pops...that's as severe as I get. I'm a firm believer in instantly letting my dog know he made a mistake...whether that's a pop, an UTTT or a try again. 

Regarding shutting down....the instructor probably means the dog has to learn how work thorough the stress/continue to work even in the face of overwhelming distractions...shutting down is not an option. BTW, this is a common trap for those who use positive...helping the dog too much/handler becomes a 'crutch' and the dog becomes afraid to make a mistake...hasn't really learned how to cope.

Here's a tip...when the dog seems confused about the exercise don't make him muddle through it....sloppy/guessing. The confusion (and resulting stress) should always be relieved by asking the dog to do something simple like a sit or come to heel and then try to figure out why the dog is having a problem with that exercise. That eliminates one of the shut downs....dog being afraid to make a mistake.

I learned too late in my training that I should have let my dog make more mistakes...so he brought back the wrong glove...he went out and back with huge enthusiasm...why did I ruin it by yelling, WRONG! or UTTT. Right corrections at the right time....hard lessons to absorb. 

Traditional attention training often starts with doodling...the stationary exercises...then the moving exercises.....proofing every step of the way. Slow motion heeling with total eye contact. The leash is taut.....the dog has no choice but to look at you....can't lag, can't forge, can't go wide....they never learn how to heel any other way.


----------



## FourIsCompany (Apr 18, 2009)

Elana55 said:


> What in the heck does the one instructor mean by "not allowing a dog to shut down?" Anyone here heard of this?


Remember when I had scolded Jaia for howling in the morning and he then went around the corner and wouldn't come up to me? You said you wouldn't allow him to do that. You would give him something to do instead. That was great advice and I did that. That's how I interpreted "not allowing a dog to shut down". I could be wrong, but when I read it in your post, that's immediately what came to my mind. Not allowing the dog to be afraid or keep distance or sulk, but instead, giving him something to do that he would have to focus on. Not allowing him to "be" in his fear. 



> Do you think it is possible that a dog can view leash pops as a "gotcha" game?


I think it's _possible_, but it doesn't sound like a technique I'd be interested in without seeing some really good results that convinced me more than what you've explained. I think a dog views leash pops as an aversive correction. 



> If I want to use Pos. Reinf. to train a dog in competiton obedience and to train for attention in all distractions, how do I use this methodology to better compete with the environment for that face watching attention?


Work up to it. If your dog isn't giving attention even though he knows the word, then either you're too close to the distraction or the reward value isn't high enough. I'd try raw chicken livers, cut into pieces. You wouldn't want to spit them out of your mouth though.  I'd also move outside of the venue and approach it more slowly, getting attention in steps along the way.

One more thing. On +R vs +P, I use both. There's nothing that says it has to be one or the other. I use a *lot *more +R than +P, but it comes in really handy in some situations.


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

Tooney.. yes... I got it. I do not like that robotic thing but you have answered the one question everyone dances around.. can you get consistant results with Pos. Reinf. and the answer seems to be "some of the time...." If you 100% of the time you need to use correction based training but then the dog is operating for you from a different place. 

For both 4IC and Tooney.. she seems to think that if the dog is acting like that the handler is doing nothing wrong UNLESS they back off. Oh I think the thing to do is NOT get to a place where the dog is shutting down. Back off b4 it happens. Prevention is still 9/10ths of the cure. 

BTW I doodle my dog all the time. I do a lot of stuff. She is perfect attention about 98% of the time in stationary exrecises. And that is proofed anywhere. 

The training tool box is large. I don't discuss correction based training on the DF due to the real problems with abuse in bad hands.. NO result is worth abusing the dog IMO. 

I have been using COOKED liver.. the raw is nasty to handle.. LOL and really nasty to spit.. 

I am thinking shorter sessions and a very hungry dog in high distraction to build the behavior.... (I can feed her after training.. which is what I do now but I can skip her morning food too).


----------



## FourIsCompany (Apr 18, 2009)

Elana55 said:


> I don't discuss correction based training on the DF due to the real problems with abuse in bad hands..


I don't either, not any more. Not on the public board. But it's not because of the fear of abuse. It's because I got tired of being ganged up on.  It's too bad, too. Because now the people who would use corrections don't discuss it - They'll just use them and perhaps improperly and perhaps when a reinforcement could have been used.


----------



## CatintheHat (Jun 7, 2009)

Elana55 said:


> Do you think it is possible that a dog can view leash pops as a "gotcha" game?


Absolutely not. By definition in order for +P to be effective it has be intense enough to decrease the behavior. Game = +R = increased frequency of behavior. Your trainer has demonstrated deficient understanding of operant conditioning. 



Elana55 said:


> If I want to use Pos. Reinf. to train a dog in competiton obedience and to train for attention in all distractions, how do I use this methodology to better compete with the environment for that face watching attention? I have been spitting food at my dog.. and that has helped a lot.. especially with the food being grilled steak, chicken etc.


Spitting food rewards at a variable rate of reward is excellent. Stinky cheese has great power. High-value toys stuffed into the shirt can also be very effective for toy-motivated dogs, but tend to encourage a ringsport-style heel. 

If your dog is breaking focus to respond to a distraction, then you are working too close to the distraction. Back off to the edge of the reaction radius, desensitize and counter-condition to reduce the reaction radius. 

If as a last resort you decide to to hit the other axis, then -R to regain attention would be preferred to +P for distraction.


----------



## txcollies (Oct 23, 2007)

Ah, this should be interesting... it's always fun when the non competing people try to figure out why the competing people do what they do. ;-)

Too bad you can't watch the vids, but if you go to youtube and type in 'rally judge' you will find some truly excellent attention training videos.


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

txcollies said:


> Ah, this should be interesting... it's always fun when the non competing people try to figure out why the competing people do what they do. ;-)
> 
> Too bad you can't watch the vids, but if you go to youtube and type in 'rally judge' you will find some truly excellent attention training videos.


FWIW I always had dogs that were pets. My last dog worked on the farm and now I want to compete mostly because the dog has given me every indication SHE wants to do it. 

She actually sits and stares at me and and has dilated pupils (she dilates when she is excited) when I start to work her. I want to get the precision down and she seems to strive for it. She also gets the shakes in anticipation (not the scared shakes) when she sees agility equipment. 

No farm anymore.. time to up the ante on the trainer (me) and compete. 

No.. I cannot get to U tube. Not unless I go to the "libarry" in town and then lots of luck getting on a puter. Besides.. when I am home I have so much to do here. Tonight I tried to get her to push the lawn mower.. and she would do it but not in any straght lines. She prefers something sort of like the flight of the bumble bee....

So, here I am working to get a competition dog going. I want to be efficient and consistant and I am trying to understand IF this trainer has merit in her ways and IF I can use any part of her methods to train formal obedience and whether or not her methods will put me at a disadvantage in Agility. 

I am not looking to lick the world.. I am looking to get a solid performance on this dog and learn from her so I can do a better job with the next dog... 

W/O the farm, I don't have a real job for my dog so competition is going to have to be the job. Formal obedience requires a lot of precision.. and since I used to train dressage I think it is a good fit. My dog acts like it is fun and seems to love it.

Agility is fast paced and also requires accuracy and the dog LOVES it.. it is like a Grand Prix jump course at the higher levels.. so I think I can get into that too. 

The Attention class is my first class leading up to competition level work. I would like to get it.. but I dont want a robotic dog either.. Dressage horses are highly trained and are anything BUT robotic.. and so that is what I am shooting for. Fluidity and precision in the obedience ring. 

Does any of this make any sort of sense?????


----------



## Lonewolfblue (Oct 28, 2007)

Elana55 said:


> For competition the dog is supposed to look at the handler's face during heel work.


Actually, if I'm incorrect, someone correct me, but I do not believe the dog needs to look at you when heeling. Yes, it looks great (my Chloe looks up at me while heeling, but Nell looks forward) and I love watching dogs that are really focused on the handler like that, but I don't think it is a requirement. My trainers Border Collie is going for her Utility now, but in the Obedience and Rally when she's heeling, she's looking at her handler some of the time and sometimes not. But she knows where she is and heels perfectly. Looks up just go be sure she's in the correct position and then sometimes looks forward as they are heeling. Dogs do have a wider angle of view than we humans do, so she still knows where she is in heeling when she's looking forward or making quick glances at my trainer.


----------



## txcollies (Oct 23, 2007)

Ancient but not dead said:


> Just a question for you training wizards from a rank amateur: why in this case is it a choice between positive and negative methods and not a combination of both ?


GOOD question. I use both on my dogs. IMO, a balanced training approach is the best.


When mine look away during heeling, they get a 'gotcha tag' on the shoulder or butt, or a light bump with my knee, or motivational collar pop, the list is endless and it's all FUN TO THE DOG. They don't view a correction as bad, it drives the harder to work.


----------



## FourIsCompany (Apr 18, 2009)

txcollies said:


> When mine look away during heeling, they get a 'gotcha tag' on the shoulder or butt, or a light bump with my knee, or motivational collar pop, the list is endless and it's all FUN TO THE DOG. They don't view a correction as bad, it drives the harder to work.


You know... I can see this working. As was mentioned in the first post. I thought it would be possible, but I'd love to see this in action. I can see how it could work if the dog was motivated to do a great job and "slipped up" by looking away. Very interesting.


----------



## txcollies (Oct 23, 2007)

re: head up heeling - if your dog offers it, GREAT! Train it and use it. If not, teach an easier focal point. They do NOT have to heel looking at your face.

4iC - look at Rally Judge's utube and you can see a video on motivational collar pops and tagging during heeling.


----------



## melgrj7 (Sep 21, 2007)

Lloyd has excellent attention during heel, and any time we are doing obedience. I mean excellent. He stares a hole into my head. I started with 100% positive and stayed with it until we were fairly far into training. Then I used corrections. When heeling if he looked away I gave a quick sharp pop on the leash and reminded him to heel. That seemed to get him that extra little farther that I couldn't seem to do with positive only. If you give a correction correctly you should only need to do it once or twice in that situation. I also do lots of random crap too so he wants to watch me to see whats going to happen next. I will randomly pull a tug or ball out of a pocket or throw a ton of treats into the air, or say "ok" and then run away from like a crazy person or tackle him (play). With all that though we still were not quite there, and thats where the corrections came in.

Lloyd loves obedience, he is happy to do it, infact he chatters and can barely contain himself he gets so excited when we start. I used corrections on him (and lots of positive reinforcement) and he still loves it. A lot of times my corrections are simply saying "nope" now. 

He has time to be a dog and look around and watch things, but when I ask for his attention he has to give it to me. I work to earn my living, this is how he earns his, its his job and he needs to do it. We haven't been able to compete yet due to there being few if no mixed breed trials in the area, but the trainer I work with is very critical on us now. He has competed many times with several dogs and says we would have no problem going far.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

I'll preface my statements by saying I don't do competitive obedience, but I feel comfortable enough with the subject to offer some feedback. 


Elana55 said:


> Realizing the limitations of both correction based training and positive reinforcement based training, what is suggested for training attention retention through an entire competition obedience Trial test/class?


What is suggested for training attention in competition obedience is crystal clear communication. That means breaking down a chain of behaviors bit by bit to communicate what is and what is not wanted with each bit. This kind of communication is difficult to achieve if 'yes' and 'no' can't be communicated in such a way to avoid conflict and be informative. Easy to write, but much more difficult to practice off of a word description. 



> The dog's handler said "uh uh" not very loudly and her dog immediately took a very submissive stance.. ears down.. sad submissive look etc. This says to me this dog has been over corrected and under rewarded. It also says to me the dog has no idea why it was corrected or what it has done.. just that "uh uh" is followed by something unpleasant from the handler.


I believe in the obedience world this is called "conflict". The dog is, really, not sure what is expected, and yes, a strong reliance on compulsion will cause the dog to hazard avoid when in conflict. 



> What in the heck does the one instructor mean by "not allowing a dog to shut down?" Anyone here heard of this? (I am going to ask so I will be making a report in a week).


I believe this means never allowing the dog to rehearse an incorrect response. If the dog downs upon a cued sit he is immediately corrected to perform sit. Neither here nor there at face value since a down can be corrected with a lure or by force. But since you said this was a "correction based" trainer I would assume by force. 



> Do you think it is possible that a dog can view leash pops as a "gotcha" game?


It's possible but unnecessary IMO. I suppose the leash pop can be conditioned as a cue for attention and, assuming the holy grail of behavior, the dog could find interaction with his handler reinforcing. But this, again, would need great communication without conflict and a long history of reinforcement for this to be possible. Possible, yes. Practical...it depends. 


> If I want to use Pos. Reinf. to train a dog in competiton obedience and to train for attention in all distractions, how do I use this methodology to better compete with the environment for that face watching attention?


Condition a verbal NRM and secondary reinforcer, and break the behavior down bit by bit using the NRM and SR to communicate the desired behavior, and Premack the living heck out of the behavior.

IMO the challenge in moving from basic obedience to competitive obedience is seeing behavior as bits and not lumping behavior such that your criteria exceeds the bits. 



> Book suggestions, DVD's etc. are welcome. I cannot watch U-tube (blocked at work and dial up at home).


IMO this is precisely what you're looking for, expensive, but possibly invaluable...
http://www.caninetrainingsystems.com/cgi-bin/shopper.cgi?preadd=action&key=V-SCH-BAL-1

Ivan is likely the most successful and progressive obedience, Shutzhund, and ring sport handler.


----------



## TooneyDogs (Aug 6, 2007)

Shutting down at the worst level is the dog literally freezing in place...not doing anything..extremely reluctant to do even the the simplest command...really stressed/really confused.

A lower level of shutting down is moving at a snails pace (afraid to make a mistake...waiting for the handler to 'help' with the exercise) or, it might be stress...might be confusion...might be lack of confidence... or a lack of proofing/training the exercise properly. That's why obedience is so much fun....trying to figure out the why.


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

Shutting Down:
I know what it is, but the trainer in this class was referring to the dog taking a submissive stance (ears down, tail tucked, head down etc.) immediately after being corrected. It sounds like she was really talking about playing into the submissive stance and reinforcing it as a behavior which preceeds quitting work. Like I said.. a question I will ask. I will also say that this trainer has trained more than one dog to Utility and gotten all the legs. 

However, in looking at it I am thinking she is misrepresenting a dog shutting down. Maybe not.. but in my experience a shut down dog will not respond to cues. It is also my opinion that the best way to not have this happen is to act in such a way that it does not (prevention). The dogs I have observed usually give signals they are going to shut down b4 they do it unless the trigger is sudden trauma (causing sudden fear). 

As far as exhibiting an incorrect response, there is no guideline in this class so far. If the dog does the wrong thing you do it over until you get it right. Meanwhile I try to set the dog up for success so I am nto asking for too much. 

Moving further from the distraction:
Iis not possible in a training room with dogs, people etc. around to always move further away. IOW's I agree with the advice, but if I am training indoors and the door is open and an agility class is going on outdoors and my dog refocuses her attention from me to the agility class during a heel at a walk past the door.... there is no moving further away (we do eventually.. but I need to work thru that distraction). What I am thinking of doing instead (because there is class room for this) is speeding up my pace for a few strides. In stationary exercise, I am thinking of doodling.. if I can... so that her back is to whatever she is looking at. 

A sort of funny thing that happens.. we do mirror work where I watch her in the mirror. Well this dog sees the mirror and first admires herself and then meets my eyes IN THE MIRROR... I have a hard time doing anything about this. She IS giving attention but doing it in a unique way that, IMO, shows a very good power of observation and (perhaps) intelligence. Correcting her for giving attention by looking at my face in the mirror is something I am loathe to do, so I do not. 

Thanks for the link CP. That site has some other things that are very good too (I think) albeit pricey.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

txcollies said:


> Ah, this should be interesting... it's always fun when the non competing people try to figure out why the competing people do what they do. ;-)
> 
> Too bad you can't watch the vids, but if you go to youtube and type in 'rally judge' you will find some truly excellent attention training videos.


I try to stay out of this stuff because as an X handler who in no way would discuss methods used to finish a field champion do agree it is interesting indeed.



> re: head up heeling - if your dog offers it, GREAT! Train it and use it. If not, teach an easier focal point. They do NOT have to heel looking at your face.


Now doing just the training of simple commands for the average owner, heel, sit, down, stay, come and not in obedience competition mind set. I do have something interesting to add, since I am in the sit means sit business some dogs when finished will heel and sit and do all the work and never take eyes off me and have an extreme focus on me. The type of dog taken into obedience competition would look great. When owners ask why the dogs do this I just tell them it's the individual style of that dog, not really anything that I did. I will say maybe one out of every 10 dogs trained ends up like this and it's not something I strive for, as in 30 days so much to do, so little time to fool with niceties. I have only one obedience title in my resume so I just dabbled in it. I think that people that are interested in this type of work got to dive in and feel the pressures in competition for dogs and handlers and then trying to work as a team. In bird dog trials I saw some marvelous (great) dogs that never attained a title because of bad handlers and inferior dogs that did get titled by great handling. Just throwing this out here to confuse the issue.


----------



## skelaki (Nov 9, 2006)

txcollies said:


> GOOD question. I use both on my dogs. IMO, a balanced training approach is the best.
> 
> 
> When mine look away during heeling, they get a 'gotcha tag' on the shoulder or butt, or a light bump with my knee, or motivational collar pop, the list is endless and it's all FUN TO THE DOG. They don't view a correction as bad, it drives the harder to work.


Another vote for a balanced approach, positive in the training phase but the use of appropriate corrections in the proofing stage.


----------



## FourIsCompany (Apr 18, 2009)

txcollies said:


> 4iC - look at Rally Judge's utube and you can see a video on motivational collar pops and tagging during heeling.


I looked but there are so many results. Do you have a particular video in mind and could you post a link? I'm VERY interested in Rally for the pup I'm getting next year and would love to see this technique.


----------



## Foyerhawk (May 7, 2009)

You can sometimes get away with this technique, especially with a dog like a Golden Retriever. But, I don't suggest it- and it's a great way to ruin a more sensitive and intuitive dog (like a Whippet, or even some Goldens).


----------



## txcollies (Oct 23, 2007)

Foyerhawk said:


> You can sometimes get away with this technique, especially with a dog like a Golden Retriever. But, I don't suggest it- and it's a great way to ruin a more sensitive and intuitive dog (like a Whippet, or even some Goldens).



What technique? I didn't see anything negative about anything posted. One of our greats in obedience uses a similar type method to teach attention (collar pop) and hundreds of different dogs besides her own come out smiling, happy, attentive and eager for more. Usually it's how you present it, I know of a COLLIE (long since thought to be too soft for obedience) who trains with very, very old fashioned methods. This dog is FANTASTIC and LOVES to train, LOVES to show, LOVES LOVES LOVES it. The dog and her owner are tightly bonded as a team. 

Yes, some dogs can take some methods. As you train you learn what works for you and your dog.

4IC here ya go - 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0yWM3qj2DY
'tagging' during heeling


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPAgAOm47NE
motivational collar pops 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPhHuoWUplc
attention, focus and no sniff

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqTYhBcDrv8
heeling and focused attention (this dog is just a beginner, so they are taking it slow)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8qCFD4jMAI
attention heeling practice and halt/sit footwork demo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrRrp1QYYqA
teaching basic attention


----------



## Corteo (Jan 7, 2009)

Ancient but not dead said:


> Just a question for you training wizards from a rank amateur: why in this case is it a choice between positive and negative methods and not a combination of both ?





txcollies said:


> GOOD question. I use both on my dogs. IMO, a balanced training approach is the best.





skelaki said:


> Another vote for a balanced approach, positive in the training phase but the use of appropriate corrections in the proofing stage.


Yes, yes, yes. This is what I do. Nice to see that I'm not the only one!


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

It's not so much a question of positive or negative in competition obedience as it is a question of reinforcement and punishment. "Balanced", in a training sense, means using punishment equally with reinforcement. From a logical standpoint this can be problematic since we want more behavior (you can only get behavior from reinforcement) than the dog understands is required of him. So, you want to weigh heavily on reinforcement, not punishment, and not be "balanced". I don't think people understand what they are saying when they admit to being a "balanced" trainer.


----------



## Lonewolfblue (Oct 28, 2007)

Those are some awsome videos. Going to look through all the Rally videos as well.


----------



## FourIsCompany (Apr 18, 2009)

My definition of "balanced training" means that I use all quadrants of operant conditioning, plus classical conditioning, observational learning, social learning and other learning theories in my training. I understand exactly what I and others are saying.  

I have never before heard of balanced training meaning to use punishment and reinforcement in equal amounts. That's really kind of silly. There's a lot more to training than these 2 options.


----------



## txcollies (Oct 23, 2007)

Curbside Prophet said:


> It's not so much a question of positive or negative in competition obedience as it is a question of reinforcement and punishment. "Balanced", in a training sense, means using punishment equally with reinforcement. From a logical standpoint this can be problematic since we want more behavior (you can only get behavior from reinforcement) than the dog understands is required of him. So, you want to weigh heavily on reinforcement, not punishment, and not be "balanced". I don't think people understand what they are saying when they admit to being a "balanced" trainer.


I can't speak for the other trainers, but I'm not a "50/50" trainer. My dogs aren't "punished", I do correct and help them and I do teach them to take responsibility. And yes, I understand perfectly what I am saying when I am balanced. I'm not sure how someone who doesn't have any experience in training competition dogs (or maybe dogs in general) could be 100% sure about balancing positive/negative until they have tried it themselves. 

Corteo -no, there are a few of us. It's just that, as you can see, we aren't popular so we tend to lay low.  I'm not one of the 'rainbows and cookies only' type of trainers. ;-)

lonewolfblue - the videos are good for people who want to get into rally or obedience.  Epecially those who re training alone.

FIC - you are right, it is kind of silly. ;-)


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

txcollies said:


> I can't speak for the other trainers, but I'm not a "50/50" trainer. My dogs aren't "punished", I do correct and help them and I do teach them to take responsibility. And yes, I understand perfectly what I am saying when I am balanced. I'm not sure how someone who doesn't have any experience in training competition dogs (or maybe dogs in general) could be 100% sure about balancing positive/negative until they have tried it themselves.


I never said I didn't have "any" experience with competition obedience.  I said I don't *do* competition obedience. If it makes you feel better, I've audited and participated in classes and feel comfortable with the subject as I stated previously, but you're not qualified to judge my experience so say no more on it. Since you didn't define "balanced", I'll just assume your definition is meant only for you. But this doesn't help the discussion.

If I can find it, I'll point you to an article that I read recently which defined 'balanced'. Using learning theory to define balanced certainly is within reason, but more to my point...people don't understand what they are saying when they use the term, perhaps because they are not familiar with the terms of learning theory. Because, if you don't "punish" your dog, you are not balanced from a learning theory POV, correct? Really, it's a good thing.


----------



## FourIsCompany (Apr 18, 2009)

Elana55 said:


> She describes this as a "game" where the dog looks away and the handler pops the dog and makes a big fuss when the dog looks back.. sort of an "Oooh.. you looked away.. GOTCHA!"


After watching a few of the videos that txcollies posted (thanks!) I decided to see how Jaia would respond to this and he LOVES it! When I started playing with him, his ears came up. and he started dancing around and paying GREAT attention to me! After a few "pops" with my hands, his attention was better than ever and he looked excited. I can't wait to work more with this. 

I knew Jaia would be the perfect subject because of his strong will. I'll have to be easier with B'asia at first because she's a little more "tender" but I'm going to have some fun with Jaia.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

> I never said I didn't have "any" experience with competition obedience. I said I don't *do* competition obedience. If it makes you feel better, I've audited and participated in classes


If I assume that auditing and participating in classes means just that. It's not competition. If I have made a mistake I apologize, but the adrenalin and mindset that occurs in competition can only be surmised but never felt by auditing an actual competition. Handlers and dogs are different in competition unless they are both robots. Many years ago I had young GSP that when turned loose during a training session would run like a (excuse the expression) pooch. This would be off horseback and sometimes with other pro handlers riding along etc. (very similar to an actual field trial) The same dog when at a real live trial was an absolute firecracker. The training of the dog had nothing to do with this attitude because she was under 2 years of age and all you do is turn them loose. It's the actual competition that can bring out the best and worst.

To me the auditing is like watching some window washers up 20 stories on a scaffold and saying it doesn't look hard. Well from the ground it isn't hard, it's when you crawl out the window and get on the scaffold that it get's a mite hairy especially if it's a little windy. I know not a good comparison but it's something to think about.


----------



## DogGoneGood (Jun 22, 2008)

Oooh, I'm intrigued to see a discussion about corrections and such that doesn't end badly *knock on wood*.

A few months back I was working with a couple and their Golden Retriever and Dachshund. The owners told me that when they first got Sparky (the Dachshund) they brought him to a trainer who ended up telling them he was "untrainable". This dog is about 7 years old and had gone his entire life without knowing a lick of obedience. Obviously this hadn't been leading to the most stress-free life for the owners, or they wouldn't have called me in.

Apparently this trainer who told them Sparky was "untrainable" also told them he was extremely dominant and that they would have to be very firm with him when he acts up. After 20 minutes with this dog I had to step in and advise the owners to erase everything they'd been told about this dog because he was NOT dominant. The reason he was 'untrainable" was because he was a very timid dog being trained as if he was a hard-headed beast. Every time the owners corrected him he'd shut down completely. No wonder the previous trainer had no luck in training him, it's kind of hard to train a dog who's not really listening to you!

Anyway, I'm happy to say that after a month of working with Sparky using a lighter touch and more ENCOURAGEMENT he now knows the five basic commands and is a much happier dog with much happier owners.

The point to my story is that shutting down = bad. My definition of shutting down is when a dog becomes so stressed in training is goes off into it's own little world and is unable to focus on training due to this high level of stress.

So far I've seen two dogs do this. The first was Sparky who went into full shut down mode and the second was a husky who was STARTING to shut down and I had to step in and give a little pep talk to both owner and dog 

I don't think corrections are the way to get a dog from shutting down or to snap him out of it. The only thing that works, in my experience, is soft words, and lots of encouragement.

I consider myself a "balance trainer" but not strictly defined in the sense that I do completely equal parts to praise and corrections. I mean it in the sense of how FourIsCompany explained it. To me being balanced means you don't focus too heavily on one means (praise and treats or leash corrections and training collars). You use whatever works and is beneficial to the DOG.

Regarding the head up heeling; my older dog Coal who's treat trained does a lot of the head up heeling. I never taught it to him, he just does it because he's so food motivated that he's completely focused on any treat I may have. In fact he's SO motivated that I've seen him walk into things and trip because he's not watching where he's going! He has a sloppy heel, which I've been working on fixing and IS getting better but I don't think he'll ever be 100% perfect. Linkin, on the other hand, who was trained obedience using very little treat rewards and more praise and corrections has an excellent heel that is beautiful and practical (and he watches where he's going!). Personally, I'm not a big fan of the head up heeling, and like others have said, I really don't think it's REQUIRED in formal obedience.

I will have to watch the "Rally Judge" videos though, as I'm very interested to see them. I'm constantly searching for more tools to add to my trainers tool box, as you never know when you come across a dog who made need it to help better his learning experience!


----------



## txcollies (Oct 23, 2007)

wvasko said:


> If I assume that auditing and participating in classes means just that. It's not competition. If I have made a mistake I apologize, but the adrenalin and mindset that occurs in competition can only be surmised but never felt by auditing an actual competition. Handlers and dogs are different in competition unless they are both robots. Many years ago I had young GSP that when turned loose during a training session would run like a (excuse the expression) pooch. This would be off horseback and sometimes with other pro handlers riding along etc. (very similar to an actual field trial) The same dog when at a real live trial was an absolute firecracker. The training of the dog had nothing to do with this attitude because she was under 2 years of age and all you do is turn them loose. It's the actual competition that can bring out the best and worst.
> 
> To me the auditing is like watching some window washers up 20 stories on a scaffold and saying it doesn't look hard. Well from the ground it isn't hard, it's when you crawl out the window and get on the scaffold that it get's a mite hairy especially if it's a little windy. I know not a good comparison but it's something to think about.


That's exactly what I was going to say, thank you Mr Wvasko.  Trialing a dog, competing long term with it, is a totally different ballgame, even from training class.


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

later tonight.. dial up and all.. I will try to get those videos to run. If they do not I might have to borrow a neighbor's internet connection... 

Like I said.. I want my dog to do what I ask reliably and consistantly. For the most part she is very compliant. She is a star in her one class.. and not at the bottom of her class in Attention.. (about high middle). I want more and I want it better. 

This discussion is very interesting. I think that the business of having corrections in your training tool box is realistic for every dog trainer. It is the application of those corrections and what those corrections are that causes controversy. 

Remember.. I am taking this a step further than pet dog training by seriously looking at competition obedience. If you are going to try to title a dog you need some efficiency in time it takes to train.. especially if obedience is not the "end product.." but rather "A Product" in your dog's training and competition.


----------



## txcollies (Oct 23, 2007)

FourIsCompany said:


> After watching a few of the videos that txcollies posted (thanks!) I decided to see how Jaia would respond to this and he LOVES it! When I started playing with him, his ears came up. and he started dancing around and paying GREAT attention to me! After a few "pops" with my hands, his attention was better than ever and he looked excited. I can't wait to work more with this.
> 
> I knew Jaia would be the perfect subject because of his strong will. I'll have to be easier with B'asia at first because she's a little more "tender" but I'm going to have some fun with Jaia.


Remember, if he looks away while heeling, DON'T lure him back, "tag" him and do the whole "where did you go? blah blah bit" and then try again. The tag should be very light, like a 'gotcha' on the shoulder, butt, etc. 

The motivational collar pops are SUPER. Go slow in teaching them, and get them solid, and you should be very happy with what you see.


----------



## FourIsCompany (Apr 18, 2009)

I meant "tag", actually, in my last post. I just got the nomenclature mixed up.  I haven't done anything with "pops" yet. LOL

I have used many touch techniques in training, but it never occurred to me to do this. I don't know why - it seems very natural.


----------



## txcollies (Oct 23, 2007)

one interesting point about those 100% pure positive clicker dogs that people like to think about getting into the ring one day is, they might do fine during open, novice, et. But they hit Utility/UDX/OTCH work and start falling apart in the ring. Someone on my obedience list is having this trouble with a friend and her dog right now The dog is 100% clicker, he started off brilliant and is now crashing. He's loosing enthusiasm, precision and attitude once they started on their UD. They blame it on "stress", "not understanding' or "i moved too fast" but there comes a point during most dog's lives where you have to insist, sweetly, that this is something they must do whether they feel like it or not. 

I didn't explain it very well, but if you ask the same question on the obedience lists you get get a much better explanation. ;-)

Elana, I feel your pain about dial up. That's all we can get out here, and getting a comp at the library is almost IMPOSSIBLE.


----------



## FourIsCompany (Apr 18, 2009)

I think it would be an interesting experiment to raise a dog with 100% clicker and positive reinforcement. And I know people who are really close to that. But I will never do it. And I can see how it wouldn't be effective in heavier competition. 

To me, a dog trainer (or owner) provides the metaphorical roadside "curbs" along the dog's path on his journey. If the dog goes too far to one side, the trainer comes along and pats him lovingly back onto the road. If he goes too far the other way, the same result. If he stays on the road on his own, the reinforcement is good and plenty. Without curbs or with only one curb, the dog isn't sure where the path is. 

Reinforcement for staying on the road is great, but it's so much easier for him to wander off the road without "correctional" curbs there to signal "Oops, you're going too far". 

That's why I believe strongly in consequences, good and bad. *Loving, gentle* consequences. Because I believe they give the dog a clearer picture of what is expected of him. Using only positive reinforcement gives the dog only half the picture, in my opinion. And I want to give my dogs as much information as I have and as clear instruction as I can. One of those consequences is that if he knows what I'm asking of him and he chooses not to do it, then there will be a negative consequence. He remembers these negative consequences and it makes it easier for him to stay on the road in the future.  

Sorry for all the "woo-woo", but (for me) another aspect of being a balanced trainer is that it includes the spiritual as well as the scientific.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

wvasko said:


> but the adrenalin and mindset that occurs in competition can only be surmised but never felt by auditing an actual competition. Handlers and dogs are different in competition unless they are both robots...
> 
> To me the auditing is like watching some window washers up 20 stories on a scaffold and saying it doesn't look hard. Well from the ground it isn't hard, it's when you crawl out the window and get on the scaffold that it get's a mite hairy especially if it's a little windy. I know not a good comparison but it's something to think about.


You're speaking more towards someone's ability to train for competition, not necessarily how they will compete. Behavior is behavior, and although competition is not training, you get behavior during training. So I would not preclude someone's ability to compete based on whether they do competitions or not. Either they have the ability to train the dog for competition or they do not, and none of this is evident on the internets rolleyes, or worthy of discussion. 



txcollies said:


> one interesting point about those 100% pure positive clicker dogs that people like to think about getting into the ring one day is, they might do fine during open, novice, et.


"Purely positive" trainers don't exist, so ya, you won't be seeing them in the ring.


----------



## FourIsCompany (Apr 18, 2009)

There is something called "Purely Positive Dog Training". Google returns over 600,000 results. No, there is no such thing _in actuality_, as 100% positive, but the phrase has come to represent a style of dog training that avoids corrections at all costs. The nearly exclusive use of positive reinforcement (and negative punishment) with an "aversion" to positive punishment, correction, rules, the words "no", pack leader, etc., is what is meant by "purely positive" dog training. It posits that using corrections and punishment has a negative effect on one's relationship with his dog. And I disagree with it completely.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

There are likely as many "purely positive" trainers as there are "balanced" trainers, and they multiplied together approach zero.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

txcollies said:


> one interesting point about those 100% pure positive clicker dogs that people like to think about getting into the ring one day is, they might do fine during open, novice, et. But they hit Utility/UDX/OTCH work and start falling apart in the ring. Someone on my obedience list is having this trouble with a friend and her dog right now The dog is 100% clicker, he started off brilliant and is now crashing. He's loosing enthusiasm, precision and attitude once they started on their UD. They blame it on "stress", "not understanding' or "i moved too fast" but there comes a point during most dog's lives where you have to insist, sweetly, that this is something they must do whether they feel like it or not.
> 
> I didn't explain it very well, but if you ask the same question on the obedience lists you get get a much better explanation. ;-)
> 
> Elana, I feel your pain about dial up. That's all we can get out here, and getting a comp at the library is almost IMPOSSIBLE.


That's basically what I'm trying to get across, every dog that I campaigned was forcebroke to retrieve, it was a savage routine they use the term force because it was force. No trainer at that time was going to leave it to chance whether his dog called back for the wing, shot and kill of a bird and retrieve to hand just decided that day to not retrieve and maybe blow a national championship stake.

CP


> Either they have the ability to train the dog for competition or they do not, and none of this is evident on the internets (), or worthy of discussion.


I'm sorry I did not think before I wrote, (happens a lot with me) I thought it was worthy.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

wvasko said:


> I'm sorry I did not think before I wrote, (happens a lot with me) I thought it was worthy.


See, even I can teach a dinosaur a few tricks. No, it is never worthy to judge or discuss someone's ability over the internet...because, if you do not judge them correctly, or misinterpret their knowledge, it can be interpreted as a personal attack, and not the actual argument.

Carry on.


----------



## txcollies (Oct 23, 2007)

Curbside Prophet said:


> There are likely as many "purely positive" trainers as there are "balanced" trainers, and they multiplied together approach zero.


Whatever. 

I know of many 'fair, balanced & positive trainers'. Their dogs are wonderful to live with, reliable in the ring and they have proof that stands behind their training methods.

*I* (as well as most serious trainers) like to know what's behind someone who gives advice on competing/training for competition. I'm little inclined to listen to some trainer trying to tell me how to teach retrieves, or get ready for higher levels, or that 'this is blah blah' or 'that is blah blah' when they have never trained a retrieve, or said exercise, or anything like that.  

I like proof and experience. ;-) Not advice from people who just sit around reading training books, Clicker/OC books, peer review studies or anything else like that, train their pet to do some tricks and basic obedience, and have little experience what they think they are talking about. (no fingers pointed, but I know many people like this on the 'net)

And Elana, you might want to check out "Competition Obedience: a Balancing Act". These people crossed over from old school to positive methods, while still keeping it balanced. You should be able to inter library loan it, I got mine easily.

Read it, try it and see what you think and how it works for you.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

I've tried the "tag, gotcha!" game with Strauss, and he couldn't give a whit. He completely ignores it. I have to pop him up if he lags.

I get one of two reactions:
"Oh, sorry! HAI!"

or:
"Don't feel like it." *slug slug slug*


----------



## txcollies (Oct 23, 2007)

why don't you try to teach him motivational collar pop with your hand in the collar? I don't correct or guide much with the lead anymore...

Mr S can do it.  Is he trained through Utility yet? You better get on with it, he's not getting any younger.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

I've done it. He just becomes more resisitant.

I've given up on him in competition because he won't show. He barks and/or refuses to heel in the ring.

I'm trying to train through utility just to keep him learning, but he won't show.

Strauss seems to very much enjoy things when they're new. But once he knows the exercise, it becomes very boring to him, and no matter what I try to spice it up, he knows that the end result is the same "I still have to get the dumbell, so the rest of what we're doing doesn't matter."


----------



## txcollies (Oct 23, 2007)

He looks good in his vids. I think you underestimate him. He's brilliant.  You need alot of matches. 

There is an obedience/rally/herding conformation fun match the first of August down my way. Bring Delphi so I can meet her.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

Oh I know what he's capable of. We do need a lot of matches, but there are like, 2 a year where I live.

We could try the match down your way, and I'd bring Delly so you could see her.

Strauss has a TON of potential...but I'm having to jump through hoops to get it in practice (aside from the heeling), and I waste $30 going to shows when I take the lead off and he charges ahead of me and won't come back to heel...and barks...and refuses to do anything.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

Curbside Prophet said:


> "Balanced", in a training sense, means using punishment equally with reinforcement....I don't think people understand what they are saying when they admit to being a "balanced" trainer.


That definition of balance is grammatically correct, but the proper training balance will vary for individual dogs, and at different points in an individual dog's training. I'm fresh out of pithy analogies, but reward will receive greater weight with a sponge-brained pup vs. a seasoned dog.

You're balancing more than reward and punishment. You are also balancing the dog's intelligence, drive, and various aspects of the dog's temperament.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

txcollies said:


> *I* (as well as most serious trainers) like to know what's behind someone who gives advice on competing/training for competition. I'm little inclined to listen to some trainer trying to tell me how to teach retrieves, or get ready for higher levels, or that 'this is blah blah' or 'that is blah blah' when they have never trained a retrieve, or said exercise, or anything like that.


I'm not interested in your preferences. Your preferences are not the topic of discussion. 

We need some point of reference when discussing loosely defined terms. I offered mine, it is reasonable, and it can be used. The fact that you don't like it, or prefer it, is debatable, but again, not useful for the discussion. 

If you were to take anything away from how I defined the term and what it meant from a training perspective, it was, reinforcement should be weighted heavily in training as opposed to punishment. Not only from a 'get behavior sense' but also from an effectiveness and efficiency sense. Not a very difficult concept to deduce from all that I've said, and I doubt anyone disagrees. 



> I like proof and experience. ;-) Not advice from people who just sit around reading training books, Clicker/OC books, peer review studies or anything else like that, train their pet to do some tricks and basic obedience, and have little experience what they think they are talking about. (no fingers pointed, but I know many people like this on the 'net)


Ya, I'm not sure who you're characterizing but I don't see the point in discussing the qualifications of an imaginary person no one here knows. Frankly, I find banging one's head on the wall a better use of time. 



Ancient but not dead said:


> If somebody say's they 'balance' work and play, it does not mean they spend the same amount of time playing as working.


So balanced does not mean weighted equally? [sarcasm]Interesting...this must be that new math people are talking about.[/sarcasm] 



> If someone 'balances' an investment portfolio, it does not mean that it is 50% equities and 50% bonds.


Of course not, BUT their strategy is well defined in advance. You can't say the same with "positive" and "negative", standing on their own, in a discussion of the principles behind training. 



> When someone says they use a balanced approach to training dogs it seems pretty obvious to me that they are using a significant but not necessarily equal amount of both positive and negative methods.


 [sarcasm]As opposed to what? Hypnosis? Jedi force? Magic? Oh yes, I forgot...out of respect. [/sarcasm]



> Someone can define a word anyway he wants for the purposes of a magazine article, but that is hardly binding on the colloquial use of that word in other contexts.


Your question would be out of place then and off topic. Elena and the others before you were not using the terms in a colloquial sense. My definition of balanced would fit the terms as they were used. If we're going to use any arbitrary definition of 'balanced' in a discussion, how exactly are we to progress on any common path? [sarcasm]Head, meet wall. [/sarcasm]



Marsh Muppet said:


> I'm fresh out of pithy analogies, but reward will receive greater weight with a sponge-brained pup vs. a seasoned dog.


This would be a very interesting topic to discuss, as the holy grail of behavior is, behavior is the reinforcer. This being true, it would not be weighted differently for either dog, and heavy on reinforcement. Use it or lose it nature says. In fact saying such would imply a seasoned dog learns differently than a sponge-brained pup - it would be difficult to provide evidence for such an implication.


----------



## LoupGarouTFTs (Oct 27, 2007)

Theory is all well and good, but at some point experience must enter the mix. Eventually, "pure theory" must be put into practice to determine what works and what does not work with any given dog. Although operant conditioning theory might state a particular thing, dogs are not mechanism and their responses to stimuli will differ, in part based on their "drives."

I would never train my collie, for example, the same way I would train any of my TFTs. She is praise driven, while they are prey- and food driven. Not only that, but their varible sizes might make one training practice unusable or unreliable when used with the collie and not with the TFT, or vice versa. I can use the "toss the food between my legs and beyond" to train a fast, straight on recall with the TFTs, but because I am short I'd end up riding my collie in reverse if we tried that technique--if I could motivate her with the food in the first place. 

Neither would I train all of my TFTs in the same manner. My oldest TFT, Beau, has his own limits at which he shuts down and not all of these limits are based on corrections. I have to use some serious pops when training him and copious treats in order to keep him interested; however, he will do all of the tasks I ask of him and has never seemed anything but excited when we train together. One of my other males, however, has got such a soft temperament that any kind of pops send him cringing to the floor as if I'd beaten him with an iron rod. One of my females, Holly, loves to train but couldn't care less about getting the exercises right. The very first thing I ever taught her was how to "spin" and she loves doing it so much that she offers it every time she attempts to obey a command: "Holly sit!" (spin, sit), "Holly down!" (spin, down), "Holly come!" (spin, run, spin, sit). I kind of think it's funny and since I will never worry about competing with her, I 'm not going to worry about correcting it, but I can't imagine that a judge would be terribly amused.

Anyway, my point is that all dogs are different. Not every dog is going to respond the same way to any kind of training. At some point, theory must become practice in order to proof it.


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

When discussing Balance and making two things equal (imagining a scale here) weight is the 50-50 not volume. 

For instance, in my experience (and remember.. I have been training dogs awhile, but not with Operant conditioning etc.. I was a correction based trainer), a single well placed Aversive correction carries more weight than praise. 

So, what exactly are we balancing? Time? Numbers? Weight? 

IME we need to spend MORE *time* using Pos. Reinf. and very LITTLE *time* using an aversive correction to get the point across. Both need to be delivered at the correct moment but they do not carry the same WEIGHT in terms of need to repeat etc. 
Consideriung a result to be a score of 100, I am thinking here that CP is correct, Balance is a 50-50 thing leading to an even scale, but corrections have a higher specific gravity than do praise/treats/rewards. Therefore you spend more time with rewards and less or little time with corrections. They carry different weights per unit.... but the weight ends up being 50-50. Just a thought on this for the sake of discussion. In order to discuss this as a 50-50 thing we need to know what unit of measure. If the unit of measure is time, then it is not 50-50. If the unit of measure is dog attitude it CAN be 50-50 but usually not. 

Dogs do react differently to training. In that they are individuals. I know that.. no two are alike. Soft dogs, Dogs with 'drive,' hard dogs etc etc. A good trainer gets results regardless because they can read the dog and concentrate on handling that dog in a way that gets the best results. 

Thinking of what Xeph said about Strauss... Not all animals are cut out for competition level work. This does not mean they cannot be trained to do it, but they lack brilliance in the ring. In Staruss' case it sounds as if he is ring wise and is bored so he blows her off. He knows when the leash is off and the world is watching.... 

Had a horse.. bred for jumping (Hunter ring). Sent her for training to see what she would do. 60 days later the trainer returned the horse and told me.. "She CAN jump but she seems to see no point in it... she does it because she is asked to but she acts bored.." *sigh*

What I am getting out of this discussion so far is that 100% Pos. Reinf. combined with neg Punishment does not work consistantly.. that corrections need to be introduced at some point so the dog understands that even if he does not want to do it, do it he must. I am also getting out of this that Correction based (pos. punishment and neg. reinforcement) is not 100% relieble either. 

It seems it is all coming back to the very very old training adage of Reward AND Punishment to get a result. The amount of each and how they are applied is controversial.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

> Anyway, my point is that all dogs are different. Not every dog is going to respond the same way to any kind of training. At some point, theory must become practice in order to proof it.


Geeeze, don't you dare try to enter this thread with some common sense about actual dog-work experience.



> I'm not interested in your preferences. Your preferences are not the topic of discussion.


CP 
I hope you realize that other people on thread might be interested in different posters preferences whether it's the main topic of discussion or not.



> Either they have the ability to train the dog for competition or they do not, and none of this is evident on the internets (), or worthy of discussion.


This was your quote yesterday on what's worthy of discussion I will fight for your right to think of what's worthy and what's not, but a lot of posters have their own opinions on what's worthy. I for one am very interested when the discussion goes off theory and gets into the actual real life training of dogs. Yes this is the internet and not all posters may be exactly what they claim to be or what they claim to do, I don't mind the deciphering necessary to seperate the wheat from the chaff. Now my personal opinion is that there is a huge difference between dog trainers and competition dog trainers.



> It seems it is all coming back to the very very old training adage of Reward AND Punishment to get a result. The amount of each and how they are applied is controversial.


Like the above, my only change would be last sentence.

The amount of each and how they are applied is up to the dog being trained and the handler's expertise doing the work.


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

wvasko said:


> Geeeze, don't you dare try to enter this thread with some common sense about actual dog-work experience.


Wait... Common sense??? WaZat???? 



wvasko said:


> Now my personal opinion is that there is a huge difference between dog trainers and competition dog trainers.


There certainly is with horses and I have observed similar with dog trainers. 

I have noticed another thing.. a long time, consistantly winning, competition trainer is quite different than the flash in the pan (short time winner), or one dog wonder, competition dog trainer. 

I am trying to separate the two and adopt the tools for my tool box that work. 

Fact is, that is what I am trying to discern from the instructors I am dealing with. Are the techniques valid and if so, how is the best way to apply them?


----------



## FourIsCompany (Apr 18, 2009)

Elana55 said:


> IME we need to spend MORE *time* using Pos. Reinf. and very LITTLE *time* using an aversive correction to get the point across. Both need to be delivered at the correct moment but they do not carry the same WEIGHT in terms of need to repeat etc.


Yes! If a tiny lead pellet is on one side of the scale and a huge cotton ball on the other, the scale can still balance. I've said many times that I deliver _way _more rewards than punishments and you have stated that concept beautifully. 

My goal is a dog who is "balanced", by whatever formula of reward and punishment is suited to him or her, and by the use of various "tools" that have the desired effect on that balance. 

I know Karen Pryor defines balanced training as training that _"implies equal amounts of reinforcement and punishment"_. But without a unit of measure, this makes little sense. If she means one treat for every leash correction, I would have to disagree strongly. It doesn't make sense that someone would reward a dog for doing something good, and mark it down so they could be sure to look for the next opportunity to punish the dog to keep it even. 



> Dogs do react differently to training.


Absolutely. To get the same result from something all the time, we have to go to machines. Vending machines come to mind. And dogs are not vending machines any more than people are. 



> What I am getting out of this discussion so far is that 100% Pos. Reinf. combined with neg Punishment does not work consistantly.. that corrections need to be introduced at some point so the dog understands that even if he does not want to do it, do it he must. I am also getting out of this that Correction based (pos. punishment and neg. reinforcement) is not 100% relieble either.


I couldn't agree more! As usual, the *T*ruth is somewhere in the middle.  Extremes hold little truth. 

Elana, yours was an excellent post and very worthy of discussion.Thanks for the clarity!


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

Elana55 said:


> It seems it is all coming back to the very very old training adage of Reward AND Punishment to get a result. The amount of each and how they are applied is controversial.


This yet another instance of where the dog is in control of the process. A given dog can tolerate correction, or he can't. He is motivated by reward/praise, or he isn't. He has the native intelligence/drive/whatever to accept advanced training, or he doesn't. A dog will thrive under the pressure of competition, or he won't.

It would be great if we could accurately quantify all these factors, but we can't.


----------



## Cracker (May 25, 2009)

I just wanted to say I'm enjoying this discussion. I don't do competitive anything with my dogs, though would like to one day. I'm more focussed on well mannered pets (though I do deal with aggression, fear etc) so I cannot offer competitive training advice.

I do know of one trainer in Pennsylvania who deals with mill rescues who has her OTCH in rallyo with her rescue pom mix using positive methods (clicker, no P+). This dog was slated to be euthed due to extreme aggression (full on biter) and she rehabbed him and competes with him, successfully. I also know well an owner of a poodle mix that is used in retrieving and fieldwork who lives a totally off leash lifestyle who is VERY solidly trained using only R+. Unfortunately he is not welcome to competition in his field due to his mutt status.

Elana, you may want to check out the ClickerSolutions list on Yahoo. There are MANY positive competitive trainers on there. You can research a lot about positive methods of teaching/proofing competition behaviours there, but the caveat is that it is not a "balanced training" open forum like here so discussions of pros and cons of punishment/correction are not allowed, actually it works to keep threads on topic..lol.. It can be a valuable resource though for actual exercises and support of the science behind training which can be taken back and added to the toolbox.


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

We could quantify most things psychological, including learning, if all responses to theory were equal in intensity and duration. 

In most things the theory under labratory conditions will work most times and that is the foundation of much of learning theory. There are repeatable experiments with controls that support it. 

However, as with any scientific study, as we increase the number of variables, the reliability and consistancy of the result will change as well. 

Trust me.. I am all for reading about learning theory and putting what I can, whenever I can, into practice. The rub is just that.. the jump from academic discussion to real and actual application in an environment and on an animal with way more variables. 

Academics have the book learnin' but most do not have the practical application of same in the sea of real world variables.


----------



## Shaina (Oct 28, 2007)

Cracker said:


> I do know of one trainer in Pennsylvania who deals with mill rescues who has her OTCH in rallyo with her rescue pom mix using positive methods (clicker, no P+).


Kinda confused by this...by definition there is not such thing as an OTCH in Rally-O (OTCH being OBEDIENCE Trial Champion)...and further if it's a mix it couldn't have competed in AKC which is the venue with the OTCH title...


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Thank You Shaina
That's alright I'm confused most of the time, I thought the OTCH was Obed - Trial Champion and AKC does not allow mixed breed in that but so many things have changed I wasn't sure. It wouldn't surprise me now if they gave all owners the titles needed so they don't get their feelings and self esteem damaged.


----------



## TooneyDogs (Aug 6, 2007)

txcollies said:


> one interesting point about those 100% pure positive clicker dogs that people like to think about getting into the ring one day is, they might do fine during open, novice, et. But they hit Utility/UDX/OTCH work and start falling apart in the ring. Someone on my obedience list is having this trouble with a friend and her dog right now The dog is 100% clicker, he started off brilliant and is now crashing. He's loosing enthusiasm, precision and attitude once they started on their UD. They blame it on "stress", "not understanding' or "i moved too fast" but there comes a point during most dog's lives where you have to insist, sweetly, that this is something they must do whether they feel like it or not.


I tend to agree with the broad view of positive and the problems that can crop up later. I think the major 'fault' is that positive trainers tend to help their dogs too much and the dogs rely too much on that direction/encouragement/guidance. 

But, we need to tread carefully here as there are just as many dogs trained with other methods that can't make it through Utility.
According to the AKC only 1 dog out of 100 will make it to the Utility level from Novice. I've seen many dogs trained the Koehler way, that for one reason or another just couldn't do it, and not only for medical reasons and were retired after their CDX's.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

wvasko said:


> CP
> I hope you realize that other people on thread might be interested in different posters preferences whether it's the main topic of discussion or not.


I don't doubt that but I want to resist enforcing our forum rules on off-topic discussions...but will if I need to. Furthermore, no one in this forum is qualified to preclude who or who may not speak on a topic. I'm sure Elena would prefer all voices, not those you personally feel are appropriate, even if she disagrees with those voices. I trust Elena can wade through the muck on her own without your assistance. And...if I hear it one more time that so and so can't/shouldn't be listened to because they don't do competitive obedience, I will enforce our forum rules. Am I clear, now? 



> This was your quote yesterday on what's worthy of discussion I will fight for your right to think of what's worthy and what's not, but a lot of posters have their own opinions on what's worthy.


And they should have enough whereabouts to know when their opinions warrant a new thread or are not even the topic being discussed.



> I for one am very interested when the discussion goes off theory and gets into the actual real life training of dogs.


I can't find the logic, but if it were worthy, it would have it's own thread. 



> Now my personal opinion is that there is a huge difference between dog trainers and competition dog trainers.


And my personal opinion is that hasty generalizations are logically flawed and seldom evident.


----------



## FourIsCompany (Apr 18, 2009)

Elana55 said:


> I enrolled in the local dog club competition obedience class for 'attention.'


I have a concern about 'attention' taught with positive reinforcement. I have taught it using +R and I find when we are *not *training, and they want something that I have (like my dinner), they will stare a hole through me, trying to get that "reward". I don't mind this as I can ignore it. But I wonder if teaching 'attention' with +R only sets the dog up for ... basically failure. Because I'm not sure they know the difference between a training session and casual time. After all, when I ask for a sit, whether it be training time or not, I expect compliance. So, here at my dinnertime, we have a dog who is giving wonderful, rapt attention, in HOPES of getting a reward, but not getting rewarded for it, as he obviously thinks he will be. Won't that discourage him from paying rapt attention when I _want _it? Like in the ring? 

I can see how using a more specific form of training (like mixing reward with corrections) would result in a dog who knows that if I'm not asking for attention, he's not going to get rewarded. Because if he looks away from me at dinner, he's not going to get corrected, so he knows attention isn't being asked of him at that time. 

I don't know if I'm making sense to anyone here, LOL but this is the very essence of why I think corrections are necessary for specific behaviors, especially in competition. Because with +R only, if they DON'T do the specific behavior being asked, or they choose another behavior, there is no signal or consequence illustrating that.


----------



## TooneyDogs (Aug 6, 2007)

FourIsCompany said:


> I don't know if I'm making sense to anyone here, LOL but this is the very essence of why I think corrections are necessary for specific behaviors, especially in competition. Because with +R only, if they DON'T do the specific behavior being asked, or they choose another behavior, there is no signal or consequence illustrating that.


You're OK. We all struggle to wrap our training skills around this and get the dog to understand precisely what we want. We often have a hard time explaining to our instructors what's going on.

The attention you mentioned is probably the hardest. With +P our timing can be spot on by rewarding that eye contact after the briefest of glances at a distraction but, does the dog really understand that we want/need 99.999% focus the moment we step in the ring?


----------



## Dogstar (May 11, 2007)

Cracker, if the dog you'retalking about is the one I think she is, it's an ARCHX in APDT rally - not anywhere NEAR as competitive as an OTCH (still impressive, but just not in the same league. It's like comparing winning your district high school championships in track vs qualifying for the Olympics.)


----------



## Cracker (May 25, 2009)

You are right, it's ARCH (I went back and checked...told ya I didn't know a lot about the competitive world...lol). I should have run off and checked but was too lazy to open a new window (SLOWWWW computer).

She would love to do comp. obedience..but since Asher is a mixed breed that is just not possible. Too bad really. I bet there are a lot of fantastic mutts that could perform very well.

Either way, she's taken a dog that was severely mistreated and rehabbed it to compete under distractions that would normally cause this dog to BLOW up and in less than a year of RallyO completed her ARCH. And she (the handler) is one of those who doesn't even use non reward markers or "no' in her training as it shuts the dog down. She's as close to "purely positive" as they come.

As for FIC...many R+ trainers use what is known as a Non Reward Marker (NRM) to indicate the behaviour is not correct, or unwanted. Only behaviours that are CUED are rewarded, if the wrong behaviour is offered, which often happens when you are trying to shape or build a new behaviour, the NRM "eh" or "try again" or whatever verbal is used. The dog is still communicated with that the behaviour they offered was not correct, just not using a physical correction.

The expectation for focus is built into the training side to be done ON CUE and the behaviour is expected to continue until another cue is given, just like traditional training.


----------



## Shaina (Oct 28, 2007)

I suppose my greatest issue with the P+ heavy instructors and competitors that I know is the overabundance of euphemisms surrounding some of the methods. If you're going to apply an aversive to reduce a behavior, call it what it is. If you have a dog that handles it well and bounces right back and is ready for more, all the more power to you, but it's still a correction. That doesn't make it intrinsically evil, but it IS a punishment no matter how you look at it.

The "allowing" the dog to shut down discussion was interesting, and with some dogs and handlers I can see it being the case (depends on how you define "shutting down"), but that really seems like something you'd have to approach individually based on your dog. A lot depends on how important this sort of thing is to you...whether you are okay with taking your dog to the point of shutting down repeatedly to teach him/her to work through it...and even then, it takes the right dog. It seems most people in favor of that sort of thing work with primarily "traditional" obedience breeds.

Note: I make no claim to being a "purely positive" trainer. I train in such a way that works for my dogs and which is consistent with my priorities when it comes to them. I do not operate at the upper levels of competition (at this time) though I am fortunate enough to have frequent training/behavior discussions with those that do.



Cracker said:


> She would love to do comp. obedience..but since Asher is a mixed breed that is just not possible. Too bad really. I bet there are a lot of fantastic mutts that could perform very well.
> 
> Either way, she's taken a dog that was severely mistreated and rehabbed it to compete under distractions that would normally cause this dog to BLOW up and in less than a year of RallyO completed her ARCH. And she (the handler) is one of those who doesn't even use non reward markers or "no' in her training as it shuts the dog down. She's as close to "purely positive" as they come.


I'm glad to hear her dog has come such a long way, and hope she continues to progress. APDT is generally considered the most challenging of the four (that I know of) rally venues, though even the newest title (the ARCHMX) is not really comparable to the OTCH, at the very least because they have different evaluation criteria...namely that OTCH point accumulation depends largely on your placing compared to others in a trial, while ARCH/X/EX/MX points depend on your individual performance against an ideal, though the QQ and QQQ reqs make it quite difficult as well. Traditionally, the OTCH is also simply considered more prestigious.

If she wanted to do competitive obedience, however, she could compete in either UKC obedience or St. Hubert's, both of which are open to mixed breeds. AKC will (sort of) be open to mix breeds as well, starting in January 2010. I don't know much about St. Hubert's, but the UKC's obedience venue is well respected by competitive obedience people (outside of those who are completely and utterly AKC-blinkered).


Apologies to Elana since the second part is rather off-topic...


----------



## FourIsCompany (Apr 18, 2009)

Cracker said:


> As for FIC...many R+ trainers use what is known as a Non Reward Marker (NRM) to indicate the behaviour is not correct, or unwanted.


Yes, I use this, myself. I consider an NRM to be a correction. It's not physical, but a correction, nonetheless. And not all +R trainers use them by any means. 



> Only behaviours that are CUED are rewarded,


How does the dog know that? If he is sometimes rewarded for a behavior _without _a cue (as in the first time a behavior is taught, before the cue is added), how does he know that only cued behaviors are rewarded? 

He offers behaviors in hopes of a reward, not in response to a cue, and he gets a treat. 

Teaching a dog in the traditional way (pre-clicker), where you give a cue _before _somehow shaping the behavior, the dog would then know that only behaviors that are cued are rewarded. This is all part of the same concern that I've had about clicker training all along, but never had a venue to discuss it.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

This will be my last appeal. Any discussion relating to how trainers define/qualify their labels (in answering the question what is or why is a trainer purely positive, negative, balanced, or any other label, including what qualifies a trainer to discuss the topic) needs to move into a new thread. Any posts after this one will be deleted and repeat offenders will be banned.

ETA: This is not directed at anyone specific and if there's any confusion on this matter, please ask for clarification privately. Any further discussion on the above will be deemed OT.


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

CP (or other Mod.), please close my thread. 

I have deleted my subscription to it. Thank you to EVERYONE who replied.


----------

