# Is there a reservoir of bad feeling about dog training at PetSmart?



## workerant (Feb 28, 2011)

Last night I joined an informal dog-walking-and-obedience-practice group in a town park. One of the women is an accomplished Rally/Obedience/Treiball trainer. Toward the end of the evening, she asked me where we (my mostly-obedient dog Kenda and I) did our obedience school. I answered, "PetSmart."

She looked like I'd just shot her dog and proceeded to make bitter-beer faces and badmouth their trainers and their program. She was seriously unpleasant and it took me completely by surprise. The techniques PetSmart taught us are completely positive and reward-based. I have since learned other techniques that supplement what we learned there, but everything we did there has been useful.

Is she a one-off crank, or does PetSmart have a rep in the dog training world for being terrible?


----------



## RonE (Feb 3, 2007)

I think the training at PetSmart or PetCo will be exactly as good or bad as the individual trainer.


----------



## Tofu_pup (Dec 8, 2008)

It's a big chain. So it is going to vary from store to store, and from trainer to trainer(like RonE said).

*I* will not go there for classes because there are better classes available closer to my house.

I did get to watch one idjit squirting the overexcited dogs willy nilly while he was talking. The dog owners were getting increasingly frustrated with a rambunctious dog and water all over their shoes and pants. Bravo trainer, bravo.


----------



## workerant (Feb 28, 2011)

Of course the quality of training will vary by location and trainer. FWIW, I think we got good (not excellent, but good) training using sound principles. I am wondering if PetSmart has a widespread bad reputation. If not, I have to assume this well-respected trainer in my area is a bit of a crank with poor impulse control. I'm trying to give her the benefit of the doubt, but that's getting harder the more I think about it.


----------



## Poly (Sep 19, 2007)

workerant said:


> ... One of the women is an accomplished Rally/Obedience/Treiball trainer...


That's the money quote. Trainers who train for Rally/Obedience/....etc are not favorably inclined toward "pet trainers" because, generally speaking, the latter haven't competed with ot titled dogs in companion or performance events. And they do feel that such a qualification is meaningful in a training environment.

I absolutely agree that ALL training is only as good or as bad as the individual trainer. IMHO, knowing that a trainer has competed and titled dogs IS an important factor in evaluating how 'good' a trainer is. Not the only factor, but an important one. Other people may feel differently.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Some Petsmarts have very good trainers. Some don't. The same thing could be said of dog clubs and private sector trainers. I've had a couple of trainers offer classes at my facility who used to teach for Petsmart. Both of them are very competent. One of them is mentoring me to become a freestyle judge. Honestly, I think it is unprofessional to badmouth your competition. About the most I will say if asked about another trainer in my area is that I would, or would not recommend them. Or that their style is considerably different from my own.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Poly said:


> That's the money quote. Trainers who train for Rally/Obedience/....etc are not favorably inclined toward "pet trainers" because, generally speaking, the latter haven't competed with ot titled dogs in companion or performance events. And they do feel that such a qualification is meaningful in a training environment.
> 
> I absolutely agree that ALL training is only as good or as bad as the individual trainer. IMHO, knowing that a trainer has competed and titled dogs IS an important factor in evaluating how 'good' a trainer is. Not the only factor, but an important one. Other people may feel differently.


Really? I teach Rally/Obedience/etc but the majority of classes I teach are pet skills. I think it is great if an instructor has titled dogs, but I've also known some really good instructors who haven't (and some pathetically bad instructors who have). The ability to train a dog to a title tells you that person can get those skills on that dog. And some of the skills you need for that title may not be necessary for a well behaved pet. For instance, I put a lot more emphasis on loose leash walking than "heeling" for pet students. Heeling is a short term cued behavior. A dog who knows how to keep his leash loose without being told is a bigger prize. I'd rather see my pet students be able to call their dog away from a distraction or on the run than have them set the dog up on a sit, go out, call the dog and get a perfect front.
I DO think that if you are preparing students to compete in a competitive sport, it's important that you have titles in that sport. I have no titles in Treibball - just teaching that for a fun thing, but I do have titles in herding live critters. I teach an intro to Agility class that was put together for me by someone with multiple MACHs, but if someone wants to compete, I sent them to her, since I only nave novice titles and my skills to teach handling are not that good. Obedience and rally? No problem, as I've titled at the advanced levels in those sports.
I think instead that it is a matter of many trainers being very competitive about their market. I know even the local obedience club has told people who teach on their own that they can't come to class there. And I've had a few people come to my classes who were afraid to tell me that they were also dog trainers, because they were afraid I wouldn't allow them in my classes for fear they would "steal" my info. Quite honestly, if they're going to train dogs, it's my wish that they train with good skill and philosophy. And if they want what I have, welcome to it! One of those people is now teaching class at my school. And another, who used to work for the most adamantly collar-pop/no treats school in town, well, we were both almost in tears this week, watching her dog actually think through a problem that had previously been out of her reach. It's been a long trip for that dog who was afraid to try anything on her own.


----------



## Poly (Sep 19, 2007)

Pawzk9 said:


> Really? I teach Rally/Obedience/etc but the majority of classes I teach are pet skills. ....The ability to train a dog to a title tells you that person can get those skills on that dog. And some of the skills you need for that title may not be necessary for a well behaved pet. For instance, I put a lot more emphasis on loose leash walking than "heeling" for pet students. Heeling is a short term cued behavior. A dog who knows how to keep his leash loose without being told is a bigger prize..


Yes .. really. 

I also teach for competition, for therapy dog, and for basic pet behavior. I do know the difference between, for example, heeling, pet walking, and loose-leash control in therapy situations. In fact, I actually make a point of those differences when teaching them. 

i don't knock other trainers - even the ones on TV, or the ones that I consider are doing things wrong from the viewpoint of learning theory. But the fact that I don't criticize them explicitly doesn't mean that I agree with what they are doing. 

I am also sorry to say that I do not agree with a lot of what goes on in some those big-box training classes. And I suspect the reason is that the background of the trainers is lacking something. Maybe it isn't their relative lack of any sort of competition experience, but that does seem to be a common thread.


----------



## MafiaPrincess (Jul 1, 2009)

We took petsmart classes when Cider was a puppy. We had an awful and a good experience. They packed the puppy class with 14 dogs in their tiny area the second week. Our original trainer was fired. The replacement was horrific. I was bitten twice by a rottie puppy with enough force that I was bruised through a sweatshirt as the dogs were packed in like sardines. Wanted out of the class, fought with management they wouldn't refund us. Made it clear what we thought of the classes which weren't purely positive as they pushed prongs on half the class and they did refund the remaining classes...

A few months later we got a call from the area training rep. She offered a set of free classes taught by her. Class was 4 dogs. She was fantastic. Had taught SDs, had dogs in commercials. Was a great set of classes. We learned a lot it helped us towards 'better' trainers.

While the regional rep was amazing, the first two trainers we encountered first were terrible. I've moved and the trainers locally now at petsmart are also horrible. There are some great individuals out there who happen to work at petsmart. Most seem to move on to places better if training is something they enjoy.


----------



## Bordermom (Apr 28, 2010)

I've seen good, and bad in any training venue, but not so much good in the petsmart type classes. Most of the dogs I see coming in or out of those classes are not under control and the owners have no idea how to control them at all, nor do they seem to get that advice. Or if there's a major issue where the owner doesn't know any better and the dog is going to get into trouble, the instructors don't seem to bring it up.

I know a GSD that took those classes, he was shy from day one, and to this day at nine months she still will sit and baby talk him when he's acting scared of things. She now avoids going near people or other dogs though, instead of from day one going into those situations and getting him used to them, he's learned to be just as shy as he was. There's also the time I was in petsmart and the instructor was right there (I was with a rescue dog), the dog I had had aggression issues with some dogs - mainly those that came rushing into her face. This little pitty did just that, dragged her owner to 'meet' the dog I had on leash and I quickly got her collar and muzzle so she wouldn't pounce. The instructor just said 'oh she doesn't like other dogs' but never reamed out the owner (who didn't have a clue) for not being more careful. She was a sweet little dog but not all dogs would love her dragging and acting frenzied in an attempt to kiss them, and to me the instructor didn't seem to clue in and talk to the guy or didn't care. If it was my student, I would have said 'keep your dog's nose to herself, remember???' since that's one of the first lectures they get from me.


----------



## hanksimon (Mar 18, 2009)

I think most trainers at PetsMart are recent graduates of PetsMart 'retail' training, where the goal is to follow the rules, pass out coupons, and pass the dog on to the next class after 6 weeks. I don't think that all PetsMart trainers are like that, but enough are that I make that generalization.


----------



## maggie3kais (Aug 19, 2011)

I am currently in week 4 of class at PetsMart. I feel I get the same reaction from people when I tell them where we are taking our first class at. I would say our trainer is good. She only uses positive reinforcement and seems to be fairly knowledgeable. I don't think I've really learned anything I haven't already read on here, but just hearing it and seeing it in person helps. I searched everywhere in our area for group classes and these were the only ones close by I could find. I don't regret taking the class, but I do plan on taking our next level somewhere else. The only thing I don't really agree with is she put a gentle leader on a puppy that was having trouble loose leash walking. But this was the first time she had been introduced to it and she's in a loud busy pet store. Can't expect her to be perfect right away.


----------



## +two (Jul 12, 2011)

I have never taken classes at a chain supplier, but I have been witness to a negative reaction to the training program. For me, I wouldn't want to take a class at Petco or PetSmart because I don't think the hiring criteria for trainers is high enough and this leads to lots of variances in quality of classes. I prefer to point people towards the APDT website where they can find a certified trainer that has been tested on dog training principles and has the experience to back it up.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

I don't know how a national retail chain can really hope to have any kind of consistency in the quality of their trainers across all their stores. I've known some people who have had very, very positive experiences training at PetCo or PetSmart as well as people who have had very, very negative experiences - and everything in between. Which, you know, they're not exactly a training club or whatever - they're stores first, so it's going to be somewhat hit-or-miss. 

Having said that, if someone told me that So-and-So at Location X PetSmart was a really good trainer, I wouldn't diss them just because they happened to work at PetSmart. It's just not necessarily the first place I would look - although I'm spoiled in that where I live there are tons of trainers and training clubs.


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

Well, everyone is all about positive enforcement, clicker training & the like. Im all for that stuff for pups, but im sorry but it doesn't work for some dogs. I use balanced methods, have for yrs & I find it funny that I have never had any dogs with: DA, barrier frustration, leash reactivity, pulling, aggression etc... I have seen good & bad trainers at PETsMART I just hink that they are more worried about offending ppl then what is the best method for an individual dog.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

dogdragoness said:


> Well, everyone is all about positive enforcement, clicker training & the like. Im all for that stuff for pups, but im sorry but it doesn't work for some dogs. I use balanced methods, have for yrs & I find it funny that I have never had any dogs with: DA, barrier frustration, leash reactivity, pulling, aggression etc... I have seen good & bad trainers at PETsMART I just hink that they are more worried about offending ppl then what is the best method for an individual dog.


That's ridiculous. . .it will work for all dogs if the trainer is good enough and wants to do it. It's a matter of what the trainer wants to do. Even if you don't like a method, it doesn't mean it doesn't work. I don't think you quite understand the principles behind learning (which apply to all creatures capable of learning).

Anyway, I don't think I would want to go to training classes at the local Petsmart. Just the location of the training ring and the constant distraction of the store would put me off, even if the trainer was great. But I don't know if that's the standard set-up or if other stores are different.


----------



## lil_fuzzy (Aug 16, 2010)

I am currently doing a dog trainer course, and from learning more about socialisation, I have come to believe that most puppy classes are a waste of time. Socialisation is not about running around with other puppies and meeting some new people in class. That could be part of it, but if you never do that and socialise your puppy in other ways, the puppy won't have missed out.

The most important part of socialisation is to expose the puppy to as many new environments and situations as possible. That means taking the puppy with you wherever you go, when possible. It means exposing it to trains, traffic, heavy machinery, kids etc etc. It should also hang around many many other dogs and people *without* playing or interacting with them. Interacting and playing is part of socialisation, but learning that you don't always get to play is probably just as important.

When I go through the puppy thing again, I probably won't bother with puppy classes. They were fun with Obi, but from what I have learnt about socialisation, they didn't really do that much good for him. And he went to 3 different puppy classes over 2 months, and still developed fear aggression. He's fine in class, because he went to so many, but he's fear aggressive/reactive on walks, because we didn't go out in public and expose him to real life much until he was about 5-6 months old.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Well I think it depends on the puppy class. If all you do is go and let the puppies play for an hour a week... yea, not sure that is worth much. The puppy class I did with Squash had a lot of information, exercises, and homework every week that we were responsible for doing between classes - which included socialization and basic manners stuff. Not that anyone could really enforce it, but the instructor really stressed that the work we did outside of class was super important although he was a resource and we did good exercises in class, too. I don't think it was a waste of time at all. Like everything else, it just depends on the class and the instructor.


----------



## lil_fuzzy (Aug 16, 2010)

sassafras said:


> Well I think it depends on the puppy class. If all you do is go and let the puppies play for an hour a week... yea, not sure that is worth much. The puppy class I did with Squash had a lot of information, exercises, and homework every week that we were responsible for doing between classes - which included socialization and basic manners stuff. Not that anyone could really enforce it, but the instructor really stressed that the work we did outside of class was super important although he was a resource and we did good exercises in class, too. I don't think it was a waste of time at all. Like everything else, it just depends on the class and the instructor.


True, and I do know a puppy class that is really good that I would do, which is held by the main instructor for my dog trainer course, so he knows what he's doing. It's too far away for us to be able to get there weekly unfortunately, but at least I know what to look for in a puppy class now.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Poly said:


> Maybe it isn't their relative lack of any sort of competition experience, but that does seem to be a common thread.


I've known some competition people who were pretty scary. And some non-competition people who were pretty good at teaching pet skills.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

dogdragoness said:


> Well, everyone is all about positive enforcement, clicker training & the like. Im all for that stuff for pups, but im sorry but it doesn't work for some dogs.


Yeah, it does. But if you choose to use other methods you'd never know it.


----------



## Finkie_Mom (Mar 2, 2010)

It varies greatly from store to store. I just started working there as a trainer. I'd like to say that I'm decent at it, and I've never heard anything otherwise. However, I actually took puppy classes with Kimma at a PetSmart in TX and our trainer was horrible. She was a nice person, but honestly didn't know what she was doing. We didn't take the course again like the guarantee says you can, we just went to another place. 

If I was just going on their course, I would not be as well-equipped to teach as I feel that I am. I was lucky and was able to be a teaching assistant at my old agility club in TX, so I got more hands-on experience than just the PetSmart stuff. I am also going to compete with my dogs in agility and rally (and hopefully formal obedience). That being said, I will tailor my classes to meet the needs of the dog-owners in it. If someone eventually want to do agility/obedience/rally, I can give them stuff to do for that. If they just want a pet with good manners, I can do that as well. I also plan on becoming a CGC evaluator and getting my CPDT-KA certification as soon as I have the necessary experience.

There IS a push to sell the classes, but I would personally never push a class on someone randomly. If I sell, then I sell. If my managers get mad, then they get mad. I'm just not a pushy person by nature, and I know that as a consumer, I would hate to be hounded by someone. I give people the info if they are interested in classes, and hope they come back.


----------



## KodiBarracuda (Jul 4, 2011)

dogdragoness said:


> Well, everyone is all about positive enforcement, clicker training & the like. Im all for that stuff for pups, but im sorry but it doesn't work for some dogs. I use balanced methods, have for yrs & I find it funny that I have never had any dogs with: DA, barrier frustration, leash reactivity, pulling, aggression etc... I have seen good & bad trainers at PETsMART I just hink that they are more worried about offending ppl then what is the best method for an individual dog.


Just wanted to say, I'm with ya'. I too use a balanced approach, am not afraid to "correct" or "praise" and don't have any of those issues. I often wonder if purely positive training fosters RG a bit. Both of my dogs eat from the same bowl, drink from the same bowl as the cats, play with the same toys, eat their special treats within feet of each other, trade bones and chews with no problem, and have no RG issues IMO. 
I am a complete advocate of tailoring the training to the dog. 




Willowy said:


> That's ridiculous. . .it will work for all dogs if the trainer is good enough and wants to do it. It's a matter of what the trainer wants to do.


That, my fine feathered friend, is ridiculous. Training has two parts, trainer AND dog. Without the dog, the trainer is nothing. It is only half of what the trainer wants. Just because you haven't trained a dog that doesn't work well with totally positive reinforcement doesn't mean that they don't exist.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

KodiBarracuda said:


> That, my fine feathered friend, is ridiculous. Training has two parts, trainer AND dog. Without the dog, the trainer is nothing. It is only half of what the trainer wants. Just because you haven't trained a dog that doesn't work well with totally positive reinforcement doesn't mean that they don't exist.


I've never trained a dog (effectively) at all. But if all whales, cats, rabbits, goldfish, raccoons, camels, elephants, bison, etc. can be trained using non-aversive methods, I don't think dogs magically fall into some odd category of learning that means that some of them can't learn without aversives. Whatever dog you claim can't be trained without aversives, I guarantee that some non-aversive trainer somewhere would be able to train that dog without aversives. If you don't like that kind of training, your choice. But to say it can't be done IS ridiculous.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

KodiBarracuda said:


> Just wanted to say, I'm with ya'. I too use a balanced approach, am not afraid to "correct" or "praise" and don't have any of those issues. I often wonder if purely positive training fosters RG a bit. Both of my dogs eat from the same bowl, drink from the same bowl as the cats, play with the same toys, eat their special treats within feet of each other, trade bones and chews with no problem, and have no RG issues IMO.
> I am a complete advocate of tailoring the training to the dog.
> 
> .


I'm also a complete advocate of tailoring the training to the dog. As to resource guarding, shared steak with three dogs lined up in front of me sitting. I HAVE helped several people who had resource guarding issues improve that problem using positive reinforcement techniques.


----------



## lil_fuzzy (Aug 16, 2010)

KodiBarracuda said:


> Just wanted to say, I'm with ya'. I too use a balanced approach, am not afraid to "correct" or "praise" and don't have any of those issues. I often wonder if purely positive training fosters RG a bit. Both of my dogs eat from the same bowl, drink from the same bowl as the cats, play with the same toys, eat their special treats within feet of each other, trade bones and chews with no problem, and have no RG issues IMO.
> I am a complete advocate of tailoring the training to the dog.


It is actually true that a dog that is trained entirely hands off, not handled and experiences no stress of any kind in the first 12 months of life is very prone to reactiveness. It's not because they are trained without corrections though, it's more to do with the people who do everything hands off also tend to not handle the dog as much as they should, and a lot of them will spoil the dog and it experiences no proper boundaries and rules and thus no stress ever.

I train without corrections, but my dogs have no issues with guarding. I do handle them a lot, and I do have strict rules, and they don't always get what they want. And if they struggle when handled, they don't get put down until they relax and let me do what I want, which is a form of stress.

I think for my next puppy I will continue to do a lot of handling, but I will also use guiding/compulsion to teach the dog to sit. The sit is such an easy thing to teach, so it doesn't really matter how you teach it, but by using guiding you are teaching the dog the concept of "when I do stuff to you, don't struggle because there is no point". I know some very experienced dog trainers who say that if more people used guiding to teach the basic stuff like sit and down, they would have fewer problems with their dogs. And I see nothing wrong with using guiding to teach those things, because there is nothing stopping people from shaping/luring everything else, so they could still have a dog that offers behaviours etc, but they don't have to spend a lot of time capturing/shaping/luring the most basic stuff, AND they teach their dog an important lesson at the same time.


----------



## Tofu_pup (Dec 8, 2008)

KodiBarracuda said:


> I often wonder if purely positive training fosters RG a bit.


How is that?

Aside from your little anecdote that all two of your own dogs are not resource guarders, show me how +R fosters RG.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

lil_fuzzy said:


> It is actually true that a dog that is trained entirely hands off, not handled and experiences no stress of any kind in the first 12 months of life is very prone to reactiveness. It's not because they are trained without corrections though, it's more to do with the people who do everything hands off also tend to not handle the dog as much as they should, and a lot of them will spoil the dog and it experiences no proper boundaries and rules and thus no stress ever.
> 
> I train without corrections, but my dogs have no issues with guarding. I do handle them a lot, and I do have strict rules, and they don't always get what they want. And if they struggle when handled, they don't get put down until they relax and let me do what I want, which is a form of stress.
> 
> I think for my next puppy I will continue to do a lot of handling, but I will also use guiding/compulsion to teach the dog to sit. The sit is such an easy thing to teach, so it doesn't really matter how you teach it, but by using guiding you are teaching the dog the concept of "when I do stuff to you, don't struggle because there is no point". I know some very experienced dog trainers who say that if more people used guiding to teach the basic stuff like sit and down, they would have fewer problems with their dogs. And I see nothing wrong with using guiding to teach those things, because there is nothing stopping people from shaping/luring everything else, so they could still have a dog that offers behaviours etc, but they don't have to spend a lot of time capturing/shaping/luring the most basic stuff, AND they teach their dog an important lesson at the same time.


I want to start out by capturing/shaping almost everything because it is an important concept, too. If we help our dogs do a behavior, be it compulsion or simply luring or modeling (physically placing) the dog learns to let us make the decisions. However, I think it is also very important to teach a dog to be comfortable being handled and gently restrained. That doesn't have to be in the course of teaching a behavior (other than relaxing)


----------



## lil_fuzzy (Aug 16, 2010)

Pawzk9 said:


> I want to start out by capturing/shaping almost everything because it is an important concept, too. If we help our dogs do a behavior, be it compulsion or simply luring or modeling (physically placing) the dog learns to let us make the decisions. However, I think it is also very important to teach a dog to be comfortable being handled and gently restrained. That doesn't have to be in the course of teaching a behavior (other than relaxing)


I agree, and I will always shape the great majority of the behaviours I want. But I think it's actually a good point that the sit is so easy to teach that you may as well throw in some handling (guidance/compulsion) while teaching it. Because why not?

I lured the sit with Obi when I got him. I have shaped/captured pretty much everything since, but the sit seemed like such a basic, easy thing that I couldn't be bothered spending 2 days capturing it. It was something to just get out of the way, and if you're gonna do that anyway, why not guide it?


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

lil_fuzzy said:


> I agree, and I will always shape the great majority of the behaviours I want. But I think it's actually a good point that the sit is so easy to teach that you may as well throw in some handling (guidance/compulsion) while teaching it. Because why not?
> 
> I lured the sit with Obi when I got him. I have shaped/captured pretty much everything since, but the sit seemed like such a basic, easy thing that I couldn't be bothered spending 2 days capturing it. It was something to just get out of the way, and if you're gonna do that anyway, why not guide it?



two days to get a sit? I've only worked with two dogs that took more than 5 minutes. They were a former racing greyhound and a conformation Ch Viszla who had been taught not to sit in situations that looked like they might be a show.


----------



## Poly (Sep 19, 2007)

lil_fuzzy said:


> The most important part of socialisation is to expose the puppy to as many new environments and situations as possible. That means taking the puppy with you wherever you go, when possible. It means exposing it to trains, traffic, heavy machinery, kids etc etc. It should also hang around many many other dogs and people *without* playing or interacting with them. Interacting and playing is part of socialisation, but learning that you don't always get to play is probably just as important.



Second that. 

And it is unfortunate how few people realize what should be obvious.

These principles should be emphasized in every puppy class. Actually, if you look over the AKC S.T.A.R recommendations, they are emphasized there. But too many puppy kindergarden classes don't follow those recommendations and do way too much play time.



lil_fuzzy said:


> When I go through the puppy thing again, I probably won't bother with puppy classes. They were fun with Obi, but from what I have learnt about socialisation, they didn't really do that much good for him. And he went to 3 different puppy classes over 2 months, and still developed fear aggression. He's fine in class, because he went to so many, but he's fear aggressive/reactive on walks, because we didn't go out in public and expose him to real life much until he was about 5-6 months old.


Sure you can do it on your own. But the whole puppy thing is a bit intimidating for first-timers, so anything that gives them knowledge of basic dog care and positive feedback is good. 

If one is an experienced dog owner, I would agree that in general there's not much to get out of a puppy kindergarden in those respects. 

Interacting with other dogs is also important, however. Even if you have had previous dog experience, if you have no other way get that interaction, a safe and secure puppy group class would not be a bad thing.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> I've never trained a dog (effectively) at all. But if all whales, cats, rabbits, goldfish, raccoons, camels, elephants, bison, etc. can be trained using non-aversive methods,


If you have never trained a dog effectively......

You do not know this to be true.


Willowy said:


> That's ridiculous. . .it will work for all dogs if the trainer is good enough and wants to do it. It's a matter of what the trainer wants to do. Even if you don't like a method, it doesn't mean it doesn't work. I don't think you quite understand the principles behind learning (which apply to all creatures capable of learning).


You are getting this third hand........


If you look at the dogs most (not all) the 100 percent positive trainers are working with, you don't see many fire eaters.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

JohnnyBandit said:


> If you have never trained a dog effectively......
> 
> You do not know this to be true.


I only have never trained a dog effectively because I was brainwashed into believing that you need to hurt a dog to be effective. It never once worked for me and I ruined my relationship with my dogs because of it. I feel I was lied to, or at least not sufficiently warned.

As for it not being true. . .take it up with Sea World. I know it to be true because some people are doing it. By your wording, I take it there are some "100% positive" trainers (hasn't it been established that there's no such thing?) who do train "fire eaters" effectively? If so, then it CAN be done. Just because YOU can't/won't do it doesn't mean it's not possible.


----------



## lil_fuzzy (Aug 16, 2010)

Pawzk9 said:


> two days to get a sit? I've only worked with two dogs that took more than 5 minutes. They were a former racing greyhound and a conformation Ch Viszla who had been taught not to sit in situations that looked like they might be a show.


I meant 2 days if you wanted to shape or capture it. Luring it will be a lot quicker. But it's so basic and quick that it seems like a waste of an exercise if you're gonna lure it. I figure why not also make it a handling/compliance exercise?


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> I only have never trained a dog effectively because I was brainwashed into believing that you need to hurt a dog to be effective. It never once worked for me and I ruined my relationship with my dogs because of it. I feel I was lied to, or at least not sufficiently warned.
> 
> As for it not being true. . .take it up with Sea World. I know it to be true because some people are doing it. By your wording, I take it there are some "100% positive" trainers (hasn't it been established that there's no such thing?) who do train "fire eaters" effectively? If so, then it CAN be done. Just because YOU can't/won't do it doesn't mean it's not possible.


Unless I am mistaken a Sea World Trainer is not involved with this discussion, so no I will not be taking it up with them.

In any case your comparison is not valid. Killer Whales are wild animals weighting many thousands of pounds. While dogs are domestic animals weighing in most cases less that two hundred pouns. 

There is no reason for one to assume what works for one will work for the other. 

And I would hardly call the methods used to train killer whales effective or good. At any given time there is a pool of less than 100 killer whales in captivity around the world. Yet since 1970 there have been at least 36 serious incidents between trainers and whales. Including multiple deaths. 

Additionally I would not call what they get the whales to do no so much training as controlled luring. I can get a bear to open a gate, come in, step up on a stool reach up above his head to get a box of jelly donuts. But is that bear trained or it he conditioned to do the behaviors just to get the food? 

If I cannot get the behaviors without the bear knowing the is food available. , then I have lured him rather than trained him.

And lastly, if you were hurting the dog, you were doing it incorrectly. 



BTW..... I have NEVER seen or met a positive only trainer that has had success with a fireeater. I have seen them fail. It is assumption that someone out there has figured it out.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

> I've never trained a dog (effectively) at all. But if all whales, cats, rabbits, goldfish, raccoons, camels, elephants, bison, etc. can be trained using non-aversive methods,


Only problem I can see is that most of these animals do not live in the home, I think I might want to give the whale training a pass as sometimes they get quite unruly, I also don't have a clue as to what this has to do with PetSmart in house training unless they are branching out in the fish/animal training world. 



> I only have never trained a dog effectively because I was brainwashed into believing that you need to hurt a dog to be effective. It never once worked for me and I ruined my relationship with my dogs because of it. I feel I was lied to, or at least not sufficiently warned.


This definitely is a personal problem, sorry for your bad experiences.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

JohnnyBandit said:


> And lastly, if you were hurting the dog, you were doing it incorrectly


That's what the books (all of them) said to do. That's what the class trainer said to do. That's what all the other dog owners said to do. How would a new dog owner know any different? I didn't even know there was such a thing as non-aversive dog training. And if aversive methods are so difficult to do "correctly", new dog owners definitely shouldn't be encouraged to use them, in a Petsmart class or otherwise.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

And waitaminute. . .if I remember correctly, one of the general principles of positive punishment training is that if a physical "correction" doesn't hurt a dog sufficiently, it's called nagging and is frowned upon. So, if someone is hurting the dog, they ARE doing it right, at least according to the training books.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Willowy said:


> And waitaminute. . .if I remember correctly, one of the general principles of positive punishment training is that if a physical "correction" doesn't hurt a dog sufficiently, it's called nagging and is frowned upon. So, if someone is hurting the dog, they ARE doing it right, at least according to the training books.


I'm sure you have heard about the trainer Brad Pattison on DF he is for lack of a better words extreme in aversives and I don't care how many DVDs or YouTube videos that he has out there anybody who knows dog training knows him for what he is. Now because you read something in a book or see it on a DVD or your YouTube PC/TV whatever method used to attain such knowledge, it does not mean it is good info, and your class trainer can also be a dope. 

Read below.

Years ago I sold 2 GSD pups to a couple of gentlemen and when pups turned 6 months old I trained them and then gave lessons to these 2 gentlemen. Within the next year both guys moved out of our area, one to Nashville and one to Denver and guess what they both decided to start Obedience classes as head trainers of these classes. They had no real knowledge, just dogs that I had trained for them. Now I think that's scary but what's scarier is people actually entered these classes and paid them real money. Go Figure, What did PT Barnum say something about "a sucker born every day"


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

JohnnyBandit said:


> If you have never trained a dog effectively......
> 
> You do not know this to be true.
> 
> ...


I have trained dogs effectively, and I agree. I haven't trained the whales, cats, rabbits, goldfish, raccoons, camels, elephants, bison and chickens, so I guess that is third hand, but I've met the people who have and seen the results.

If you look at most dogs that compulsion trainers are working with, you won't seem many fire eaters either. (I have known a few people who tried to use tabasco sauce to keep dogs from chewing and the dogs liked it - would that be the "fire eaters?" The fact is, I've worked with some scary aggressive/reactive dogs and seen very good results (which weren't being reached by the traditional trainers they went to before). The last dog was thrown out of two classes, and advised by the "balanced" trainer to euthanize (he had not bitten, just made big scary displays at the time). He's making great progress with different methods. (Not in a group class yet, but getting close) He's highly territorial and thinks I am a scary lady when I go to their house. Still he's able to now work off leash around me, respond to cues reliably and hang out on his mat, relaxed, a few feet from me. So don't try to tell me that positivie reinforcement only works for easy dogs. I know better.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

JohnnyBandit said:


> BTW..... I have NEVER seen or met a positive only trainer that has had success with a fireeater. I have seen them fail. It is assumption that someone out there has figured it out.


I suspect you're messing with me on the basis of my lack of understanding of the terminology. Do you mean "positive only" in that the trainer didn't use any sort of negative anything, not even an "uh oh" or something like that? Or do you mean that the trainer didn't use physical aversives?


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Additionally I would not call what they get the whales to do no so much training as controlled luring. I can get a bear to open a gate, come in, step up on a stool reach up above his head to get a box of jelly donuts. But is that bear trained or it he conditioned to do the behaviors just to get the food?
> 
> If I cannot get the behaviors without the bear knowing the is food available. , then I have lured him rather than trained him.


Is an aversive trained dog trained or is he conditioned to do the behaviors just to avoid punishment? 

If you cannot get the behaviors without the dog knowing that punishment is likely, you've threatened him, not trained him.

I don't really see the difference.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

lil_fuzzy said:


> I meant 2 days if you wanted to shape or capture it.


Yes. That's what I meant too.


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

The fact is, I've worked with some scary aggressive/reactive dogs and seen very good results (which weren't being reached by the traditional trainers they went to before). The last dog was thrown out of two classes, and advised by the "balanced" trainer to euthanize (he had not bitten, just made big scary displays at the time). He's making great progress with different methods.>>>>

Blah blah blah. Not to make lite of your progress but ive heard this story 1000 times from both sides.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

jiml said:


> Blah blah blah. Not to make lite of your progress but ive heard this story 1000 times from both sides.


So? I'm guessing if the people telling the story are truthful, that must mean that you think you CAN teach a difficult dog with positive reinforcement based methods. Can you?


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> And waitaminute. . .if I remember correctly, one of the general principles of positive punishment training is that if a physical "correction" doesn't hurt a dog sufficiently, it's called nagging and is frowned upon. So, if someone is hurting the dog, they ARE doing it right, at least according to the training books.



Nagging - never heard the term in over thirty years of dog training. 
But nagging in the traditional sense of the word would not work. The dog would shut you out. 

And granted, I have not read a bunch of books over the years. I have read some. And I seriously doubt there is more than a couple that even suggest that. I have read Koelher and I don't remember him every using the word hurt or pain. 

A physical correction needs to be precise, quick and get your point across then move on. In most cases you are simply breaking focus and re directing the dog to you.
Sometimes it is a reminder of what is proper and expected. 
I never use is in shaping any beginning stages. I know some do with success. 

Example if a 12 year old grabs a biscuit off the table before the blessing has been said, and his mom smacks his hand. Was the 12 year old hurt? No.... All his mother did is remind him to do what is proper and have patience. 



And for the record.... I am not messing with you at all....... I do find that anytime corrections are brought up, you take it to a dark place. As if people that use corrections are going at their dogs with a 2 x 4. That is not the case at all.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Nagging - never heard the term in over thirty years of dog training.
> But nagging in the traditional sense of the word would not work. The dog would shut you out.
> 
> And granted, I have not read a bunch of books over the years. I have read some. And I seriously doubt there is more than a couple that even suggest that. I have read Koelher and I don't remember him every using the word hurt or pain.
> ...


I doubt if Koehler ever empathized with a dog enough to wonder if the dog considered being jerked off his feet or having his head submerged in water to be hurtful or painful. In his mind, dogs deserved whatever we decided they needed.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

jiml said:


> The fact is, I've worked with some scary aggressive/reactive dogs and seen very good results (which weren't being reached by the traditional trainers they went to before). The last dog was thrown out of two classes, and advised by the "balanced" trainer to euthanize (he had not bitten, just made big scary displays at the time). He's making great progress with different methods.>>>>
> 
> Blah blah blah. Not to make lite of your progress but ive heard this story 1000 times from both sides.


'
If you are going to blah blah blah.... I am not sure why you joined the conversation.....

Anyone that is any good, has likely had success with a dog that other trainers have failed with. 
The point being there are those that can train and those that can't. I own a obedience class flunk out dog. Flunked out twice. 

I did not meet the dog until much later. I laughed when I heard about his failures. Made my wife cry. (He didn't flunk with her either) Flunked with his first owner. 

I explained the dog did not flunk anything. But the handlre and especially the trainer flunked. I use the dog for a demo dog often.


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

Is an aversive trained dog trained or is he conditioned to do the behaviors just to avoid punishment? 

If you cannot get the behaviors without the dog knowing that punishment is likely, you've threatened him, not trained him.
>>>>


learning theory contains 4 quadrants. Since when do people decide the quadrants they like are learning but the others are not?


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

So? I'm guessing if the people telling the story are truthful, that must mean that you think you CAN teach a difficult dog with positive reinforcement based methods. Can you?>>>>

Im not quite sure what your even asking?????


I have no prob w positive training as I see it working on most dogs/situations. I do think that a toolbox should be there because denying that a balanced approach may be better for a specific dog and/or circumstance is limiting yourself and in a way potentially cheating a dog/owner. 

Having said that I also believe that sometimes in certain circumstances there is no fix. some dogs will never be trustworthy because of genetic predispositions so there is an ongoing balance of training/management. and sometimes the owner/dog is just a bad mix which could be for many reasons.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Is an aversive trained dog trained or is he conditioned to do the behaviors just to avoid punishment? 

If you cannot get the behaviors without the dog knowing that punishment is likely, you've threatened him, not trained him.
>>>>


jiml said:


> Learning theory contains 4 quadrants. Since when do people decide the quadrants they like are learning but the others are not?




I'm guessing that you either did not read (or are chosing to ignore) the post that this one was in response to. That post that stated if you used food, the animal was conditioned to be lured, not trained. This is merely the flip side of that rather odd logic. The fact is, ALL learning is motivated by something, or we'd just happily rest in the status quo (I'm sort of ignoring Panksepp here for the sake of the argument at hand). I am motivated to get something I want, or I am motivated to avoid something I don't want. Learning can still result from those actions. Eventually it becomes a more subtle response to the situation than just an attempt to get something or avoid it. That's the basis of OC. Of course a dog can learn through P+. But he can be motivated just as skillfullly without it.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

jiml said:


> Im not quite sure what your even asking?????
> 
> 
> I have no prob w positive training as I see it working on most dogs/situations. I do think that a toolbox should be there because denying that a balanced approach may be better for a specific dog and/or circumstance is limiting yourself and in a way potentially cheating a dog/owner.
> ...


I'm sure you are confused by my question. In your reality it probably is a confusing question. As to tool boxes . . . a skilled craftsperson knows what tools are useful for what they do. If I am an electrician, I'm probably not going to be lugging around a 10 lb. sledge hammer or a glass installer's kit or a skillet. I could, of course but it would be ineffective for the kind of work I'd be doing. I have tried both the "balanced" approach and the "progressive reinforcement" approach. I would be cheating my clients if I didn't use what my experience has shown me to be the most effective for their dogs. I'd agree with you that there are some dogs for whom there is no "fix" just like there are some humans who are so miswired they are not safe to have out in society. However, those individuals are fortunately rare. Most of the problems dogs have are a result of their environment. In some cases even those dogs cannot be made safe (depending on the situation they are in) but many can be helped when you recognize the underlying cause and quit trying to just put a bandaid on the symptom.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Pawzk9 said:


> I doubt if Koehler ever empathized with a dog enough to wonder if the dog considered being jerked off his feet or having his head submerged in water to be hurtful or painful. In his mind, dogs deserved whatever we decided they needed.


Yeah, that. You don't have to use the word to mean it. I am pretty sure Koehler meant for someone to hurt their dog. Also Wolters. I think he might actually have used the word pain, but it's been a few years. 

And since those are the books I read (and many more like them), maybe that's why the term "correction" or "punishment" makes me go to a dark place. And, yeah it is the case sometimes (not always, I know). And probably not a 2 x 4--that would be fatal. Maybe a leather leash, though.


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

This is merely the flip side of that rather odd logic.>>>

understood


In your reality it probably is a confusing question.>>>>>

oooohhh


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

Can I get a definition for "fire eater?"


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

RaeganW said:


> Can I get a definition for "fire eater?"


Sure..... Drivey, stoic, less than eager to please, very much into doing it doing things its way.

Think Cracked up Bel Mal, ACD, Dutchie, etc


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Sure..... Drivey, stoic, less than eager to please, very much into doing it doing things its way.
> 
> Think Cracked up Bel Mal, ACD, Dutchie, etc


Keep in mind I am speculating here. And maybe in practice we're not talking about totally dissimilar actions.

But that kind of dog strikes me as particularly good for R+. That is the last dog I want to get in to a physical contest with. The dog is faster than me, stronger than me, and doesn't give a flip about what I want. But if I control what he wants (and he wants them awful darn bad, which is implied in drivey), and he can do things to get me to open the gate so to speak, isn't that pretty much the recipe for a good R+ candidate dog?

The tricky part of course is controlling access to what the dog wants. If I'm sending my dog on a 75 yard blind, and need to sit him halfway out to correct his line, unless I have a way to enforce the sit (i.e. e-collar or a 75 ft long line, in which case the e-collar is more humane that snapping his neck) he's free to keep charging on out to that duck. By the time I'm up to 75 yard blinds, I've got to be pretty darn sure he's going to sit, but "stealing reinforcement from the environment" is a valid R+ concern. 

Or, a better example. Dog is let out into the training area while you set up your practice. 15 minutes later you call the dog to you and start to work him. By letting the dog have his free time first, you let him get reinforcement for not paying attention to you. A better choice would be to keep him crated while you set up and work him straight out of the crate. Is stealing reinforcement from the environment a concern for R- trainers?

If any of you (JB, Marsh Muppet, wvasko) were feeling so inclinded, I'd be pretty interested in seeing a video of you training a dog. This isn't any kind of baited request, and I understand the reasons why you wouldn't want to. It just helps me to see things.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

> 75 ft long line, in which case the e-collar is more humane that snapping his neck) he's free to keep charging on out to that duck.


I've never seen a trainer using a 75 ft line, (does not mean they are not used, just I've never seen it) but anyway in my opinion were you to use one it should not be used to snap dogs neck its just a control device to get him back to the not sit/break point. In my travels I have seen the flip-em routine and I was never a big fan of it for fear that dog could get hurt seriously. It was very popular back in old school days, the part I did not understand is that the severe correction occurred 20 to 50 ft after dog had made the initial break or not sit mistake. I use aversives but a flip-em aversive is one the trainer is not fully in charge of cause sometimes strange things can happen when dog is flipped.

Now I would like to see PawzK9 versus a fire-eater dog video. In all fairness the video probably would be very long as more time may be needed to get job done. That's just an assumption on my part and may be wrong.

Any video with me would be a traditional/balanced type training using a marti/prong collar setup on most dogs or just a prong alone on a smaller %age. No magic wands and maybe one secret weapon that almost 50 yrs has given me, the ability to read dogs maybe a little quicker than others. That's pretty much the same secret weapon that any trainer that has worked a lot of dogs should have. Keep one thought that most dogs I have worked with since late 70s have been the 30 to 45 maybe an occasional 60 days long programs.

Years ago I met a class dog trainer and he held a weekly obedience class and one day a week I would take one of my GSDs and work them in one of his classes for distraction purposes, after classes were over him and I would do some beer drinking etc it was a good time mixed with some dog work. After months of this I noticed many of the same people and dogs returning, he then told me that (after I asked him why some easy problems weren't solved) the longer they were there the more money they spent with him. He pushed positive program even way back then and this gave him the chance to use the dog will be damaged if aversives are used program. The customers were happy so all was good. I just thought it was a license to steal.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

wvasko said:


> Now I would like to see PawzK9 versus a fire-eater dog video. In all fairness the video probably would be very long as more time may be needed to get job done. That's just an assumption on my part and may be wrong.
> 
> Any video with me would be a traditional/balanced type training using a marti/prong collar setup on most dogs or just a prong alone on a smaller %age. No magic wands and maybe one secret weapon that almost 50 yrs has given me, the ability to read dogs maybe a little quicker than others. That's pretty much the same secret weapon that any trainer that has worked a lot of dogs should have. Keep one thought that most dogs I have worked with since late 70s have been the 30 to 45 maybe an occasional 60 days long programs.
> 
> Years ago I met a class dog trainer and he held a weekly obedience class and one day a week I would take one of my GSDs and work them in one of his classes for distraction purposes, after classes were over him and I would do some beer drinking etc it was a good time mixed with some dog work. After months of this I noticed many of the same people and dogs returning, he then told me that (after I asked him why some easy problems weren't solved) the longer they were there the more money they spent with him. He pushed positive program even way back then and this gave him the chance to use the dog will be damaged if aversives are used program. The customers were happy so all was good. I just thought it was a license to steal.


LOL. When the blustering starts and people want me to "prove it" I figure I must have hit a nerve. I'm still not certain what a "fire eater" is. Must be a term they don't teach us in "pozzie school." Is it an aggressive dog? A high drive dog? Or an over-the-top I'm-so-aroused-I-can't-hear-you dog (frequently mistaken for a "high drive dog")? I've worked with aggressive, high drive and over-aroused dogs. Because I see them once a week (or in some cases, once every couple of weeks, and you board and train so are presumably working with them daily, it would take longer for me to see results. I don't train MWDs. Don't train huntin dawgs. But then, neither do most of the people on here asking advice about training methods. Most don't have "fire eaters" either, though they may feel like they do when the puppy is having destructive zoomies around their house. 

I will say that I teach a 7 week (6 weeks with dogs) one hour a week basic manners class and with very few exceptions, if the owners come to class, pay attention and practice at home, they leave the class with the basics of good manners, and more importantly, with an understanding of how to solve problems and observe dogs so they can continue their dog's education by themselves if they want to, or come back for more advanced classes (usually sport or CGC/therapy) if they want to. Most of the people who stick around for another class do so because they are having fun, or have other goals for their dogs. A couple of times I've had a dog who isn't keeping up with the class, and I've felt it was an issue with adolescence or prior history and that the owners were trying really hard and the dog needed just a little more. In those cases, I've done what I can to accommodate them in ways that don't end up with them having to pay a full fee to go through the course again. (Yeah, I'm just in it for the money and stringing them along) 

Does it take longer to establish good behavior/good habits with positive reinforcement? I suspect it is actually quicker. Does it take longer if you have a difficult dog. Sometimes. Because often you have to lay a foundation first, and often you have to address underlying issues. It's much quicker to "stop" bad behavior with a punisher than it is to help the dog feel like he really doesn't need to respond to the situation in that way, and give him a better way to respond. 

As to the chest-thumping fire-eater trainers, I dunno. I HAVE seen a lot of videos of the people who train these dogs with lots of force (supposedly needed) and I'm just not that impressed with the results. For instance, one video I saw of a MWD who couldn't be gotten to "out." About three people pried the Malinois' jaws off the decoy, and he - quick as a whistle - whipped around and started chewing on his handler's hand while the handler punched the dog in the face with his free hand. I guess that's a "fire eater". I don't know if I could do better (or what exactly they are looking for - maybe that's it - an out-of-control biting machine) but I can't think that it's a good thing for a soldier or law enforcement officer to be having to deal with the bad guy with his own dog hanging off of him.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Sure..... Drivey, stoic, less than eager to please, very much into doing it doing things its way.
> 
> Think Cracked up Bel Mal, ACD, Dutchie, etc


Well, I've worked with Malinois (owned one, at one time), and ACDs. No Dutchies yet. If they were "cracked up" my first assignment would be to get them off the crack so they were in a place to learn. I like working with drivey, stoic, and less than eager to please dogs. Because I have a secret weapon that makes them think that doing it my way is actually doing it their way.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Pawzk9 said:


> Well, I've worked with Malinois (owned one, at one time), and ACDs. No Dutchies yet. If they were "cracked up" my first assignment would be to get them off the crack so they were in a place to learn. I like working with drivey, stoic, and less than eager to please dogs. Because I have a secret weapon that makes them think that doing it my way is actually doing it their way.


I'm not sure who used the Fire eater name,

But I never think of a breed just the individual dog that gets dropped off and owner leaves and next time I go to kennel the rascal whatever breed/dog he happens to be meets me at the gate biting/attacking the gate attempting to "make his day" by removing some of my fingers. I suppose those could be called fire eaters, I called them different names. Not to be repeated on DF.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

wvasko said:


> I'm not sure who used the Fire eater name,
> 
> But I never think of a breed just the individual dog that gets dropped off and owner leaves and next time I go to kennel the rascal whatever breed/dog he happens to be meets me at the gate biting/attacking the gate attempting to "make his day" by removing some of my fingers. I suppose those could be called fire eaters, I called them different names. Not to be repeated on DF.


It was Johnnie Bandit who listed breeds.


----------



## +two (Jul 12, 2011)

What about unmotivated dogs? IMO its easier to tune a dog down than try and pump him up. If the dog is drivey, atleast he is driven by something. A dog with little to no drive doesn't have much for a trainer to work with. When I think of difficult dogs, I picture the dog who could care less about pretty much everything. 

I would genuinely love to see some of the people on here make a training video.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Pawzk9 said:


> It was Johnnie Bandit who listed breeds.





Pawzk9 said:


> Well, I've worked with Malinois (owned one, at one time), and ACDs. No Dutchies yet. If they were "cracked up" my first assignment would be to get them off the crack so they were in a place to learn. I like working with drivey, stoic, and less than eager to please dogs. Because I have a secret weapon that makes them think that doing it my way is actually doing it their way.



I used the breeds in an attempt to give a visual example.

We all know dogs are individuals.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

+two said:


> What about unmotivated dogs? IMO its easier to tune a dog down than try and pump him up. If the dog is drivey, atleast he is driven by something. A dog with little to no drive doesn't have much for a trainer to work with. When I think of difficult dogs, I picture the dog who could care less about pretty much everything.
> 
> I would genuinely love to see some of the people on here make a training video.


Some day (I look so FAT on teevee!) Sometimes dogs who are hard to motivate are actually a little shut down. Either by previous training methods, or by anxiety. If you are stressed, you're not hungry for treats. If you don't feel safe, you're probably not interested in playing. There are certainly dogs who are lower key, but if they are in a place to learn, there's probably something that will motivate them. If they aren't in a place to learn, that's job number one. Make them feel safe. If they are less motivated by treats, we train for dinner. If they aren't interested in a nice game of tug, they may be motivated by sniffing a bush. They might be motivated by contact with their human. They might be motivated by being given more personal space (the structure behind BAT). I know of one woman whose dog loved to mark (outside of course) and she Premacked with that. If nothing motivates the dog, better check for a pulse.


----------



## Poly (Sep 19, 2007)

> If the dog is drivey, atleast he is driven by something. A dog with little to no drive doesn't have much for a trainer to work with. When I think of difficult dogs, I picture the dog who could care less about pretty much everything





Pawzk9 said:


> .... Sometimes dogs who are hard to motivate are actually a little shut down. Either by previous training methods, or by anxiety. If you are stressed, you're not hungry for treats. If you don't feel safe, you're probably not interested in playing. There are certainly dogs who are lower key, but if they are in a place to learn, there's probably something that will motivate them....



There is a subtle but very distinct difference between drive and motivation. 

A big part of motivation is having an interest in learning new skills. Dogs can be demotivated by past experience, and remotivated by altering the training environment, as Pawzk9 indicates. It can probably be said that every dog has a motivator or motivators, and if you can discover what they are, you can teach that dog. Many dogs, for example, are motivated by food. Motivation is dynamic in the sense that it can change depending on the circumstances. A food-motivated dog that has just eaten a big meal often won't be motivated by food for a while. 

Drive is different from that. Drive involves the ability to work through fatigue and distractions - whether in a training situation or otherwise - mediated by the abiity to establish a strong working bond with the handler. While drive can be developed - and actually, it must be - you cannot 'build-in' more drive than a dog inherently has. Drive can be poorly developed just as it can be well developed. But once that drive IS developed, it is always there.

A dog with inherently low drive - or drive that has not been developed - will often appear to be unmotivated to learn. Especially if it is tired, cold, hot, wet, distracted, or whatever. On the other hand, a dog with well-developed drive may be motivated to learn even when those other factors are in play. But they are really two different things.

I'm sure that explanation isn't as clear as I would have liked it to be. All I can say is that in an intense training situation - which really you will not see when training for most pet skills - it is pretty obvious which dogs are simply unmotivated for some reason, and which dogs just don't have the drive to do the work.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Poly said:


> There is a subtle but very distinct difference between drive and motivation.
> 
> A big part of motivation is having an interest in learning new skills. Dogs can be demotivated by past experience, and remotivated by altering the training environment, as Pawzk9 indicates. It can probably be said that every dog has a motivator or motivators, and if you can discover what they are, you can teach that dog. Many dogs, for example, are motivated by food. Motivation is dynamic in the sense that it can change depending on the circumstances. A food-motivated dog that has just eaten a big meal often won't be motivated by food for a while.
> 
> ...


I'm going to be a heretic here, and say that I seldom use the term "drive". I do believe in instinct and work ethic. A dog with instinct will work through a situation because his inner make-up is such that the instinctual behavior is stronger than other considerations. Like the dog I had who peeled the pads off three feet while working sheep. He did not even notice until he had the sheep penned. No limping, no slowing down, but once he was finished, he could hardly stand. He was also a dog with VERY good work ethic on agility, but nobody watching him would have called him a high drive Agility dog. But he sometimes beat the screaming rocket dogs because he was listening and very motivated to work for me. There are so many definitions of drive, and people break it down into so many types of drive (pack drive, prey drive, etc., etc) that I'm not sure everyone is on the same page. In fact, I'm pretty sure we are not. I often see dogs who are described to me as "high drive" who just look out-of-their-mind over-aroused to me. And I see people trying to get their dogs in that state when it would be the LAST thing I'd want.


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

Willowy said:


> That's ridiculous. . .it will work for all dogs if the trainer is good enough and wants to do it. It's a matter of what the trainer wants to do. Even if you don't like a method, it doesn't mean it doesn't work. I don't think you quite understand the principles behind learning (which apply to all creatures capable of learning).
> 
> Anyway, I don't think I would want to go to training classes at the local Petsmart. Just the location of the training ring and the constant distraction of the store would put me off, even if the trainer was great. But I don't know if that's the standard set-up or if other stores are different.


The same could be said for any other training method YOU won't use as well... Not defending anything... Jus sayin


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

dogdragoness said:


> The same could be said for any other training method YOU won't use as well... Not defending anything... Jus sayin


Well, really that depends on a few variables. A) is the training method based on sound scientific principle? B) does the person applying it understand those principles? C) is the person capable of applying to principles.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

dogdragoness said:


> The same could be said for any other training method YOU won't use as well... Not defending anything... Jus sayin


YOU said non-physical punishment training doesn't work on some dogs (even if used effectively by a good trainer). I never said that physical punishment doesn't work (if used effectively by a good trainer). . .just that I don't agree with it.

And I don't think that you, personally, understand the principles of good training, physical punishment or not. Just what I get from reading your posts. I know I don't either (I think I'm starting to understand more), but at least I admit that.


----------



## zoogrl (Dec 2, 2011)

Willowy,
The point of the training ring being in the location it is at PetSmart is partially so the dogs learn to work more effectively WITH the distraction. So in theory, if you and your dog can work with the distractions that occur in a busy retail store, the dog is more likely to respond to distractions in other locations. 

And to those who say not every dog can be trained with R+ only methods, please look up Karen Pryor. Read her books. You might actually learn something. To the rude comments arguing AGAINST Willowy's animal training experience, you are completely naiive. If these wild animals can ALL be trained with positive reinforcement only, then the domesticated dog - WHICH WAS BRED TO REACT TO, RESPOND TO, AND UNDERSTAND HUMANS AND HUMAN EMOTIONS BETTER THAN ANY OTHER ANIMAL - sure as heck WILL be able to be trained using R+ only methods.


----------

