# spray bottle with vinegar/water?



## GottaLuvMutts (Jun 1, 2009)

I had never heard of this until Finkie's recent post about an instructor recommending spraying a disobedient dog with a combination of water and vinegar. Alas, I witnessed a friend doing the same thing to her dog today. What's worse, this occurred at a dog sporting event with public presence (i.e. anyone could have witnessed or overheard what happened). I'm not going to tell my friend how to control her dog (who, btw, deserved what she got), and I'm not going to lose a friend over this, but jeez! I was pretty shocked. Is there ANYONE here who thinks this is justifiable, no matter the dog's behavior?


----------



## lisak_87 (Mar 23, 2011)

I've heard of it and seen it used. I guess it never bothered me. I don't use it on my dog, and I imagine it'd hurt the eyes, but I don't think it's any more cruel than people who use citronella sprays.


----------



## cynster (Feb 26, 2011)

I think it depends on the dog. I would never use it on Cosette, because she is so timid and it's not needed. But I know some dogs that could probably use a spray to get their attention. I don't think it's meant as a punishment. It's meant more as a distraction.


----------



## lil_fuzzy (Aug 16, 2010)

So you were shocked that she did it, but the dog deserved what it got? I don't get it.

Personally I don't see the point of punishment, I rely on management to prevent bad behaviour in the first place, while I work on good behaviours.


----------



## DougGeneration (Apr 28, 2011)

There's definitely another way to punish than this, I haven't tried it and I have no plan on trying it as far as my precious dogs are concern. Even if they get extremely disobedient, I'll still find another way than spraying them water+acid.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Well as pretty much everybody knows, I am not against proper aversives but lets just go a tad further with this one. Vinegar in eyes depending on the particular dog's eye make up could hurt for an additional time. For conversation sake let's say the dog is in some eye pain 15 minutes after being sprayed. Now never having had vinegar in my eyes I don't know what kind of pain (if any) would occur. 

I'm not gonna volunteer my eyes though to find out. If there was pain for 15minutes I just wonder what the dog has learned from that. I'm just sayin'.........


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

I agree with wvasko, I am also not against proper adversives, but I think this is going a little far.


----------



## lil_fuzzy (Aug 16, 2010)

wvasko said:


> Well as pretty much everybody knows, I am not against proper aversives but lets just go a tad further with this one. Vinegar in eyes depending on the particular dog's eye make up could hurt for an additional time. For conversation sake let's say the dog is in some eye pain 15 minutes after being sprayed. Now never having had vinegar in my eyes I don't know what kind of pain (if any) would occur.
> 
> I'm not gonna volunteer my eyes though to find out. If there was pain for 15minutes I just wonder what the dog has learned from that. I'm just sayin'.........


Yeah, and also, what if the acid doesn't start stinging until 5 seconds later, when the dog could be doing something completely different? I would prefer a leash pop over acid in eyes any day.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

lil_fuzzy said:


> Yeah, and also, what if the acid doesn't start stinging until 5 seconds later, when the dog could be doing something completely different? I would prefer a leash pop over acid in eyes any day.


It sounds like a confusing type answer to any problem that timing is needed and again suppose you wanted to work the dog on something else while the eye/eyes continued to burn, even with an e-collar correction the button is hit, stim sent, and it's over. With this, I really don't know the discomfort could be much loner. Need some knowledgeable opinions on possible length of pain.


----------



## GottaLuvMutts (Jun 1, 2009)

lil_fuzzy said:


> So you were shocked that she did it, but the dog deserved what it got? I don't get it.


The dog was definitely deserving of a punishment, and a harsh one at that. I just think there's no excuse for something like vinegar in the eyes. I would have let my dog know that I was extremely unhappy (low menacing voice, etc.), but I draw the line at causing physical pain, no matter how brief.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

GottaLuvMutts said:


> The dog was definitely deserving of a punishment, and a harsh one at that. I just think there's no excuse for something like vinegar in the eyes. I would have let my dog know that I was extremely unhappy (low menacing voice, etc.), but I draw the line at causing physical pain, no matter how brief.


Can you tell us what this dog did.


----------



## pittsabowawa (Jul 26, 2009)

I used a water bottle with bella when she was a puppy, I also use it with the cats and the new puppy. I never squirted it in her eyes though  Usually it was a means of getting her to stop what she was doing (usually getting in the trash or chasing the cats) from a far distance if I couldn't get to her to stop it immediately. It never had much affect on bella because she loves water.

On the puppy he gets sprayed if he barks at the cats. It's seeming to work quite well with him. Bark, spray and the "No! or ah ah!", and done... he's barking a lot less.

The cats have quickly learned that just seeing the bottle means they're doing something bad so they don't get sprayed much.



Now with vinegar... I don't think that's a good idea at all. I've heard of spraying things down to avoid chewing (sort of like bitter apple spray) but never as an aversive.


----------



## GottaLuvMutts (Jun 1, 2009)

wvasko said:


> Can you tell us what this dog did.


Lots of impatience barking, plus some snarking at other dogs over space issues. She was making a pest of herself, and, in the owner's defense, she's a very hard/stubborn dog and doesn't respond to most aversives.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

cynster said:


> I think it depends on the dog. I would never use it on Cosette, because she is so timid and it's not needed. But I know some dogs that could probably use a spray to get their attention. I don't think it's meant as a punishment. It's meant more as a distraction.


If it stops the behavior, technically, it's punishment. And like with many punishers, it may work initially, but the dog gets habituated to it, then you need something more punishing to get the same effect. You know, I know people who use it. It seldom works very well for very long. I never know but what I may need some sort of topical spray for my dog. I'd hate for him to look at is as a punisher.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

GottaLuvMutts said:


> Lots of impatience barking, plus some snarking at other dogs over space issues. She was making a pest of herself, and, in the owner's defense, she's a very hard/stubborn dog and doesn't respond to most aversives.


Interesting, I wonder if he tried just water 1st or went directly to vinegar and water mix. I think if spraying is method used it should be water 1st cause it could work and not have damage.


----------



## GottaLuvMutts (Jun 1, 2009)

wvasko said:


> Interesting, I wonder if he tried just water 1st or went directly to vinegar and water mix. I think if spraying is method used it should be water 1st cause it could work and not have damage.


Tried water first, but the dog enjoys it.


----------



## Puddin's Training Tips (Apr 9, 2011)

GottaLuvMutts said:


> Lots of impatience barking, plus some snarking at other dogs over space issues. She was making a pest of herself, and, in the owner's defense, she's a very hard/stubborn dog and doesn't respond to most aversives.


If a dog doesn't respond to most aversives, then perhaps the owner should try some non aversives. If she was being snarky, the owner can teach the dog to be comfortable in close proximity to other dogs using desensitization and counter conditioning. 

The owner could watch her dog's body language and intervene long before a snark happens. I see dogs like this all the time. They give a bunch of signals long before they snap or snarl. 
First there is a little bit of white showing in the eyes, then more white, then there might be a hard glare, then a tight lip, then a tight body, then a slight lean forward. 

So instead of letting the dog escalate to a snarl, the owner could step in between her dog and the dog that is bothering her. The owner could redirect the dog with a "leave it" or "off" or "come" or make a weird sound.

The problem with aversives is that they are so much easier than the non aversive alternative. They become habit. Teacing a solid "leave it" take way more time than spraying or yanking.

My own example.
My Puddin is young and gets into things. Normally, I happily trade an unauthorized item (toilet tissue) with an authorized item (squeaky toy). I do it in a fun and exciting manner to teach her what I want.
One night, she picked up some paper. I was really tired, it was late.
Instead of trading with her, I just said "NO!" It worked. She left the paper alone... But I didn't teach her anything that day. I didn't show her what I wanted.

Another thing pet parents should be aware of with so called "stubborn" dogs. - The opposition reflex. 
"Stubborn" and non stubborn dogs will oppose force. It's natural. If you yank some dogs on the leash, they pull harder. 
If dog jumps on you and you knee her in the chest, your dog might come back and jump on you harder.

Understanding how to use body language with dogs works much better and will improve your relationship with your dog rather than harm it.

Another personal example of the opposition reflex with my young dog.
I'm sitting on the sofa on my lap top, she lays across my laptop (for attention, the the warmth of the computer, I don't know). 
I pick her up and move her away. 
She comes right back.
I pick her up and move her away, she comes right back. 
We do this for a while until I remember what I have learned about dog psychology from reading Rugaas and McConnell. 
Instead of using my hands on my dog, instead of using force, I simply look away. 
Puddin immediately gets the message and she stops laying across my lap top.

That's the other problem with aversives - lack of understanding of doggie language and what works best for them.

And of course the main problem with aversives is that it can hurt your relationship with your dog.

Oh and the other problem with aversives --as has been mentioned - timing. So the pet parent sprays the dog in the face for snarling. At that moment, a man with a beard walks by. A few weeks later the pet parent is wondering why her dog is lunging at all men with beards. This is not an extreme example.

Timing is crucial in any type of training. But not much harm in clicking and treating at the wrong time. But harm is way more possible when timing is off with an aversive.

Now for a slightly different subject but in line with the snarling. 
The problem with punishing growls and snarls. 
Ian Dunbar says that suppressing a growl is like removing a ticker from a time bomb. 
A growl or a snarl is the dog telling you something is wrong. 
If you suppress a growl, the next time the dog might just bite with no warning.

Another problem with suppressing a snarl/snap/growl - who started it.
I've seen this before.
A man and a lady standing next to each other. Neither looking at their dogs. The lady has a girl dog, the man has a boy dog.

The girl dog starts giving the boy dog the stink eye. The boy dog responds with calming signals - a turn of the head, an eye squint. 
The girl dog continues to stare then ups the ante by tightening her lips. The boy dog responds with snap. The boy dog's Dad yanks his dog.
Nothing happens to the girl dog who started the whole thing.

So I guess you can tell by now, I'm against spraying dogs. 

I've volunteered at shelters and if two large dogs are in an ugly looking fight, I would't hesitate to spray them with a water hose. Not as punishment but as a way to split them up without sticking my hands in the fray.

If my dog snarls at a dog, I calmly move her way from that dog.

Sorry if I repeated anything that somone else already wrote. I only read the first 8 responses before I started typing.

References
A great book on reading dogs' body signals: 
Calming Signals by Turid Rugass http://amzn.to/fL8AKU
A great book on depening our relationship with our dogs: 
Bones Would Rain from the Sky by Suzanne Clothier http://amzn.to/huS6ik


----------



## Cracker (May 25, 2009)

GottaLuvMutts said:


> Lots of impatience barking, plus some snarking at other dogs over space issues. She was making a pest of herself, and, in the owner's defense, she's a very hard/stubborn dog and doesn't respond to most aversives.


A very hard stubborn dog that doesn't respond to most aversives? So why use an aversive. Hell, if something ain't working how long does it take to figure out one needs to change direction? Why go to increasing the risk of pain or injury by increasing the volatility of the aversive? If the dog doesnt respond to aversives, could it quite simply be that the damn dog is WAY over threshold? 

This is a training issue (impatience barking) and a behaviour issue (space issues/reactivity) combined: reward based training, management of the dog's space bubble, impulse control (CU exercises) work etc will go a long way here. Punishment will only build a punishment callous, in fact it likely is already there if the handler has had to increasingly raise the level of aversive. 

And no, I would not use a vinegar spray. Because I know that if anyone sprayed ME with it, it would damn well hurt...and that is likely to make me want to kill them. I guess that makes me a hard/stubborn dog that doesn't respond the way people would LIKE me to when hit with an aversive. Be nice to me though, and I'm nice as pie. A bit anthropomorphic maybe...but then we are animals too.


----------



## Puddin's Training Tips (Apr 9, 2011)

Cracker said:


> Punishment will only build a punishment callous


I LOVE everything you said there. But I really love "punishment callous".
Insightful!



Pawzk9 said:


> ... And like with many punishers, it may work initially, but the dog gets habituated to it, then you need something more punishing to get the same effect...It seldom works very well for very long...I'd hate for him to look at is as a punisher.


----------



## Cracker (May 25, 2009)

I cannot take credit for the term punishment callous. It was used in this list:
http://www.smilesandwags.com/Pat Miller's 12 Pitfalls of Positive Punishment.html

I thought it an accurate description.


----------



## Finkie_Mom (Mar 2, 2010)

Well, it's interesting you brought this up again. After our first week of classes, I never had to spray her again. Not only because I didn't want to, but I literally went to the instructors and told them everything I would do to help with Kimma's boredom barking. They agreed with what I had planned (redirection, use of a mat like in Control Unleashed, and removal from the class if needed, as Kimma LOVES training class), and she has been fine at class ever since. 

Now with Kimma (sort of going back to some points brought up in this thread), she liked plain water. I had tried it on her as a pup, and she grew to enjoy it. So that didn't matter. With the actual vinegar/water (which was what the trainers at this new place suggested STRAIGHT AWAY without knowing ANYTHING about my dog and what we had tried in the past for this problem), all it did for Kimma was to make her afraid of the bottle itself. She still barked. So obviously, it wasn't working properly. She actually started barking AT the bottle. 

I have had people suggest a citronella collar/spray for her, but honestly, most of her issues COME from anxiety (though sometimes she is just being a pain), so why would I use an adversive right off the bat? I'm not against use of an adversive altogether, but I'd rather see if I can change the behavior through redirection and other techniques first. And she has gotten SO MUCH BETTER since when she was little. People who have known her for basically her entire life (like the vet, people at the boarding place we use, people at the dog park) are so impressed with what I've done with her. So obviously something I'm doing is working.

We actually went to a local agility trial last week just to watch/get her used to the environment, and she was PERFECT for the first hour and a half! I had only planned on staying for an hour, but she was fine just sitting and watching, so we stayed longer. Approaching the hour and 45 minute mark she started to get a little barky, so I used redirection, removal, etc., and she was pretty good until we left. 

Here's a link to the thread I had started about this, in case anyone is interested:
http://www.dogforums.com/dog-training-forum/93841-spray-bottles-stop-barking.html


----------



## Puddin's Training Tips (Apr 9, 2011)

Finkie_Mom said:


> I have had people suggest a citronella collar/spray for her


Sigh. These things don't fix anything, don't teach anything, don't let the dog know what you want. and can make some dogs much worse.



> so why would I use an adversive right off the bat?


Yep!


----------



## GottaLuvMutts (Jun 1, 2009)

OMG, punishment callous! Why didn't I think of that? You hit the nail right on the head and described this dog to a T. 

Puddin', you're right, this dog gives tons of signals before snarking, but they mostly get ignored. As you said, I think the dog is completely over threshold and doesn't belong in public settings (especially where lots of dogs will be present) until these issues are under control. 

*Sigh* I'd lend the owner my copy of CU, but I'm thinking that's kinda presumptuous. On the other hand, management and aversives clearly aren't working, so something new should be tried.


----------



## Nargle (Oct 1, 2007)

GottaLuvMutts said:


> Lots of impatience barking, plus some snarking at other dogs over space issues. She was making a pest of herself, and, in the owner's defense, she's a very hard/stubborn dog and doesn't respond to most aversives.


Oh that evil dog, how dare she be anxious and stressed out at a busy public sporting event. :doh:


----------



## Puddin's Training Tips (Apr 9, 2011)

nargle said:


> oh that evil dog, how dare she be anxious and stressed out at a busy public sporting event. :doh:


lol!!!!!!!


----------



## cynster (Feb 26, 2011)

lol I dunno - if it was attention seeking barking and snapping, I wouldn't put up with it, but that's just me. But I'm assuming this dog has been around lots of people at different events most likely. I don't agree with spraying in the eyes at all because that is a punishment, but vinegar smells bad to dogs and spraying it at a distance, not in the face, maybe the collar or shoulder to break the dog's fixation on whatever it is seems fine to me. I agree with those saying it isn't a long term solution, but what are your alternatives during an event when your dog is excessively barking and snapping at people? You could crate the barking dog, but not much else. Except leaving, I guess, which isn't really fair. If it broke the fixation my parents' dogs have (like when a toad has made it into the garage somewhere) we'd use spray bottles - but it doesn't work anyway, so we don't. To me, it's just a bad smell for the dogs and a wet sensation - nothing cruel about that unless you spray the eyes.

EDIT: and I just thought of an alternative: a watch me with a treat - takes a little bit of preparation, but not more than preparing your spray bottle.


----------



## Puddin's Training Tips (Apr 9, 2011)

cynster said:


> lbut vinegar smells bad to dogs


 well spraying something that smells bad certainly doesn't physically harm the dog. Yelling doesn't physically harm a dog either but it could hurt your relationship with your dog. It could scare your dog. Additionally, it doesn't make the dog feel better about the other dogs, nor the situation the dog is in. 

It's take a lot longer and isn't easier, but desensitizing and counter conditioning works, it makes the dog feel better about other dogs and it doesn't harm the human/dog relationship.



> break the dog's fixation on whatever it is seems fine to me.


Teaching a good solid "leave it" long before competiion can also work to break a fixation. Once again, vinegar is easier but it's definately not a BETTER choice.



> but what are your alternatives during an event


Well, this is just me. But winning an event isn't important to me. The only reason I would ever go to an event would be because it's something that my dogs would enjoy. If the dog isn't having fun, then why are you there??

BTW, I don't compete in anything. So I don't have any first hand experience in this type of situation. My dogs go to training classes. If they don't enjoy the class, we drop out and we find a teacher or location that we like. 
Or we drop back and work on making the dog feel better about the location.*
My dog's happiness is more important to me than me loosing the class fee that I paid.



> which isn't really fair.


I don't understand. 



> nothing cruel
> 
> 
> > Like cracker says. You might start off not being cruel. But if you continue, then you start getting rougher and rougher. First it's water, then it's vinegar water, etc.. And maybe it is cruel to force your dog to be around other dogs when she isn't comfortable. Especially if there is a better way.
> ...


----------



## Nargle (Oct 1, 2007)

cynster said:


> but what are your alternatives during an event when your dog is excessively barking and snapping at people?


I don't think it's possible for your dog to perform well and succeed in sports trial-like situation without conditioning your dog to be calm and enjoy the experience. IMO if the dog is too nervous in such a busy situation, the dog isn't ready to be there. You need to take a step back and build up the dog's tolerance to busy/chaotic situations, slowly and gradually, using positive reinforcement. Otherwise, your dog will always have a negative association with the place, and will never feel HAPPY about going there. And what's the point of taking your dog to those kinds of events if you're just going to spend the whole time fighting with your dog and being frustrated and embarrassed?


----------



## Puddin's Training Tips (Apr 9, 2011)

Nargle said:


> And what's the point of taking your dog to those kinds of events if you're just going to spend the whole time fighting with your dog and being frustrated and embarrassed?


----------



## cynster (Feb 26, 2011)

Aaah my whole post didn't make it. 

Long story short lol, I figured the dog was spectating while another one of the owner's dogs was showing - you wouldn't want a dog like that showing, I agree 100%. And I think if the dog is distracting, it's the owner's job to handle their dog. I would rather see spray used than the owner doing nothing - but an ideal situation would be a watch me, and socializing your dog of course - but for a short term solution, I don't think it's fair for the owner to have to leave and miss out on events with their other dogs because one is misbehaving.


----------



## Puddin's Training Tips (Apr 9, 2011)

cynster said:


> I don't think it's fair for the owner to have to leave and miss out on events with their other dogs because one is misbehaving.


Okay. That would make a lot of sense - the other dogs are fine, the owner needs an immediate solution... but here's the problem: The person LEFT HOME WITH VINEGAR WATER. That tells me that she knew her dog was going to have problems. 

That tells me that the show dogs should have went and the other dog should have stayed home. If it was an away competition, then a dog sitter or boarding oe left in the hotel room in a crate or take a friend along to walk her dog or pay someone to show her dogs while she stays were her non show dog at a non stress inducing distance. - something better than actually planning to squirt your dog with a burning substance .

I guess I could be wrong here. Maybe somone loaned her some vinegar water or maybe they sell it at the event IDK


----------



## cynster (Feb 26, 2011)

Puddin's Training Tips said:


> The person LEFT HOME WITH VINEGAR WATER. That tells me that she knew her dog was going to have problems.


 I agree 100%


----------



## Nargle (Oct 1, 2007)

cynster said:


> I don't think it's fair for the owner to have to leave and miss out on events with their other dogs because one is misbehaving.


I guess I see it differently. IMO it's unfair for the dog who is stressed out in that kind of environment to have to be there, and then get punished for showing signs of stress and anxiety. The dog should have been left home, especially since as PTT pointed out, the person who brought the dog expected their dog to act out at the event and anticipated it by bringing the squirt bottle.


----------



## cynster (Feb 26, 2011)

Nargle said:


> I guess I see it differently. IMO it's unfair for the dog who is stressed out in that kind of environment to have to be there, and then get punished for showing signs of stress and anxiety. The dog should have been left home, especially since as PTT pointed out, the person who brought the dog expected their dog to act out at the event and anticipated it by bringing the squirt bottle.


I agree it should have been left home since the owner thought to bring the spray bottle in the first place - but already being there, at least the owner is controlling their dog for the sake of everyone else at the show. At that point I agree with you both, the dog shouldn't return - OR - the dog should be taught a watch me and go to the people park with plenty of activity and be desensitized to it before going to an event like that in the first place. I'm just saying, I'd rather the spray bottle be used than a dog like that riling up the others.


----------



## GottaLuvMutts (Jun 1, 2009)

Just to clarify a few points...

The dog was snarking at other dogs, but is friendly with people. Any anxiety the dog was feeling was over her space being invaded by other dogs.
The owner brought only one dog (plus the vinegar water) to the event.
The owner obtained the dog from a breeder as an 8wk old puppy. No previous owner to blame it on.

I agree with the idea that if the dog can't have fun cause they're too anxious, then it ruins the experience for everyone else. It ruins the owner's experience because they're too busy being embarrassed and disciplining their dog. It also ruins the experience of others who have friendly, leashed dogs, but still have to worry about where they step in case their dog decides to sniff the snarky dog's butt, or even step within 6ft of them. 

I'm slowly coming to the conclusion that this dog is highly misunderstood by her owner and they do not have a solid relationship. I don't want to discriminate against dogs with space issues, but I think when the issues progress as far as snarking/growling/lunging, the owner should be asking themselves whether events are really worth doing. Then again, I've never had a dog with this issue, so it's hard to say what I'd do in this situation.


----------



## lil_fuzzy (Aug 16, 2010)

The thing about punishment is, it doesn't change how the dog feels about something. If the dog has a space issue with other dogs, punishing him for showing it doesn't make him more tolerant of having dogs in his space. It only makes him not show it. You CAN use an aversive to mask the signals and teach the dog to look at you and ignore everything else, but the dog is still anxious/annoyed with having other dogs in his space. This puts a lot of pressure on the handler to always make sure they see the other dog first, and redirect their own dog to look at them. If they don't the dog will probably lash out, with no warning, because warning signals get punished.

With desensitisation, you change how the dog feels about having other dogs in his space. You make him tolerate it, or even enjoy it. Other dogs become a cue to do whatever alternate behaviour the dog has learnt, like looking at the handler, lying down quietly on a mat etc. So the handler doesn't have to constantly watch the dog, because they have created a conditioned response where the cue is another dog entering his space.


----------



## GottaLuvMutts (Jun 1, 2009)

lil_fuzzy said:


> The thing about punishment is, it doesn't change how the dog feels about something. If the dog has a space issue with other dogs, punishing him for showing it doesn't make him more tolerant of having dogs in his space. It only makes him not show it. You CAN use an aversive to mask the signals and teach the dog to look at you and ignore everything else, but the dog is still anxious/annoyed with having other dogs in his space. This puts a lot of pressure on the handler to always make sure they see the other dog first, and redirect their own dog to look at them. If they don't the dog will probably lash out, with no warning, because warning signals get punished.
> 
> With desensitisation, you change how the dog feels about having other dogs in his space. You make him tolerate it, or even enjoy it. Other dogs become a cue to do whatever alternate behaviour the dog has learnt, like looking at the handler, lying down quietly on a mat etc. So the handler doesn't have to constantly watch the dog, because they have created a conditioned response where the cue is another dog entering his space.


Well said! I wonder if the owner has ever tried desensitization, or just went straight to the aversives. Hmm.


----------



## dantero (Feb 2, 2011)

I see no difference between using a spray bottle with some vinegar and water, depending on the amount of vinegar, and citronella collars. Well, I see 2 differences, the vinegar/water combo is cheaper, and it's put in a spray bottle not a collar. And in some situations I don't have a problem with using either of these as an adversive. Oh, and if you get it into your eyes or breathe it in, it's a very short term effect which is not painful, unless someone has gone nuts with the amount of vinegar. It's happened more than once to me, that darn wind LOL 

As for the rest, I wasn't there, I don't know the dog, I don't know the situation, so I don't have an opinion on whether her use of it was correct or not.


----------



## manusch (Apr 30, 2011)

I completely agree with cracker - it sounds like a training issue. Dog are 'non-human' animals after all and can be unpredictable. To me it is an issue of owner control. We as dog owners need to be able to control our dogs or get the proper training on how to do so, especially if they are a large breed.


----------



## doxiemommy (Dec 18, 2009)

dantero said:


> I see no difference between using a spray bottle with some vinegar and water, depending on the amount of vinegar, and citronella collars. Well, I see 2 differences, the vinegar/water combo is cheaper, and it's put in a spray bottle not a collar. And in some situations I don't have a problem with using either of these as an adversive. Oh, and if you get it into your eyes or breathe it in, it's a very short term effect which is not painful, unless someone has gone nuts with the amount of vinegar. It's happened more than once to me, that darn wind LOL
> 
> As for the rest, I wasn't there, I don't know the dog, I don't know the situation, so I don't have an opinion on whether her use of it was correct or not.


I have to respectfully disagree. You say if you get it in your eyes or breathe it, it's a very short term effect, are you talking from YOUR personal experience? Getting it in YOUR eyes, or breathing it YOURSELF?
If so, that is WAY different than if any of that happens to a dog. Dogs have thousands more scent receptors in their noses than we humans do. They are WAY more sensitive to smells that we are. Something that may seem to YOU to be short term and not painful DOES NOT necessarily seem the same way to dogs.


----------



## dantero (Feb 2, 2011)

doxiemommy said:


> I have to respectfully disagree. You say if you get it in your eyes or breathe it, it's a very short term effect, are you talking from YOUR personal experience? Getting it in YOUR eyes, or breathing it YOURSELF?


I believe I was quite clear that it was from my personal experience.



> If so, that is WAY different than if any of that happens to a dog. Dogs have thousands more scent receptors in their noses than we humans do. They are WAY more sensitive to smells that we are. Something that may seem to YOU to be short term and not painful DOES NOT necessarily seem the same way to dogs.


Being sensitive to smells does not equate to pain. And in my experience, my dogs are WAY more pain tolerant than I am, something that I consider quite painful they shrug off as nothing at all. So if I don't consider it painful, I have serious doubts they do. Can they smell it longer than I can, I'm sure they can. Is that somehow hurting them? I doubt it. Anymore than a person sitting near an offensive odor, it's offensive, but it's not hurting you.

Once again, I don't consider the vinegar/water combo any more adversive than a citronella collar. Not unless someone is going crazy with it and mixing 90% vinegar and 10% water. Now if you consider a citronella collar abusive, then you are probably going to consider the vinegar/water solution abusive also. 

Oh, and yes, I have also accidentally sprayed myself in the face with a citronella collar, on more than one occasion. Actually I think I prefer the vinegar, the odor doesn't seem to linger as long. But that's a personal preference.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

I'm sure some people/dogs getting sprayed in eyes etc with vinegar mixture would have no problem. With any pain aversive you will have people/dogs with high/low pain thresholds. The whole idea on DF is to just let owners know of possible problems. OP said trainer did the spraying and he/she hopefully would have some expertise with the spray. A newbie trying same action could have results that could cause a problem.


----------



## doxiemommy (Dec 18, 2009)

dantero said:


> I believe I was quite clear that it was from my personal experience.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


As I said, I respectfully disagree. I do not suggest citronella for the same reason I do not suggest water/vinegar. 
And, as, wvasko said, different people/dogs have different pain thresholds. I have seen many dogs with severe negative reactions to citronella collars, that lasted quite awhile, and seemed quite painful and upsetting. And, that would be defeating the purpose, right? A dog that was having an extremely unpleasant reaction, whether actually painful or not, is no longer thinking about WHY they got sprayed, just that it sucks.

And, as some posts mentioned, if a dog has a bad reaction, be it vinegar/water, citronella, or any aversive, it can become even more anxious than it was to begin with, and redirecting or management is kind of lost on that dog.


----------



## InkedMarie (Mar 11, 2009)

I have two barky dogs. I've tried a few different things to stop the barking; one I wish I hadn't. I tried plain water but it didn't curb the barking. Maybe vinegar mixed with it would have worked but I'll pass, thanks. I use it to clean my bird cages, not to spray my dogs in the face.


----------



## Puddin's Training Tips (Apr 9, 2011)

Sigh
For Ten Thousand years we have supposedly had a relationship with dogs. When/where did it all go so wrong? How is it that after so long, we still don't understand dogs even a little bit?

A dog defends himself and he is called "dominant" or "aggressive"

A scared and nervous dog is accused of being "stubborn"

A dog who doesn't yelp or cry or fight back has a "high threshold for pain" and therefore it's okay to hurt her.

We "train" dogs by hurting them, scaring them, making them uncomfortable. 

Instead of showing/teaching dogs what we want, we wait for them to break a rule (that is known only to us) then we punish them.
Instead of rewarding good behavior, we punish behavior we don't like - even though we never presented the dog with an alternative behavior.

Ian Dunbar says that Dogs are easy to abuse because they are so forgiving.

In the Book, "Fight!.." Author, Jean Donaldson says, "Amazingly, in 2004, there is still discussion in some professional cirlces about the advisability of hurting dogs to train them. It's not suprising then that the public is lagging even further behind". (written 7 years ago of course)

Wouldn't it be nice if arguments were about timing of the clicker; use of "yesss!" versus "good boy!"; a fading schedule for treats; how to lure, etc..?
..Instead of whether or not caustic substances in a dog's face burns for 2 seconds or 10 minutes; whether or not shock collars are "safe", etc..
A Dog's Negative Reinforcement Anthem​:fear:

Added:
To the last poster who had barky dogs, I suggest "Barking: The Sound of a Language" by Turid Rugaas: http://amzn.to/fa6NGY

For dogs who get upset in close proximity to other dogs, I suggest
"Scardey Dog" by Ali Brown - http://amzn.to/hLcuOf

A more technical book on this subject is Fight! by Jean Donaldson. Written more for experienced trainers. http://amzn.to/hDh1PG

My video on Desensitization and Counter Conditioning. This is condensed. The books contain way more details:
http://www.youtube.com/k9dogtraining#p/a/u/0/4WOFKPshhYQ


----------



## Nargle (Oct 1, 2007)

dantero said:


> I believe I was quite clear that it was from my personal experience.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't believe that just because an animal isn't SHOWING pain, it always means that he's not FEELING it. Of course there are instances where a dog is very driven and is super amped up, and therefore doesn't notice pain (much like a human would if they were pumped up with adrenaline), however, hiding pain is a defense mechanism for many animals. For instance, birds are obviously very fragile animals, but if a bird is hurt or injured, it does it's absolute best to pretend that there's nothing wrong with it. Its survival depends on not expressing its pain and revealing its vulnerability. If a bird were to go around limping and crying in pain, it would be like having a giant neon sign reading "All you can eat buffet" pointing at it for all of the predators to see. 

Long story short, no one can say that a dog has a high pain tolerance, or isn't perceiving any pain, because it's very likely that the dog could be hiding its pain. Especially if the dog is already feeling anxious and vulnerable and its survival instincts are kicking in. Of course a dog will never be able to truly express exactly how much pain it is feeling, but there is one thing we DO know, which is that several of a dog's senses are much, much more sensitive than the senses of a human.


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

I agree with one aspect of what puddins has said, I have a dog that will defend herself against I'll treatment & I believe that she should be able to without being quarantined or euthed & her head sent to test for rabies.


----------



## dantero (Feb 2, 2011)

Puddin's Training Tips said:


> Sigh
> For Ten Thousand years we have supposedly had a relationship with dogs. When/where did it all go so wrong? How is it that after so long, we still don't understand dogs even a little bit?




So the cavemen that lived with dogs trained with only positive reinforcement and never used adversives? Or even the people who trained dogs 100 years ago? Or 50 years ago? I think the use of adversives has been going on as long as people have been having a relationship with canines.



> A dog defends himself and he is called "dominant" or "aggressive"


Sometimes they are



> A scared and nervous dog is accused of being "stubborn"


Only if the person in question doesn't know how to read dogs. But not all misbehaviour can be written off with the excuse that the dog is scared or nervous either. Sometimes the dog simply isn't motivated to do what the owner wants.



> A dog who doesn't yelp or cry or fight back has a "high threshold for pain" and therefore it's okay to hurt her.


How do you know the dog is being hurt? Like others mentioned, and I think even you, different dogs have different thresholds. So if a dog doesn't react to an adversive, it's just as possible the dog isn't being hurt, as that it's being hurt and hiding it. A spray bottle of just water is an adversive to some dogs, are people going to argue that is now also hurting the dog?



> We "train" dogs by hurting them, scaring them, making them uncomfortable.


Or we train dogs by teaching them in a positive manner what we want, and then balance with proper motivation and applying appropriate corrections when they know what is being required of them, but do not do it. 



> Instead of showing/teaching dogs what we want, we wait for them to break a rule (that is known only to us) then we punish them.
> Instead of rewarding good behavior, we punish behavior we don't like - even though we never presented the dog with an alternative behavior.


That would be your assumption, I personally don't know any trainers that train that way.




> Wouldn't it be nice if arguments were about timing of the clicker; use of "yesss!" versus "good boy!"; a fading schedule for treats; how to lure, etc..?
> ..Instead of whether or not caustic substances in a dog's face burns for 2 seconds or 10 minutes; whether or not shock collars are "safe", etc..


I think those would be pretty shallow arguments that only scratched the surface. There is a much wider range of training techniques out there, and things people are training dogs for, personally I'm interesting in knowing as much as I can about all of them.



doxiemommy said:


> I do not suggest citronella for the same reason I do not suggest water/vinegar.
> And, as, wvasko said, different people/dogs have different pain thresholds. I have seen many dogs with severe negative reactions to citronella collars, that lasted quite awhile, and seemed quite painful and upsetting.


And I have seen the opposite, dogs who barely even acknowledge the citronella, other than to maybe sneeze once or twice. Some even seemed to like it. Others it had the desired reaction, it stopped the behaviour without stressing or otherwise upsetting the dogs.

Frankly though I didn't chime in on this discussion to get into a long drawn out argument over whether using either vinegar/water or citronella was abusive or not, the OP asked about it and asked about comparison to citronella, I responded that IMO they are very similar. And made it clear I don't know the dog in question, the situation, etc so I don't have an opinion on if it was the right choice for this dog/situation.



> And, that would be defeating the purpose, right? A dog that was having an extremely unpleasant reaction, whether actually painful or not, is no longer thinking about WHY they got sprayed, just that it sucks.
> 
> And, as some posts mentioned, if a dog has a bad reaction, be it vinegar/water, citronella, or any aversive, it can become even more anxious than it was to begin with, and redirecting or management is kind of lost on that dog.


Sure, if the dog has that bad of a reaction. But not all dogs do, actually I can't think of a dog offhand who I have met who had the type of bad reaction people here are talking about.



Nargle said:


> I don't believe that just because an animal isn't SHOWING pain, it always means that he's not FEELING it.


I don't believe I said that. 



> Of course there are instances where a dog is very driven and is super amped up, and therefore doesn't notice pain (much like a human would if they were pumped up with adrenaline), however, hiding pain is a defense mechanism for many animals. For instance, birds are obviously very fragile animals, but if a bird is hurt or injured, it does it's absolute best to pretend that there's nothing wrong with it. Its survival depends on not expressing its pain and revealing its vulnerability. If a bird were to go around limping and crying in pain, it would be like having a giant neon sign reading "All you can eat buffet" pointing at it for all of the predators to see.


It's been a long time since my dogs lived in the wild and had to worry about being eaten by a predator if they showed weakness. Although this may still be part of their natural instincts, I think it's long been modified by selective breeding. Otherwise we'd be seeing temperaments in our dogs a lot more like wild canines, where most behaviours or survival motivated.



> Long story short, no one can say that a dog has a high pain tolerance, or isn't perceiving any pain, because it's very likely that the dog could be hiding its pain. Especially if the dog is already feeling anxious and vulnerable and its survival instincts are kicking in. Of course a dog will never be able to truly express exactly how much pain it is feeling, but there is one thing we DO know, which is that several of a dog's senses are much, much more sensitive than the senses of a human.


No, but at the same time I don't think we can say that the dogs pain sensors are more sensitive than a humans either.



wvasko said:


> The whole idea on DF is to just let owners know of possible problems.


And I'm all for that, but the general theme I'm picking up from this thread is that anyone who would consider using the vinegar/water idea is an abusive person who enjoys inflicting pain on their dog in the name of "training".

I'm simply pointing out an opposing viewpoint, that I don't think it's any worse than a citronella collar. And that like many other methods, when used correctly, I don't believe it's abusive.


----------



## GottaLuvMutts (Jun 1, 2009)

dantero said:


> I'm simply pointing out an opposing viewpoint, that I don't think it's any worse than a citronella collar. And that like many other methods, when used correctly, I don't believe it's abusive.


One big difference that I see between a spray bottle and a citronella collar (which I've never actually seen, so correct me if I'm wrong) is that the collar automatically delivers the unpleasantness, whereas with the squirt bottle, it comes from the owner. I see more potential to wreck the canine/handler relationship when the handler is the one delivering the punishment.


----------



## dantero (Feb 2, 2011)

GottaLuvMutts said:


> One big difference that I see between a spray bottle and a citronella collar (which I've never actually seen, so correct me if I'm wrong) is that the collar automatically delivers the unpleasantness, whereas with the squirt bottle, it comes from the owner. I see more potential to wreck the canine/handler relationship when the handler is the one delivering the punishment.


You are correct in that the collar delivers the spray. And there are two types, the no-bark ones which trigger from the dogs barking, and the remote type which are triggered by the handler using a remote. But then the theory behind it comes into play, some people I know that use collars want the dog to believe it's the "hand of God" causing the correction (ie the dog has no idea where it's coming from, just that it happened). Other's want the dog to understand that they control the correction, and it comes from them. So in the first case there is less effect on the canine/handler relationship, in the latter case more effect. Wether it's wrecking the relationship or not IMO depends on the dog and handler, their personalities, etc.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Humans, in general, DO like inflicting pain upon beings smaller than they are. We don't like to admit it, but causing pain/discomfort to other living beings is an incredibly reinforcing behavior. It makes us feel big and tough to have another being show fear of us, it gives us a flush of "feel-good" brain chemicals. Modern humans aren't comfortable with that, so we make excuses, say it's "motivation" or "correction" or whatever. But really it's human nature, just caveman instinct. 

Although I will say that I don't think the "cavemen" who were around when dogs first domesticated actually trained the dogs, using aversives or not. I believe it's thought to have been more of a mutually tolerant relationship than an actual master type relationship.


----------



## Nargle (Oct 1, 2007)

dantero said:


> I don't believe I said that.


You said that dogs have a high pain tolerance, and that if you think something is quite painful, they shrug it off as nothing at all. I'm just suggesting that one may confuse tolerance with just keeping pain hidden.



dantero said:


> It's been a long time since my dogs lived in the wild and had to worry about being eaten by a predator if they showed weakness. Although this may still be part of their natural instincts, I think it's long been modified by selective breeding. Otherwise we'd be seeing temperaments in our dogs a lot more like wild canines, where most behaviours or survival motivated.


Actually I believe that selective breeding would exaggerate this trait. People would choose to breed the dogs that don't express their pain because they can "take more." Whether or not they can actually handle more pain is a mystery, but obviously a high pain tolerance is a desirable trait in some breeds. Regardless, there are many instinctual traits that dogs possess even though they have been domesticated. If they didn't, I'm not sure how else stray dogs would be so successful at survival.



dantero said:


> No, but at the same time I don't think we can say that the dogs pain sensors are more sensitive than a humans either.


The odor itself may not cause pain, but the tons and tons of sensitive tissues in a dog's nasal passages that may be susceptible to the burning sensation caused by inhaling acid. 

And from personal experience, as someone with sensitive hearing, I know I'm more inclined to feel pain caused by loud noises than my boyfriend or my mom, who don't have very sensitive hearing.


----------



## Puddin's Training Tips (Apr 9, 2011)

Willowy said:


> Humans, in general, DO like inflicting pain upon beings smaller than they are. We don't like to admit it, but causing pain/discomfort to other living beings is an incredibly reinforcing behavior. It makes us feel big and tough to have another being show fear of us, it gives us a flush of "feel-good" brain chemicals. Modern humans aren't comfortable with that, so we make excuses, say it's "motivation" or "correction" or whatever. But really it's human nature, just caveman instinct.


Interesting. But so sad. A a little scary. Have your read this somewhere or is this an opinion based what you have observed. Just curious. Not disagreeing or anything. I know that Pat Miller and some others say that using aversives is reinforcing to the handler, but don't remember any further details on that. 



> I believe it's thought to have been more of a mutually tolerant relationship than an actual master type relationship.


Yes, I remember reading that and that make sense. I don't think training came into being until urbanization and industrialization (another wildly uneducated guess). Then the leash was invented and things probably went downhill from there (not that I'm against leashes). But I really am curious about the rise of choke collars, shock collars, yanking, alpha rolls, yelling, scolding, etc.. It's like we went backwards in our relationship at some point.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

http://www.livescience.com/2231-humans-crave-violence-sex.html


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

GottaLuvMutts said:


> One big difference that I see between a spray bottle and a citronella collar (which I've never actually seen, so correct me if I'm wrong) is that the collar automatically delivers the unpleasantness, whereas with the squirt bottle, it comes from the owner. I see more potential to wreck the canine/handler relationship when the handler is the one delivering the punishment.


Not to mention that the timing is likely to be much worse. As to whether of not dogs "hide" discomfort - I can't believe I am the only person who has ever taken a gimpy dog to the vets only to have it absolutely refuse to limp there. Also, when a dog is really pumped, they may not realize they are in discomfort until the adrenaline rush goes away.


----------



## GottaLuvMutts (Jun 1, 2009)

Willowy said:


> Humans, in general, DO like inflicting pain upon beings smaller than they are. We don't like to admit it, but causing pain/discomfort to other living beings is an incredibly reinforcing behavior. It makes us feel big and tough to have another being show fear of us, it gives us a flush of "feel-good" brain chemicals. Modern humans aren't comfortable with that, so we make excuses, say it's "motivation" or "correction" or whatever. But really it's human nature, just caveman instinct.


Really? I don't think that I enjoy being feared, whether that's by a mouse who scurries away when I walk by on a hike, a dog who cowers when I hold a long thin object in a menacing way, or even by a human. Respect is a lot different than fear. I had never heard anyone say that using aversives on dogs is reinforcing for the human. I always feel like crap after I punish Kit, even when it's something as innocuous as a time out, and even when she totally deserves it.


----------



## dantero (Feb 2, 2011)

Willowy said:


> Although I will say that I don't think the "cavemen" who were around when dogs first domesticated actually trained the dogs, using aversives or not. I believe it's thought to have been more of a mutually tolerant relationship than an actual master type relationship.


I suspect they did train them, at least in some basic ways. Such as a dog coming into camp and trying to steal food, probably got a kick in the ribs, rock/stick thrown at it, or worse. Same for a dog who showed aggression towards the humans, or other undesired behaviour. The dogs had the option to simply not come back though, at least originally. So not a real master type relationship. I suspect it wasn't until later that they became considered property and were kept around by tying them up or other devices. At which point they no longer had the option to leave, and I from what I have read most of the training was done using adversives. I don't see the early trainers using markers, or desensitization, or other techniques which are common today. The dog either performed as desired, or it was removed from the group in one way or another.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

> Or we train dogs by teaching them in a positive manner what we want, and then balance with proper motivation and applying appropriate corrections when they know what is being required of them, but do not do it.


Yes on the above.



> Humans, in general, DO like inflicting pain upon beings smaller than they are. We don't like to admit it, but causing pain/discomfort to other living beings is an incredibly reinforcing behavior. It makes us feel big and tough to have another being show fear of us, it gives us a flush of "feel-good" brain chemicals.


Whoa now, sadists yes. I hope that most of us aren't on that shelf. 



> You are correct in that the collar delivers the spray. And there are two types, the no-bark ones which trigger from the dogs barking, and the remote type which are triggered by the handler using a remote. But then the theory behind it comes into play, some people I know that use collars want the dog to believe it's the "hand of God" causing the correction (ie the dog has no idea where it's coming from, just that it happened). Other's want the dog to understand that they control the correction, and it comes from them. So in the first case there is less effect on the canine/handler relationship, in the latter case more effect. Wether it's wrecking the relationship or not IMO depends on the dog and handler, their personalities, etc.


I want dogs that I train to know who's doing what to who. I will take care of the relationship problem by being in charge of the reading of the dog whose relationship I am molding/changing etc. I believe a dog living in the world that thinks doG can reach down and smite him at any time for anything would/could possibly end up a mental wreck. That being said, this is only the way that I work my dogs.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

wvasko said:


> Whoa now, sadists yes. I hope that most of us aren't on that shel.


*shrug* the studies show humans do get a rush of endorphins from aggressive behavior. Not sure that can be helped. We might feel bad because we've been taught that aggression is wrong, but that doesn't change the rewarding brain chemicals. People must find it reinforcing or they wouldn't do it.


----------



## DougGeneration (Apr 28, 2011)

I'm reading some very strikingly true points here from several members, and at the same time, learning from those. I'd be a reader for now.


----------



## Cracker (May 25, 2009)

The neurochemical released in our brains from aggression is dopamine. This is why when you finally tell someone off that you've been steaming about, it feels so damn good. But the real reinforcing thing for the use of corrections is that, applied forcefully enough and with the RIGHT timing, they do work...it suppresses or changes the behaviour, we are rewarded by THAT and so it is used again because it worked before. It's learning theory applied to the handler.

This does not of course take into account the long term effects on the dog. 

Punishment is part of the learning quadrants because it works. Whether it is appropriate? That is a different ball of wax.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080114103723.htm

This is also a great indicator of why it is so important through management and prevention to keep the dog (or human) under threshold while teaching a new behaviour or new response to a trigger. Since it is neurochemically self rewarding, keeping a organism under threshold prevents them from practicing (ie learning) the wiring in the brain that cements the process. Neurons that fire together, wire together.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Willowy said:


> *shrug* the studies show humans do get a rush of endorphins from aggressive behavior. Not sure that can be helped. We might feel bad because we've been taught that aggression is wrong, but that doesn't change the rewarding brain chemicals. People must find it reinforcing or they wouldn't do it.


Well I never thought beating up a dog would make anybody feel good, but I have been fortunate enough as a younger man to kick some human butt that was quite rewarding. Of course occasionally I was the receiver of same program.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Plenty of people do beat their dogs, which clearly they find rewarding or they wouldn't do it. But aggression takes many forms, not all are as overt as beating (seeing how the main discussion is about spraying a dog with vinegar). Such methods are common because they are ultimately satisfying for the owner, regardless of whether they actually work or not (and we are more likely to decide a method works if we find it satisfying, even if an impartial observer sees no difference). That's why "The Dogfather" and Cesar are so popular.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

dantero said:


> I suspect they did train them, at least in some basic ways. Such as a dog coming into camp and trying to steal food, probably got a kick in the ribs, rock/stick thrown at it, or worse. Same for a dog who showed aggression towards the humans, or other undesired behaviour. The dogs had the option to simply not come back though, at least originally. So not a real master type relationship. I suspect it wasn't until later that they became considered property and were kept around by tying them up or other devices. At which point they no longer had the option to leave, and I from what I have read most of the training was done using adversives. I don't see the early trainers using markers, or desensitization, or other techniques which are common today. The dog either performed as desired, or it was removed from the group in one way or another.


Does that mean we need to train like cavemen? Or that training is more effective?



Willowy said:


> Plenty of people do beat their dogs, which clearly they find rewarding or they wouldn't do it. But aggression takes many forms, not all are as overt as beating (seeing how the main discussion is about spraying a dog with vinegar). Such methods are common because they are ultimately satisfying for the owner, regardless of whether they actually work or not (and we are more likely to decide a method works if we find it satisfying, even if an impartial observer sees no difference). That's why "The Dogfather" and Cesar are so popular.


I honestly think many people do not-so-nice things to their dogs because they don't know anything else, or because some supposed expert told them that was how to train a dog. I know when I first started training dogs, I was told to do a number of not-so-nice things in training. And I did them because I didn't know any other way. I didn't particularly get a rush from it or enjoyment from it. In fact, much of the time I felt pretty bad about doing it, but thought it was better and safer to have a trained dog than an untrained dog.

I was a child at a time when children were frequently paddled in school and spanked by parents. I did get a few good spankings from my father. I don't think he particularly enjoyed it (though I had a few teachers who really appeared to enjoy it). My dad was a kind man who loved me very much. He was simply following how all the child rearing experts (except Dr. Spock, who was still considered mostly a crank) said to do it. But I didn't really learn anything from the spankings either, other than how to avoid getting caught. 

The thing is, I think there are a lot of people who use harsher, physical methods who are as attached to, and care for their dogs just as much as people who do not. And there is probably a certain amount of ambivalence and guilt about it already. If we want to tell people that squirting their dogs is a sign of their inherent sadism, we can certainly say that. But it is probably not true, and probably drives them further away from chosing less forceful methods (if that's our goal) "Violence begins where knowledge ends."


----------



## dantero (Feb 2, 2011)

Pawzk9 said:


> Does that mean we need to train like cavemen? Or that training is more effective?


Is that really what you got from my comments, or are you trying to make a point with a question?


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

dantero said:


> Is that really what you got from my comments?


Pretty much.


----------



## dantero (Feb 2, 2011)

Willowy said:


> seeing how the main discussion is about spraying a dog with vinegar


Actually it's about spraying a dog with a vinegar/water mixture. Might seem like splitting hairs, but it's the difference between patting someone on the arm and punching them in the face. Both are "physical blows", but there is quite a range of force between them.



Pawzk9 said:


> Pretty much.


Then you might want to re-read them, and the posts they were in response to.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Pawzk9 said:


> If we want to tell people that squirting their dogs is a sign of their inherent sadism, we can certainly say that. But it is probably not true, and probably drives them further away from chosing less forceful methods.


Do you really think so? I have always thought that it's necessary for us to recognize our basest instincts (including inherent "sadism") before we can make a conscious decision to do something different. But maybe you're right. I don't know. I don't claim to understand people, or dogs, really. I understand cats.


----------



## GypsyJazmine (Nov 27, 2009)

Before I ever sprayed vinegar on one of my dogs I'd simply leave them at home from events that they don't enjoy!


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Willowy said:


> Do you really think so? I have always thought that it's necessary for us to recognize our basest instincts (including inherent "sadism") before we can make a conscious decision to do something different. But maybe you're right. I don't know. I don't claim to understand people, or dogs, really. I understand cats.


If I happen to recognize my basest instincts, it may very well prompt me to make a conscious decision to change. However, you can't make a "personal realization" for someone else. They have to do it for themselves. And if that person is on the verge of having a paradigm shift, by making judgements about their behavior, all you are likely to do is drive them back to cling to the things they already think they know. Add to that the fact that it can be VERY difficult to suss out another person's true motivation. Especially somebody you don't know.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

> Do you really think so? I have always thought that it's necessary for us to recognize our basest instincts (including inherent "sadism") before we can make a conscious decision to do something different. But maybe you're right. I don't know. I don't claim to understand people, or dogs, really. I understand cats.


I can understand if people want to make a conscious decision to change themselves, but adding the "us" to anything disturbs me.


----------



## babybasset (Apr 28, 2011)

We've used an empty pop can with some change in it. If our dog got naughty when she was a pup, we would just give the can a small shake. The noise worked and it doesn't hurt the dog. And if a dog can't be trusted to take out in public, then don't do it without an experienced trainer.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

wvasko said:


> I can understand if people want to make a conscious decision to change themselves, but adding the "us" to anything disturbs me.


By "us" I meant humans in general .

Discussions of why people do the things they do fascinates me. I feel like Data on Star Trek TNG .

But mostly I became interested in the subject because I also did a number of not-very-nice things to my first dog. Totally ruined the poor puppy. Yes, because the training books said I should and I didn't know any better. But. . .I also found that permission to behave aggressively to be disturbingly satisfying on a very primitive level, even though it made me feel guilty consciously. It's a weird paradox of the human mind, I guess.


----------



## SydTheSpaniel (Feb 12, 2011)

I don't know about the vinegar, I don't really agree with that.... but when I worked at the doggie daycare, we used water spray bottles as a 'punishment' when ever the dogs barked indoors or got too rough with other dogs. But... then again, we all know this particular place was bad news. I agree that prevention and training is much better.


----------



## dantero (Feb 2, 2011)

babybasset said:


> We've used an empty pop can with some change in it. If our dog got naughty when she was a pup, we would just give the can a small shake. The noise worked and it doesn't hurt the dog.


Generally a "penny can" works because it startles or scares the dog. In the case of a dog it startles, once they get used to the noise and it no longer startles them, it also no longer works. So if it works long term, it's usually because it scares the dog. Which IMO is just as much of a negative for the dog as a physical correction.

They also don't work on all dogs. My dogs think they are toys, shake one near them and they will all be trying to see who gets it first to play with.


----------



## doxiemommy (Dec 18, 2009)

I agree with you on this one.  The soda can with pennies is an aversive, just as the vinegar-water is, and I wouldn't recommend that either. As others have stated, every dog has a different threshold of pain, sensitivities, etc. Some dogs are "soft" and even harsh voices would scare/upset them. Penny cans can have the same reaction, too. Just because things may not physically hurt a dog doesn't mean it doesn't bother or upset them.
I mean, the penny can might work simply as an attention getter for some dogs, but for others it might send them running to hide under the nearest chair, and that's not helping, either.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

dantero said:


> Then you might want to re-read them, and the posts they were in response to.


Yea I didn't get that off your comments at all.


----------



## cynster (Feb 26, 2011)

I'm in agreement that there are many different training methods that work for many different types of dogs. Spray works for some dogs or it wouldn't be used. Some dogs are more sensitive than others. I don't think spray is abusive for most dogs. I think it's a bit much for my dog, but she's timid. 

With the caveman example, I absolutely agree. In the beginning it is very likely methods were negative reinforcement, which doesn't work as well as positive reinforcement, but it obviously worked, and dogs somehow got the idea that humans help them compared to wolves who problem solve on their own. Of course we have evolved and our methods have evolved, but to say that anything that isn't positive reinforcement is abusive is pushing it. From what I read the point of that example was that cavemen used negative reinforcement but were still able to bond with their dogs to create them into what they are today.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

cynster said:


> cavemen used negative reinforcement but were still able to bond with their dogs to create them into what they are today.


I don't think we can say that at all. The humans alive when dogs first domesticated didn't leave dog training books around for us to find. I think it's just a guess based on the premise that since those humans weren't as "advanced" as we are now, they must have used harsh physical methods. I think that's a flawed assumption, we really have no idea how they treated dogs.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Willowy said:


> I don't think we can say that at all. The humans alive when dogs first domesticated didn't leave dog training books around for us to find. I think it's just a guess based on the premise that since those humans weren't as "advanced" as we are now, they must have used harsh physical methods. I think that's a flawed assumption, we really have no idea how they treated dogs.


Hey I was there, We had a club(big stick) for the wife and another (smaller stick) for the dog, times were good.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

wvasko said:


> Hey I was there, We had a club(big stick) for the wife and another (smaller stick) for the dog, times were good.


How big was the wife's stick?


----------



## cynster (Feb 26, 2011)

Willowy said:


> I don't think we can say that at all. The humans alive when dogs first domesticated didn't leave dog training books around for us to find. I think it's just a guess based on the premise that since those humans weren't as "advanced" as we are now, they must have used harsh physical methods. I think that's a flawed assumption, we really have no idea how they treated dogs.


Well considering they used to be wolves.... you can make an educated guess. Either way positive reinforcement has only recently become the most popular training method. I think it makes more sense to assume that a wild animal would be treated with a firm hand and dominant behavior on the part of the human than to assume the wild animal would have a desire to please the human. Positive reinforcement is very limited if the dog has little interest in pleasing the owner.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

cynster said:


> Well considering they used to be wolves.... you can make an educated guess. Either way positive reinforcement has only recently become the most popular training method. I think it makes more sense to assume that a wild animal would be treated with a firm hand and dominant behavior on the part of the human than to assume the wild animal would have a desire to please the human. Positive reinforcement is very limited if the dog has little interest in pleasing the owner.


Well, not really. Why do you think zoos, marine parks, etc. use positive reinforcement training for large, wild and frequently dangerous animals? Possibly because it is clear, creates strong, dependable behaviors, doesn't require a lot of hands on, and doesn't really depend on the critter being all that interested in pleasing the human.


----------



## lil_fuzzy (Aug 16, 2010)

I was under the impression that punishment only became really popular in the last 100 years or so. Before that there was a lot of molding and probably some reward.

I can imagine that when people first started domesticating wolves/dogs, they would use a more balanced approach. I have read somewhere that women with kids used to share their breastmilk around to orphaned wolves that they had found and raised as their own. This suggests that they would develop a pretty close bond with them.

They probably hung out together, and shared whatever meat they came across, because otherwise the deal wouldn't be worth if for the wolves. If there was any training, I can imagine it would consist of molding, maybe pushing out of the way, a tap on the nose or something along those lines. And the cavemen probably gave them meat and other food 'just because', they might even have thrown sticks and played with them. I just can't see cavemen getting sadistic with them. 

Of course this is just speculation.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Willowy said:


> By "us" I meant humans in general .
> 
> Discussions of why people do the things they do fascinates me. I feel like Data on Star Trek TNG .
> 
> But mostly I became interested in the subject because I also did a number of not-very-nice things to my first dog. Totally ruined the poor puppy. Yes, because the training books said I should and I didn't know any better. But. . .I also found that permission to behave aggressively to be disturbingly satisfying on a very primitive level, even though it made me feel guilty consciously. It's a weird paradox of the human mind, I guess.


I didn't ruin my early dogs. In fact they were well-behaved and successfully trained. Many of then ended up doing very well in obedience trials. High in trials, national rankings, tournament invites. Advanced titles. I didn't find doing things that could be called "aggressive" to them particularly satisfying on any level, past the fact that I was satisfied that they worked. Perhaps that is the difference, and why I am willing to give people the benefit of the doubt about how they train. Because I know how it is to not like what you think your options are, but simply not having access to better information. I thank my long gone dogs for putting me on a path to find better options. And, while those past dogs surely knew that they were loved and worked willingly for me, I'm betting if they could, the current dogs would thank them too.


----------



## cynster (Feb 26, 2011)

Pawzk9 said:


> Well, not really. Why do you think zoos, marine parks, etc. use positive reinforcement training for large, wild and frequently dangerous animals? Possibly because it is clear, creates strong, dependable behaviors, doesn't require a lot of hands on, and doesn't really depend on the critter being all that interested in pleasing the human.


Sure they do now and I think it's the better way to do it. I just don't think it was always done. The point is that aversive training has been done and dogs have been trained that way for a very long time and I don't think they are any worse off today because of it. It doesn't mean it works better - because it doesn't. But I don't think just because it doesn't work well makes it abusive. That's all I'm saying. 





lil_fuzzy said:


> I was under the impression that punishment only became really popular in the last 100 years or so. Before that there was a lot of molding and probably some reward.
> 
> I can imagine that when people first started domesticating wolves/dogs, they would use a more balanced approach. I have read somewhere that women with kids used to share their breastmilk around to orphaned wolves that they had found and raised as their own. This suggests that they would develop a pretty close bond with them.
> 
> ...


I think food has probably always been used. The part I bolded - Exactly. It's not positive reinforcement, but it's not abusive either. Although I think wolves take a little more than a tap on the nose - I'm not saying hitting at all, but definitely some dominant energy and attitute. In a nutshell, dogs have been companions by our side throughout a variation of training methods. Adherence training in my opinion doesn't work as well, but it is training, and I don't think it should be considered abuse.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

cynster said:


> Well considering they used to be wolves.... you can make an educated guess. Either way positive reinforcement has only recently become the most popular training method. I think it makes more sense to assume that a wild animal would be treated with a firm hand and dominant behavior on the part of the human than to assume the wild animal would have a desire to please the human. Positive reinforcement is very limited if the dog has little interest in pleasing the owner.


Do you want to try using a "firm hand and dominant behavior" with a captive wolf now? Be my guest. . .I'll scrape up the pieces after he eats you. Wild animals do not respond to that kind of thing. They used to try harsher methods with captive whales back when they first tried to keep them captive (not very long ago. . .whenever they perfected large aquarium keeping), and a lot of trainers were ending up dead. They don't even use negative punishment with the whales now--it created a lot of resentment, which didn't turn out so great. It's not smart to try to bully a critter that's bigger/stronger than you are, it wouldn't have been smart for the ancient humans to try to bully a wolf. They don't work to please humans but they don't work to avoid punishment either. They work for food or some other reward.

And positive reinforcement training is not as new as you think. It was quite popular in. . .I think Victorian times? At some point back then anyway. Pretty sure the harsher methods are the newer of the 2. People USED to have common sense.


----------



## cynster (Feb 26, 2011)

Willowy said:


> Do you want to try using a "firm hand and dominant behavior" with a captive wolf now? Be my guest. . .I'll scrape up the pieces after he eats you. Wild animals do not respond to that kind of thing. They used to try harsher methods with captive whales, and a lot of trainers were ending up dead. They don't even use negative punishment with the whales now--it created a lot of resentment, which didn't trun out so great. It's not smart to try to bully a critter that's bigger than you are. They don't work to please humans but they don't work to avoid punishment either. They work for food or some other reward.
> 
> And positive reinforcement training is not as new as you think. It was quite popular in. . .I think Victorian times? At some point back then anyway. Pretty sure the harsher methods are the newer of the 2. People USED to have common sense.


I think I'm going to have to agree to disagree with you on this one. On all counts. And I never said punishment. I said aversive. There were a few people who tried positive reinforcement in the 1800's with great success. It did not catch on as a popular method though, that I'm aware. And again it's not harsher methods. It's getting the dog to avoid a behavior by distraction or slight unpleasantness, mainly distraction.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

wvasko said:


> Hey I was there, We had a club(big stick) for the wife and another (smaller stick) for the dog, times were good.


Haha! I forgot you were there. . .actually, I'm more interested in how you trained your mammoth. Or saber-toothed cat. I think you would have to be careful with a cat who has teeth the size of your head.



cynster said:


> I think I'm going to have to agree to disagree with you on this one. On all counts. And I never said punishment. I said aversive. There were a few people who tried positive reinforcement in the 1800's with great success. It did not catch on as a popular method though, that I'm aware. And again it's not harsher methods. It's getting the dog to avoid a behavior by distraction or slight unpleasantness, mainly distraction.


Then I guess I don't understand what you were saying. . .because I read all your past posts in this thread and that's not what I got from them. So I don't even know what we're agreeing to disagree about. . .


----------



## Nargle (Oct 1, 2007)

cynster said:


> Well considering they used to be wolves.... you can make an educated guess. Either way positive reinforcement has only recently become the most popular training method. I think it makes more sense to assume that a wild animal would be treated with a firm hand and dominant behavior on the part of the human than to assume the wild animal would have a desire to please the human. Positive reinforcement is very limited if the dog has little interest in pleasing the owner.


I completely disagree... I think if one were to use a "firm hand" with a wild animal, you'd get an animal that sees you as a threat and completely avoids you. As an owner of a "wild" animal (A parrot, born in captivity but not necessarily "domesticated" in terms of selective breeding. There are plenty of GCCs in the wild living as wild animals) I know that training a non-domesticated animal is completely different than training a dog. First and foremost, you have to give them a reason to want to stick around. An animal has no reason to want to please a human being if there's nothing in it for the animal. Punishment will get you nowhere. There's WAY more give and take. I have to respect my parrot's space and he has to respect mine (because I've shown him with patience that aggression will not get a response from me). I believe that early cavemen would offer things like leftover food scraps in order to keep wolves around. Otherwise humans are just another prey animal. A 120 lbs wolf vs. a 120 lbs human... who do you think has the upper hand? The wolf has no motivation to co-exist with humans if there is no positive reinforcement. Only after selective breeding had created in dogs the desire to please their master unconditionally did there become room for harsh treatment and refined training based on loyalty.

ETA: _Punishment_ is very limited if the animal has little interest in pleasing the owner. What does punishment get you if the animal has no other reason to stick around? Positive reinforcement is the obvious choice to use with an animal that is only concerned about satisfying itself... The animal is actually getting something it desires out of the relationship. With domesticated animals, punishment only works because the desire to please has been bred in, and the desire to please is now the motivating factor. If you were to punish a wild animal, you'd be met with a "fight or flight" response, not obedience.


----------



## cynster (Feb 26, 2011)

Willowy said:


> Then I guess I don't understand what you were saying. . .because I read all your past posts in this thread and that's not what I got from them. So I don't even know what we're agreeing to disagree about. . .


To sum it up in a single sentence - Aversive training has been used a very long time, is useful in some situations, and although it is not as effective as positive reinforcement, that does not make it abusive.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

I'm sure different individuals used different training methods while wolves were being domesticated. Just like now. *shrug*


----------



## cynster (Feb 26, 2011)

Nargle said:


> I completely disagree... I think if one were to use a "firm hand" with a wild animal, you'd get an animal that sees you as a threat and completely avoids you. As an owner of a "wild" animal (A parrot, born in captivity but not necessarily "domesticated" in terms of selective breeding. There are plenty of GCCs in the wild living as wild animals) I know that training a non-domesticated animal is completely different than training a dog. First and foremost, you have to give them a reason to want to stick around. An animal has no reason to want to please a human being if there's nothing in it for the animal. *Punishment will get you nowhere.* There's WAY more give and take. I have to respect my parrot's space and he has to respect mine (because I've shown him with patience that aggression will not get a response from me). I believe that early cavemen would offer things like leftover food scraps in order to keep wolves around. Otherwise humans are just another prey animal. A 120 lbs wolf vs. a 120 lbs human... who do you think has the upper hand? The wolf has no motivation to co-exist with humans if there is *no positive reinforcement*. Only after selective breeding had created in dogs the desire to please their master unconditionally did there become room for *harsh treatment* and refined training based on loyalty.


Not saying there was no positive reinforcement. Not saying there was punishment (nor am I saying there wasn't punishment). There was training to make the dog/wolf whatever avoid behaviors that made it incompatible with the human lifestyle. It's very old, not the only training method practiced, but around and obviously had some effect or it wouldn't be done. And I don't think it is abusive.


----------



## Nargle (Oct 1, 2007)

cynster said:


> Not saying there was no positive reinforcement. Not saying there was punishment (nor am I saying there wasn't punishment). There was training to make the dog/wolf whatever avoid behaviors that made it incompatible with the human lifestyle. It's very old, not the only training method practiced, but around and obviously had some effect or it wouldn't be done. And I don't think it is abusive.


Personally, I believe that ancient humans would be less concerned about TRAINING wolves/dogs out of behaviors incompativle with human lifestyle, and would more than likely just drive away/kill individuals that caused harm. The ones who behaved in a way that ways agreeable with human lifestyle, they probably tried to keep them around by providing them with positive reinforcement. I'm basing this theory on the way present-day tribes in primitive countries co-exist with their dogs.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

cynster said:


> To sum it up in a single sentence - Aversive training has been used a very long time, is useful in some situations, and although it is not as effective as positive reinforcement, that does not make it abusive.


OK. . .there is no such thing as training without aversives. Even an "uh oh" can be aversive to some dogs. Withholding treats can be aversive. So obviously, I don't think anyone is saying that all aversives are abusive. Not sure where that came from.

And, aversive = punishment. In learning theory language anyway.


----------



## cynster (Feb 26, 2011)

Nargle said:


> Personally, I believe that ancient humans would be less concerned about TRAINING wolves/dogs out of behaviors incompativle with human lifestyle, and would more than likely just drive away/kill individuals that caused harm. The ones who behaved in a way that ways agreeable with human lifestyle, they probably tried to keep them around by providing them with positive reinforcement. I'm basing this theory on the way present-day tribes in primitive countries co-exist with their dogs.


 I don't know, I wasn't there  I think there was a little more to it, though - as an educated guess about how people/dog interactions are - especially difficult dogs. If a dog is pooping in the cave, the owner is probably going to do something about it  Anyway I'll leave it at that. I've sufficiently explained my opinions and I believe you all have too - so whether we agree to agree or agree to disagree - I'm spent on this topic lol




Willowy said:


> OK. . .there is no such thing as training without aversives. Even an "uh oh" can be aversive to some dogs. Withholding treats can be aversive. So obviously, I don't think anyone is saying that all aversives are abusive. Not sure where that came from.
> And, aversive = punishment. In learning theory language anyway.


aversive (əˈvɜːsɪv) 

— adj
tending to dissuade or repel

That's the one I'm using  Glad we don't disagree.


----------



## Nargle (Oct 1, 2007)

cynster said:


> I don't know, I wasn't there  I think there was a little more to it, though - as an educated guess about how people/dog interactions are - especially difficult dogs. If a dog is pooping in the cave, the owner is probably going to *do something about it * Anyway I'll leave it at that. I've sufficiently explained my opinions and I believe you all have too - so whether we agree to agree or agree to disagree - I'm spent on this topic lol
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't disagree especially with the bolded part. But my idea of how they'd "do something about it" consists more of chasing the offending animal out of their caves waving a spear, or roasting him up for dinner. I don't really think ancient man would have nearly enough time and resources to bother to keep a difficult dog/wolf around and put a bunch of effort into using punishment to train him. BTW, I define punishment as using aversive methods to train the dog in an effort to make it easier for the animal to be around, but in a way where the intention is to keep the animal around... which is different than just driving away/killing the animal, thus ending the human/animal relationship permanently.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

cynster said:


> Sure they do now and I think it's the better way to do it. I just don't think it was always done. The point is that aversive training has been done and dogs have been trained that way for a very long time and I don't think they are any worse off today because of it. It doesn't mean it works better - because it doesn't. But I don't think just because it doesn't work well makes it abusive. That's all I'm saying.
> .


I was responding to the particular statement that: "Positive reinforcement is very limited if the dog has little interest in pleasing the owner." 
In fact, we can do many things to dogs that we can't do to other animals because they are smallish and naturally very compliant. Try it with an elephant or killer whale and you'll know exactly how effective your training technique really is. I think if you've been following the conversation closely at all, you'll see that I have NOT referred to using aversives as abuse. Just (in my opinion) much less effective communication. For the life of me, I don't understand why people would choose more primitive and physical methods that create resistance when it is so not necessary.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Pawzk9 said:


> I didn't ruin my early dogs. In fact they were well-behaved and successfully trained. Many of then ended up doing very well in obedience trials. High in trials, national rankings, touranment invites. Advanced titles. I didn't find doing things that could be called "aggressive" to them particularly satisfying on any level, past the fact that I was satisfied that they worked. Perhaps that is the difference, and why I am willing to give people the benefit of the doubt about how they train. Because I know how it is to not like what you think your options are, but simply not having access to better information. I thank my long gone dogs for putting me on a path to find better options. And, while those past dogs surely knew that they were loved and worked willingly for me, I'm betting if they could, the current dogs would thank them too.


Boy, of many things I have read and liked on DF this ranks high, making mistakes with dogs is part of a trainer's learning program. it's the ability to read and adjust the dog's training program that separates a trainer from a wanna-be. No matter how many dogs trained, the very next dog worked may indeed teach the trainer with an open mind something new about dogs. 



> I didn't find doing things that could be called "aggressive" to them particularly satisfying on any level, past the fact that I was satisfied that they worked.


That's what I was talking about, there also was no enjoyment/satisfaction involved for me other than getting the job done properly and producing a champion.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Willowy said:


> OK. . .there is no such thing as training without aversives. Even an "uh oh" can be aversive to some dogs. Withholding treats can be aversive. So obviously, I don't think anyone is saying that all aversives are abusive. Not sure where that came from.
> 
> And, aversive = punishment. In learning theory language anyway.


Well, no. In learning theory language, that's not the definition at all. Whether or not it is punishment depends on whether or not it decreases the likelihood of a behavior. You can do incredibly aversive things to an animal but if the animal doesn't understand how to avoid that aversive and the behavior continues without any change in frequency, it's not punishment.


----------



## lil_fuzzy (Aug 16, 2010)

Pawzk9 said:


> I was responding to the particular statement that: "Positive reinforcement is very limited if the dog has little interest in pleasing the owner."
> In fact, we can do many things to dogs that we can't do to other animals because they are smallish and naturally very compliant. Try it with an elephant or killer whale and you'll know exactly how effective your training technique really is. I think if you've been following the conversation closely at all, you'll see that I have NOT referred to using aversives as abuse. Just (in my opinion) much less effective communication. For the life of me, I don't understand why people would choose more primitive and physical methods that create resistance when it is so not necessary.


Elephants ARE trained using punishment in areas where they have been keeping elephants for work for a long time. They use sticks with a spike on them and hit them on the legs and trunk, often causing cuts that need medical treatment. But they also use rewards when the elephant gets it right.

(This is probably why some elephants have chains on their legs)


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

lil_fuzzy said:


> Elephants ARE trained using punishment in areas where they have been keeping elephants for work for a long time. They use sticks with a spike on them and hit them on the legs and trunk, often causing cuts that need medical treatment. But they also use rewards when the elephant gets it right.
> 
> (This is probably why some elephants have chains on their legs)


Kind of like how some people train dogs. But, just like training dogs, the fact that it has been done that way for many years doesn't mean it is the most effective way. I think you would see a huge difference between elephants hit with sticks and elephants trained with science. Just as you would see a (lesser) difference in dogs (because dogs are generally more compliant). But training is a tradition which is handed down, a lot like culture. That makes it hard to change, even when more effective methods are available. If you have had success with a method, there's generally not a lot of motivation to move into unknown territory. Even if that unknown territory contains a lot of promise.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I guess what I'm saying is, I do not believe people when they say they "just hate" to do something (that they do on a regular basis). Well, no, if you "just hate" to do it, you won't do it more than once. People simply do not engage regularly in activities they truly dislike. Especially when alternatives are suggested, and they tell you where you can put that suggestion. . .

Maybe I'm a big meanie for pointing that out, but I just don't believe it.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Willowy said:


> I guess what I'm saying is, I do not believe people when they say they "just hate" to do something (that they do on a regular basis). Well, no, if you "just hate" to do it, you won't do it more than once. People simply do not engage regularly in activities they truly dislike. Especially when alternatives are suggested, and they tell you where you can put that suggestion. . .
> 
> Maybe I'm a big meanie for pointing that out, but I just don't believe it.


There's a lot of ground between "just hating" to do something and "not getting your jollies" doing it. Just sayin.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Pawzk9 said:


> There's a lot of ground between "just hating" to do something and "not getting your jollies" doing it. Just sayin.


True. Not sure it makes much difference though. If you do something (because you don't hate it), does it really matter if you enjoy it or not? It's still done just as much as if you don't enjoy it. 

I guess I just really hate the phrase "well, it's not like I enjoy doing it. . .". If they're doing it, what do I care if they enjoy it or not? It's not much of a comfort for someone to tell you they didn't enjoy killing your dog, but, well, ya know, they did it anyway.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Willowy said:


> True. Not sure it makes much difference though. If you do something (because you don't hate it), does it really matter if you enjoy it or not? It's still done just as much as if you don't enjoy it.
> 
> I guess I just really hate the phrase "well, it's not like I enjoy doing it. . .". If they're doing it, what do I care if they enjoy it or not? It's not much of a comfort for someone to tell you they didn't enjoy killing your dog, but, well, ya know, they did it anyway.


First, while I'm not a fan of squirting dogs in the face, I have to say it's not exactly comparable to killing a dog. Am I mistaken, or a few posts ago were you not stating that there was an element of pleasure or satisfaction (at least for you) in doing things which were aggressive towards dogs? I think that's where the discussion of enjoying or not enjoying meting out punitive training may have originated.


----------



## Nargle (Oct 1, 2007)

Willowy said:


> True. Not sure it makes much difference though. If you do something (because you don't hate it), does it really matter if you enjoy it or not? It's still done just as much as if you don't enjoy it.
> 
> I guess I just really hate the phrase "well, it's not like I enjoy doing it. . .". If they're doing it, what do I care if they enjoy it or not? It's not much of a comfort for someone to tell you they didn't enjoy killing your dog, but, well, ya know, they did it anyway.


Well, you were the one who brought up that some people enjoy acting aggressively towards smaller animals... 

I do think that whether or not you enjoy inflicting pain on your animals matters, because someone who is using aversive training methods, not because they enjoy it, but because they're just trying to use what works to train their dog, is much more likely to use the minimum amount of force possible to accomplish the task. But someone who just likes seeing dogs squirm in pain is more likely to use unnecessary force and cause their dog to suffer. So the guy who doesn't enjoy killing your dog probably wouldn't do it in the first place, unless he had a very good reason to.


----------



## LazyGRanch713 (Jul 22, 2009)

lil_fuzzy said:


> I was under the impression that punishment only became really popular in the last 100 years or so. Before that there was a lot of molding and probably some reward.
> 
> I can imagine that when people first started domesticating wolves/dogs, they would use a more balanced approach. I have read somewhere that women with kids used to share their breastmilk around to orphaned wolves that they had found and raised as their own. This suggests that they would develop a pretty close bond with them.
> 
> ...


Ages ago I read an account from a person who visited a primative villiage that had packs of wild dogs living around the edge of the human encampment. The people didn't seem to "like" the dogs, but their prescence was tolerated (at best). The writer said she witnessed (a number of times) the dogs barking at visitors, the inhabitants greeting the visitors and then throwing rocks at the dogs to shut them up. Apparently the dogs stuck around because they cleaned up the encampment that would have otherwise attracted other types of wildlife. The dogs ate the scraps, and by doing so the dogs kept the encampment less inviting to predators (the predators in the area being cheetahs and the like, who are obviously big enough and fast enough to take down a human). She also mentioned she witnessed a large group of the village dogs chasing a cheetah out of the encampment!
I have a dog training book that is copywrited 1939. I keep it around because it's a fascinating read to me. For 1939, the methods are actually pretty decent. There's quite a lot of talk of corrections and how to solidly pop a leash for the best results, but there's a lot of talk about encouragement, praise, play, etc. But a lot of the "gentlemans training" focused on corrections and the like, where as "ladies training" seems to focus on encouragement.



Pawzk9 said:


> First, while I'm not a fan of squirting dogs in the face, I have to say it's not exactly comparable to killing a dog. Am I mistaken, or a few posts ago were you not stating that there was an element of pleasure or satisfaction (at least for you) in doing things which were aggressive towards dogs? I think that's where the discussion of enjoying or not enjoying meting out punitive training may have originated.


I will be the first to admit that I enjoyed catching Auz in the act of doing something bad, probably because he had done so many things that were "bad" it was a sense of "gotcha BACK" satisfaction. You chewed up my jacket, tore up the carpet, but I peeked around the corner and saw you wolfing down a bag of cat food and screamed at you and stomped loud enough to make you think your life was over. GOTCHA back...Also spent a lot of wasted hours mulling over in my mind how to get back at someone who has wronged me. For me and me alone, it's not so much of a "do I really enjoy it, or don't I?" rather than "wouldn't it be a lot better to stop having to feel like I need to get BACK at everything?" Just a thought.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Yes. . .as the links Cracker and I both posted said, humans do derive some kind of brain-chemical reinforcement from aggressive behavior. I don't think that can be helped. Call it pleasure or enjoyment or just brain-chemical reinforcement, but it exists. And people are more likely to continue a behavior that is reinforced in some way.

But, in the end, the reasons for the behavior don't matter, if the behavior is repeated. It's still the same behavior no matter what.

And yeah, I know that something like spraying a dog with vinegar water is different from killing it. Just a conversation I had recently that was in my head. . .: farmer: "ugh, I hate having to shoot the stray dogs that show up at my place."(note: perfectly nice dogs who are NOT destroying or harassing livestock) Me: "so don't. Find their owners or find a new owner for them, or take them to the Humane Society--the county has a contract so you don't have to pay a surrender fee." Farmer: "no way I'm going to waste money feeding some worthless animal until his owners show up! Or spend time and money putting up posters! And no way I'm putting some filthy worthless stray in my car and waste gas taking him to the shelter! Forget that!". 

So, yeah, I don't believe people who say they dislike doing something but do it anyway.


----------



## dantero (Feb 2, 2011)

Willowy said:


> So, yeah, I don't believe people who say they dislike doing something but do it anyway.


That's a pretty lopsided view of the world. There are plenty of things people do because they feel it's neccessary, not because they like it. Like work at a job they don't like, but they can't find anything else. Or inform someone that a family member has died or is extremely ill. Or the vet euthanizing someone's pet. I SERIOUSLY doubt they enjoy doing that, at least not any vet I'd use, but they do it because someone needs to, or because the alternative could be worse, like an owner who wants a pet put down, and if the vet won't do it, the owner will do it themself. Or even something as simple as being polite to someone you dislike when in a group of people. You may not enjoy being polite, but you do it because it's the best of the possible options for that current situation. Unless you are independently wealthy and just go through life pleasing only yourself all the time, I suspect people can find at least 1 thing they have done every day that they did not because they liked it, but because they felt it needed to be done.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

I dislike doing things I do anyway all the time. I don't like doing the laundry or the dishes or cleaning the toilet. I just like having dirty clothes and dishes and toilets less.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

sassafras said:


> I dislike doing things I do anyway all the time. I don't like doing the laundry or the dishes or cleaning the toilet. I just like having dirty clothes and dishes and toilets less.


Exactly. You find it reinforcing. If you really hated doing those things, you'd find an alternative. 

As for things people have to do, there is always an alternative. A chaplain whose job it is to notify families could just let them find out on their own, read it in the newspaper or whatever. But he prefers to let the family hear it from someone who cares. He didn't kill the guy and say "well, I hate to tell you but. . .". A vet who puts an animal down, I hope, does it because the only alternative would be to let the animal suffer. Not because he felt like it and now wants to say "oh, well, I hated to do it". And being polite--the alternative would be to get everybody mad at you by being rude. Which lots of people do choose, unfortunately.

Just saying, maybe you chose the alternative you felt was best even though it wasn't your preference, but don't go around saying you don't like it. It was the choice you liked best out of all possible choices.


----------



## dantero (Feb 2, 2011)

Willowy said:


> but don't go around saying you don't like it.


If I don't like something, I will say I don't like. Whether I did it or not, doesn't change the fact that I didn't like it.


----------



## Nargle (Oct 1, 2007)

Willowy said:


> Exactly. You find it reinforcing. If you really hated doing those things, you'd find an alternative.
> 
> As for things people have to do, there is always an alternative. A chaplain whose job it is to notify families could just let them find out on their own, read it in the newspaper or whatever. But he prefers to let the family hear it from someone who cares. He didn't kill the guy and say "well, I hate to tell you but. . .". A vet who puts an animal down, I hope, does it because the only alternative would be to let the animal suffer. Not because he felt like it and now wants to say "oh, well, I hated to do it". And being polite--the alternative would be to get everybody mad at you by being rude. Which lots of people do choose, unfortunately.
> 
> Just saying, maybe you chose the alternative you felt was best even though it wasn't your preference, but don't go around saying you don't like it. It was the choice you liked best out of all possible choices.


Hence how I said people who dislike causing harm to animals are likely to use the minimum amount of force necessary and cause the least amount of suffering to the animal. And it's also reinforcing to people to have well trained dogs, regardless of whether or not they enjoy using aversive training methods.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Willowy said:


> Yes. . .as the links Cracker and I both posted said, humans do derive some kind of brain-chemical reinforcement from aggressive behavior. I don't think that can be helped. Call it pleasure or enjoyment or just brain-chemical reinforcement, but it exists. And people are more likely to continue a behavior that is reinforced in some way.
> 
> But, in the end, the reasons for the behavior don't matter, if the behavior is repeated. It's still the same behavior no matter what.
> 
> ...


I wonder, since aggression is such a wonderful drug, why when the opportunity presented itself to learn less aggressive methods presented itself I would care to take it. I mean, if we're all at the mercy of our chemical reinforcement and all. I kinda think Maya Angelou may have had it right: "You did then what you knew how to do and when you knew better... you did better! "



Willowy said:


> Exactly. You find it reinforcing. If you really hated doing those things, you'd find an alternative.
> 
> As for things people have to do, there is always an alternative. A chaplain whose job it is to notify families could just let them find out on their own, read it in the newspaper or whatever. But he prefers to let the family hear it from someone who cares. He didn't kill the guy and say "well, I hate to tell you but. . .". A vet who puts an animal down, I hope, does it because the only alternative would be to let the animal suffer. Not because he felt like it and now wants to say "oh, well, I hated to do it". And being polite--the alternative would be to get everybody mad at you by being rude. Which lots of people do choose, unfortunately.
> 
> Just saying, maybe you chose the alternative you felt was best even though it wasn't your preference, but don't go around saying you don't like it. It was the choice you liked best out of all possible choices.


Your point was not that people frequently choose the lesser of two evils. Your point appeared to be that people are chemically reinforced for violence and aggressiveness (or at least you were) That's not really the same question as "do you hate it enough to stop?" In fact, that's a pretty major strawman.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I know my brain doesn't work like everyone else's . So I probably go around in circles. . .mostly I write things out to try to understand them myself. I do truly believe that if I had understood back then that my natural inclination was toward more aggressive tendencies, I would have worked harder to find alternatives and not blindly believed the dog training books telling me that that aggression was OK. . .if that makes sense. It probably doesn't. I do feel really guilty about how I treated Willow, and sometimes I have to work through that.

At least I haven't ruined my current dogs quite as badly.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Willowy said:


> I know my brain doesn't work like everyone else's . So I probably go around in circles. . .mostly I write things out to try to understand them myself. I do truly believe that if I had understood back then that my natural inclination was toward more aggressive tendencies, I would have worked harder to find alternatives and not blindly believed the dog training books telling me that that aggression was OK. . .if that makes sense. It probably doesn't. I do feel really guilty about how I treated Willow, and sometimes I have to work through that.
> 
> At least I haven't ruined my current dogs quite as badly.


I think part of the problem was that the dog training books back in the day (at least in my "day", I'm not sure when yours was) told us that dogs were intentionally disobedient and naturally contrary. And that it was our duty to put them in their place so they wouldn't try to take over the world (or at least our household).Thinking that way makes it much easier to justify force. When you actually realize how naturally willing and tolerant they are, it makes it much harder to justify. I think that good people are perfectly capable of deluding themselves


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I don't think we're in the same age range (I'm 31), but I also don't think I had the latest dog training books available at the local library, either. I read a lot of Barbara Woodhouse (who was probably the best of the bunch), Richard Wolters (who actually advocates beating your dog. . .at least I never went that far), and oh, probably Koehler, too. Who knows. I read every book they had and all the methods got jumbled up in my head (and none of them were positive-reinforcement based in the slightest). And I took classes with 4-H, which weren't helpful at all. It was awful. And I was only 16. . .what teenager doesn't like a bit of power? And my parents knew nothing about dogs. Ugh. It was like the perfect storm of messed-up dog training.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Willowy said:


> I don't think we're in the same age range (I'm 31), but I also don't think I had the latest dog training books available at the local library, either. I read a lot of Barbara Woodhouse (who was probably the best of the bunch), Richard Wolters (who actually advocates beating your dog. . .at least I never went that far), and oh, probably Koehler, too. Who knows. I read every book they had and all the methods got jumbled up in my head. It was awful. And I was only 16. . .what teenager doesn't like a bit of power? And my parents knew nothing about dogs. Ugh. It was like the perfect storm of messed-up dog training.


Nope. We're not. You could easily be my daughter (and not an eldest daughter, at that). By the time you were born, I'd already been training dogs a few years. Talk about primitive times. . . .


----------

