# dominant behavior?



## al clapp (Aug 26, 2012)

I hav a 10 month old pit, total cupcake..except: she has been avoiding getting into the car this week, she lays down and chills, when I walk overor speak stearnly she rlls over and submits and I have to drag or carry her.today, granted she needs a run, she bgan dancing and spining, barking and mouthing my hand when I approached her.I have been showing her recently to walk out of the house after me as well as leash training, is she fighting to be pack leader?and if so how do I correct this without being abusive lol I truely love this dog and want to train her properly.thanks in advance.alan


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Those behaviors are appeasement behaviors. . .she's saying "see how cute I am? Please don't hurt me!". So something is scaring her. Did anything scary happen in the car? Do you use harsh methods? But suffice to say, no, she's not trying to be "dominant". Your dog does not want to take over the world, LOL.


----------



## al clapp (Aug 26, 2012)

I've tried both methods to be honest but I try to be easy on her if I don't understand the behavior, I did have to swirv to avoid an accident and she hit the door, (not too hard) that's all I can think of. And the way she was barking and mouthing sure seemed to be a callenge of sorts I just get thrown off because she was submissive before hand. Combind with the way she started blowing me off when potty time is over and its time to go in, it seems she is under the impression se is alpha and is trying o maintain that position.I dunno :-\


----------



## Deaf Dogs (May 28, 2012)

No your dog is not trying to take over the world! Dominance and the pack theory are complete bunk. As the poster above said those are appeasement behaviours, she is trying to tell you she is afraid. it would take only a few minutes for a good clicker trainer to get her in the car on her own steam, and only a few sessions (5 or 10 minutes each session) for her to like getting in the car. She is a "soft" dog and needs gentle handling, from the little info you've given.


----------



## cookieface (Jul 6, 2011)

From what you've described, it sounds as though the car incident (swerving, her hitting the door) could have resulted in a bit of fear / discomfort. After one minor accident that occurred years ago, I'm still uneasy about four-way stops. Earlier this week my dog started refusing to walk into the yard - I have no idea why. I was patient with her: walked a few steps into the yard, called her name, and lured her with treats (I could have used a toy, but bits of dehydrated lamb lung fit in my pocket better than a squeaky ball or stuffed raccoon). After a few times, she went back to her normal behavior.

Her dancing, barking, and mouthing sound like her wanting to play. If she needs a run, that's more indication that she has some excess energy and needs an appropriate way (e.g., walks, play, training) to expend it. She's not "blowing you off" when she doesn't want to go in after potty time - she wants to explore the wonderful world around her!

As Deaf Dogs said, dominance theory is not supported by scientific evidence. Take a look at the resources listed in the recommended reading sticky and here are some additional resources: Dominance Myths and Dog Training Realities, The History and Misconceptions of Dominance Theory, and Dominance and Dog Training. Also, take a look at the materials on Ian Dunbar's site, Dog Star Daily, especially the free downloads.


----------



## Contact_Zone (Oct 5, 2010)

I agree with the 4 responses above.
There certainly is something that's making her stressed about the car, maybe it's the swerve, or maybe you'ill never find out what exactly, but it doesn't matter.
Dominance between 2 different species does not exist.
Don't talk to her "sternly" around the car, and dont act as if she was trying to "dominate" you, this will only stress her more, and she might even shut down.

What I would do is stop taking her on car rides.
Feed her meals around/near/beside the car for a couple days.
Then feed her meals inside the car, without turning the motor on.
After a couple days, if she's doing ok, feed her meals in the car and turn the motor on and off while she's still eating.
Then feed her in the car and drive around the block, etc...
This must be done progressively and always under threshhold; for example, if she will not eat, or "freezes", she's too close to the car, feed her further away.


----------



## Amaryllis (Dec 28, 2011)

This is what I hate about dominance theory. It turns a puppy's innocent invitation to play into something to worry about. 

OP, read the recommended articles and then read our stickies. You're about to enter an era of doing things with your dog instead of to your dog. 

Oh, and get a seatbelt harness. Dogs aren't safe just loose in the car.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

al clapp said:


> I hav a 10 month old pit, total cupcake..except: she has been avoiding getting into the car this week, she lays down and chills, when I walk overor speak stearnly she rlls over and submits and I have to drag or carry her.


I find it interesting you describe her as submitting, but then are worried about her being dominant.  Also that she's a total cupcake. That's usually not a 'I'm gonna own you' personality 



al clapp said:


> today, granted she needs a run, she bgan dancing and spining, barking and mouthing my hand when I approached her.I have been showing her recently to walk out of the house after me as well as leash training, is she fighting to be pack leader?


Sometimes, play is just play. 

Keep working with her on the leash walking and being patient will help her learn control and what you expect in situations. From this, it sounds like you're fine. Good luck with your puppy. 



al clapp said:


> And the way she was barking and mouthing sure seemed to be a callenge of sorts I just get thrown off because she was submissive before hand. Combind with the way she started blowing me off when potty time is over and its time to go in, it seems she is under the impression se is alpha and is trying o maintain that position.I dunno :-\


Well, one thing standard explanations of dominance/submission miss is that it's a fluid thing. So different situations can call for different members of the group to "be dominant". That said, it sounds like play and energy built up. Dogs do bark and mouth during play (play is partly practicing survival/adult behaviors in non-critical, safe enviornments, and barking and biting are definitely some often used behaviors in adult dogs if only to "talk" and eat  )

How does she blow you off? Is she just really interested in continuing to sniff? Distracted by everything? Does she stand there watching you? What happens if you move towards her? Could be wanting to start a game? (Does she play bow, etc). Is she standing still, but looking alternately at you and something else? (indication that she might want to go that way and is looking to you to see if you and her can go)

Has she learned recall pretty well? If so, you can build a behavior chain - go potty, then recall. The reward can then be taking her to go sniff or investigate whatever.


----------



## al clapp (Aug 26, 2012)

Thanks you all for your advice, I feel like a totall a hole now lol I'm going to go give stella a big hug and a treat! And in respose to thegoing back in, she will either lay there and not listen or sniff arround or start walking further in the back yard.


----------



## Deaf Dogs (May 28, 2012)

al clapp said:


> Thanks you all for your advice, I feel like a totall a hole now lol I'm going to go give stella a big hug and a treat! And in respose to thegoing back in, she will either lay there and not listen or sniff arround or start walking further in the back yard.


This is why Cesar should not be on TV. to many people take his methods and apply them in the wrong way.


----------



## Jenness (May 7, 2012)

It's def. not a dominance issue, that is for sure. I'm also not convinced it's necessarily fear either. I think she is just not wanting to do these things, such as get in the car, or go inside. It seems like she is simply protesting. Bella does this when she doesn't want to walk home from the dog park or it's hot out and she just doesn't want to walk. She will try to veer off to the side of the road and lay down in protest. She will just literally lay there lol. I don't know what your location is but it's pretty hot out now and cars get extremely hot. That could be a reason why she doesn't want to get in....


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Forget about "dominant" and "submissive. What are the behaviors you WANT? work to get them and a good social relationship is likely to follow.


----------



## spoiler (Aug 27, 2012)

Dominant behaviour in dogs may well be bunkum but it seems to hold true for human beings in this thread towards the OP.:wave:

Why is it that the word "dominant" presses buttons in people anyway?
I'm prepared to respect a different point of view on dog training. there is more than one way you know.


----------



## bgmacaw (May 5, 2012)

spoiler said:


> Why is it that the word "dominant" presses buttons in people anyway?


Because this training method usually results in creates more problems than it solves. It results in a shut down, unhappy, dog. It can create a dog that will explode in a vicious attack unexpectedly. It can become abusive in the hands of some people. A lot of this is because it starts from an incorrect premise, that the dog is trying to take over.

When I was at the beach over the weekend I saw several people who were using CM/dominance style training. They were 'tchting', belly kicking and so forth just like their celebrity mentor. Their dogs were highly reactive toward other dogs and were obviously highly stressed. They were giving off calming signals and looked quite unhappy. In one case, the owner began slapping/spanking the dog when he kept reacting poorly. 

In contrast, there were some happy, engaged, dogs around who didn't react poorly to other dogs and people. I don't know, of course, what kind of training method they used but it clearly didn't involve overbearing dominance.

EDIT: Here's another case in point from another thread here: http://www.dogforums.com/dog-training-forum/116393-traveler-need-some-advice.html



> I have tried flipping her on her back to show dominance and biting her ear... talking to her in a disappointed tone, and telling her that what she is doing is wrong... but still she continues to nip... the only thing that has changed... is now... she tries to be sneakier about it... she generally won't nip unless I am not looking...


----------



## SassyCat (Aug 29, 2011)

spoiler said:


> Dominant behaviour in dogs may well be bunkum but it seems to hold true for human beings in this thread towards the OP.:wave:
> 
> Why is it that the word "dominant" presses buttons in people anyway?
> I'm prepared to respect a different point of view on dog training. there is more than one way you know.


Dominant behaviour in dogs isn't bunk. It's just that it's not applicable in dog training for the most part and people often try to apply it without understanding it. Most often *lack of basic leadership in the owner* is attributed to *dominant behaviour in dog*. A lot of other issues are wrongly attributed to dominance like disobedience, hyperactivity, aggression, leash reactivity etc.


----------



## spoiler (Aug 27, 2012)

good answers sassy and bgm!


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

spoiler said:


> Dominant behaviour in dogs may well be bunkum but it seems to hold true for human beings in this thread towards the OP.:wave:
> 
> Why is it that the word "dominant" presses buttons in people anyway?
> I'm prepared to respect a different point of view on dog training. there is more than one way you know.


It's unnecessary.

Dominance = control of resources and access. I already have that. I already can control if he goes out or not, if he eats or not, if he gets the treat or not. I'm already dominant. He has to work through me to get what he wants. He can growl and nip and bark 24 hrs a day, I still have access and resource control. 

So why would I need to flip him on his back in a non-play way to "show I"m dominant"? Why would I need to view everything he does as "is he dominant"? Why would I need to apply social pressure? Why would I need to consider being SCARED as being dominant? That doesn't even make logical sense. Fear isn't trying to control, it's trying to protect. 

The fact only certain behaviors get him what he wants shows my dominance. I'm controlling access and resources. 

Since it's a given (any human with a dog has control of these things unless the human just leaves them laying around, and even then, you still can have control if you teach behaviors that have the dog give up the item - which is dominance - without having to use "dominance training"), forget about it and move on to the actual training of the desired behavior, breaking down where the issues of communication and learned behavior are and devise solutions for teaching these behaviors. Saying "I'm boss" to a dog that doesn't even know what you're asking for is not productive.

Dominance also doesn't consider the dog's communications, like calming signals, and other body language communications. Dominance training seems to reduce a dog to "acting dominant" and "acting submissive" while dogs are capable of far more emotional ranges and communication behaviors than that. 

Why throw that away? Use it. Read it. Learn it. Exploit it. 

That's my issue with "dominance training".


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

spoiler said:


> Dominant behaviour in dogs may well be bunkum but it seems to hold true for human beings in this thread towards the OP.:wave:
> 
> Why is it that the word "dominant" presses buttons in people anyway?
> I'm prepared to respect a different point of view on dog training. there is more than one way you know.


Hum. But really nobody on this thread has been rude - simply given an opinion. Thing is, dominance isn't an issue for me in dog training. Behavior is. What I want from a dog is almost opposite what another dog would want. So it is silly to use that as a model (my opinion, and no attempt on my part to dominate you!)


----------



## qingcong (Oct 26, 2009)

SassyCat said:


> Dominant behaviour in dogs isn't bunk. It's just that it's not applicable in dog training for the most part and people often try to apply it without understanding it. Most often *lack of basic leadership in the owner* is attributed to *dominant behaviour in dog*.



What is basic leadership and what is dominant behavior?


----------



## spoiler (Aug 27, 2012)

Pawzk9 said:


> Hum. But really nobody on this thread has been rude - simply given an opinion. Thing is, dominance isn't an issue for me in do training. Behavior is. What I want from a dog is almost opposite what another dog would want. So it is silly to use that as a model (my opinion, and no attempt on my part to dominate you!)


Not overtly rude I admit but a more insidious know it all arrogant tone, I've seen on more than one dog forum. 
And "the opinion" comes across more as "self-righteous fact". As if the people who adhere to old school training methods are imbecilic dinosaurs.:laugh:


----------



## Jenness (May 7, 2012)

spoiler said:


> Not overtly rude I admit but a more insidious know it all arrogant tone, I've seen on more than one dog forum.
> And "the opinion" comes across more as "self-righteous fact". As if the people who adhere to old school training methods are imbecilic dinosaurs.:laugh:


I agree that some people on this forum can be very quick to jump on the bandwagon and attack posters for using the term "dominant". It can be an unfriendly experience for a user who is putting themselves out there, simply trying to find help. That being said I don't think anyone really crossed the line here, everyone is entitled to their own opinions...


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

spoiler said:


> Not overtly rude I admit but a more insidious know it all arrogant tone, I've seen on more than one dog forum.
> And "the opinion" comes across more as "self-righteous fact". As if the people who adhere to old school training methods are imbecilic dinosaurs.:laugh:


No, no, no. We like our (retired) dinosaur trainer. He is very smart. Funny too. Signed, the wooly mammoth trainer.


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

Not overtly rude I admit but a more insidious know it all arrogant tone, I've seen on more than one dog forum. >>>>

keep in mind that "tone" and emotion can be hard to interpret in written answers.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

> Not overtly rude I admit but a more insidious know it all arrogant tone, I've seen on more than one dog forum.
> And "the opinion" comes across more as "self-righteous fact". As if the people who adhere to old school training methods are imbecilic dinosaurs.


Hey, I'm a self-confessed old school dinosaur. I never did use the imbecilic word. Just always admitted to not being brightest bulb in the box.


----------



## Canaqua (Sep 27, 2011)

Dominate versus lead...I guess I think of it as how I want to be managed at work. I wouldn't be very motivated to work for a boss who tried to dominate me: "Do what I say or you're fired!! I'm important because I'm the BOSS, so hop to it". I'd do what he said alright, but I'd be doing as just what I had to and no more and I'd be looking for another job. A boss who leads, on the other hand would explain why what WE were working on was important (and he'd have enough of a clue to get me to buy into that explanation), would explain why my contribution is important to the effort and make me feel like we were working together toward that goal, rather than my doing his bidding "just because" or "or else". Positive feedback as well, "Great job!" "Couldn't have done it without you", and, support when you run into trouble with others...i.e, having my back. THAT boss, I'll go the extra mile for and won't be looking for a new one right away . 

Dogs, of course, don't understand all that talk. But, I think it's the same basic thing...dog will consider you a leader if you are confident, fair, predictable, can be trusted and you provide the salary (in their case, food, water, shelter, affection...).


----------



## spoiler (Aug 27, 2012)

Of course I like nice bosses too. But if they are all carrot and no stick, you start to lose respect for them. A little healthy fear, reminds you of the bottom line. They can and will fire you if you aren't doing your job.
Maybe that analysis isn't fair though. I mean I treat my dog like he's my own child, which surely crosses sensible boundaries of the dog/master relationship. Familiarity breeds contempt? ........


----------



## spoiler (Aug 27, 2012)

wvasko said:


> Hey, *I'm a self-confessed old school dinosaur*. I never did use the imbecilic word. Just always admitted to not being brightest bulb in the box.


let's start a dinosaur dog owner's club then.
Any schools of thought welcome.
In fact any thinking.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

spoiler said:


> Of course I like nice bosses too. But if they are all carrot and no stick, you start to lose respect for them. A little healthy fear, reminds you of the bottom line. They can and will fire you if you aren't doing your job.
> Maybe that analysis isn't fair though. I mean I treat my dog like he's my own child, which surely crosses sensible boundaries of the dog/master relationship. Familiarity breeds contempt? ........



I don't Wally to have any fear of me. He was already once a fearful dog. Why would I want to introduce fear to our relationship?


----------



## zhaor (Jul 2, 2009)

spoiler said:


> Not overtly rude I admit but a more insidious know it all arrogant tone, I've seen on more than one dog forum.
> And "the opinion" comes across more as "self-righteous fact". As if the people who adhere to old school training methods are imbecilic dinosaurs.:laugh:


You're going to run into elitist behavior in any online forum or chat. With more older folk, you get the "insidious know it all arrogant tone" as oppose to the straight up overtly rude "you're a dumb***" type of behavior from the younger people. It's the same typical elitist behavior although I guess the not overtly rude version is not as immediately off putting. It's all just a natural part of the online world.

It's kind of a dominance behavior for humans online :wink:


----------



## spoiler (Aug 27, 2012)

KBLover said:


> I don't Wally to have any fear of me. He was already once a fearful dog. Why would I want to introduce fear to our relationship?


You make "fear" sound like a bad thing.
Important to differentiate "healthy fear" and "unhealthy fear".
I'm afraid to upset my boss by making careless errors. So that makes me more focussed. That's healthy in my view. If every decision I make at work is based on fear of getting fired, that's "unhealthy fear". I certainly don't want my dog to be afraid of me all the time, but occasionally I wish he were more respectful. eg. (my bad training I know) But there's the problem. We can't expect dogs to read our minds. Fear of them missing out on a treat is usually enough motivation but sometimes it's not.
Oh God I'm starting to bore my own ass off.


----------



## spoiler (Aug 27, 2012)

zhaor said:


> You're going to run into elitist behavior in any online forum or chat. With more older folk, you get the "insidious know it all arrogant tone" as oppose to the straight up overtly rude "you're a dumb***" type of behavior from the younger people. It's the same typical elitist behavior although I guess the not overtly rude version is not as immediately off putting. It's all just a natural part of the online world.
> 
> It's kind of a dominance behavior for humans online :wink:


Interesting post. And I wholeheartedly agree with you.:rockon:
Now I have to be careful I don't come across as an arrogant old SOB from Down Under!:doh:


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

spoiler said:


> You make "fear" sound like a bad thing.
> Important to differentiate "healthy fear" and "unhealthy fear".
> I'm afraid to upset my boss by making careless errors. So that makes me more focussed. That's healthy in my view. If every decision I make at work is based on fear of getting fired, that's "unhealthy fear". I certainly don't want my dog to be afraid of me all the time, but occasionally I wish he were more respectful. eg. (my bad training I know) But there's the problem. We can't expect dogs to read our minds. Fear of them missing out on a treat is usually enough motivation but sometimes it's not.
> Oh God I'm starting to bore my own ass off.


It's desire to find the behavior I'm rewarding, not him not wanting to make a mistake that has him offering behaviors. 

Wally wants the treat, so he offers me behaviors. He's not "afraid to make a mistake". In fact, that's the exact opposite of the mentality I want. I want him to not have "fear of making a mistake" because the shaping process is going to have him making mistakes because he's trying to figure out what the solution is as he goes along. Some things will work, some things won't. Some things are on the right track, some aren't. 

I've seen him in "I don't want to be wrong" mode and it wasn't interesting. He would just sit there like a lump. No initiative, no attempting to be creative, just sitting there waiting for his next direction and have to be lured along and what not. 

I don't expect him to read my mind, I expect him to try things and find the solution, towards which I'll guide him with the marker and reward or nothing.


----------



## bgmacaw (May 5, 2012)

There have been two schools of thought on dog training for well over a century. They basically break down to using negative vs. positive techniques although the scientific basis for one method or the other has varied over the years. I wouldn't say one is more "old school" than the other. You can find 19th century writings that recommended that you beat sense into a dog with a whip or cane and others that recommend that you use treats and gentle handling to bring out the best performance in dogs. 

My family's tradition has been to use gentle and positive methods when training dogs (as well as horses/ponies) going back at least 4 or 5 generations. The training has been primarily been for hunting and herding and even some vaudeville/circus type performances back in the early 20th century. I'd guess someone who primarily trained for military/police work or something along those lines might have a different training tradition. However, I do think training for the average family pet needs to be far more positive than negative based.


----------



## Cracker (May 25, 2009)

Wow..to the OP:
It does sound like your girl got a bit of a scare when you had the bump in the car happen. Remember that dogs in their adolescent time can go through fear periods AND periods of what appears to be "blowing you off". This is just an opportunity to kick up your management (ie start taking her to do her business on a long line) and making sure that your rewards for coming to you (even if you have to use the line to walk her in) is worth her doing it. The brain in her head is doing some wonky things, she is far from "grown up". 

I also want you to think about the jumping and mouthing and if she does it again to take a real look at her face and body language...is it frantic? Are her pupils dilated? Some dogs that are feeling anxious pump up the appeasement behaviours, so it is possible that this is NOT play and is anxiety based. For me, I find that thinking about what happened just prior to the jumping/mouthing will often indicate whether this is fun or not fun behaviour. Was she corrected for something prior to the behaviour? Did she have to do something she found scary?
Context is everything.

As for the leadership debate. I am captain of the team that is me and my dog, but she is a teammate, not an underling. Fear and respect are NOT the same thing. It is important to remember that positive does NOT mean permissive and none of the dogs I work with get away with doing things they are not supposed to. The difference is I distract, recall, cue a leave it etc and give the dogs an opportunity to earn a reward for doing what I want..and they can THINK it is what THEY want. Works fine for me.


----------



## qingcong (Oct 26, 2009)

zhaor said:


> It's kind of a dominance behavior for humans online :wink:


Interesting analogy, I think it's applicable.





spoiler said:


> Interesting post. And I wholeheartedly agree with you.:rockon:


Take it one step further - think about how off-putting these "dominance" behaviors from our online comrades are, and then think about if you want your dog to think of you in that light. 






bgmacaw said:


> I'd guess someone who primarily trained for military/police work or something along those lines might have a different training tradition. However, I do think training for the average family pet needs to be far more positive than negative based.


You would think that military dogs are trained under the same harsh conditions as military people are, but John Bradshaw, author of Dog Sense, mentions that the dogs for the Navy Seals are actually trained using positive type techniques.


----------



## spoiler (Aug 27, 2012)

> Fear and respect are NOT the same thing.


Why are so many people afraid of "fear"?
No need to assume it's worst case scenario.
Like that awful word "dominance". I'm just a junior member here. Is there a smilie icon for rolling over to appease?


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Because fear is a destructive emotion that shuts out all other emotions. It hinders learning and wears away at mental health. While it can keep us out of trouble (I have a serious fear of heights, which keeps me from falling off cliffs), it's also a negative thing (because it also keeps me off ferris wheels, and I can't clean my gutters). Fear isn't useful in training.


----------



## Gally (Jan 11, 2012)

Willowy said:


> Because fear is a destructive emotion that shuts out all other emotions. It hinders learning and wears away at mental health. While it can keep us out of trouble (I have a serious fear of heights, which keeps me from falling off cliffs), it's also a negative thing (because it also keeps me off ferris wheels, and I can't clean my gutters). Fear isn't useful in training.


Yes, this exactly. Fear inhibits learning and fear and anxiety can be both mentally and physically damaging over time. When a fear is based around the humans actions it can be detrimental to the relationship between human and dog. I want my dog to be eager to learn not afraid of doing wrong.


----------



## Deaf Dogs (May 28, 2012)

Gally said:


> Yes, this exactly. Fear inhibits learning and fear and anxiety can be both mentally and physically damaging over time. When a fear is based around the humans actions it can be detrimental to the relationship between human and dog. I want my dog to be eager to learn not afraid of doing wrong.


Exactly! Why would I want my dogs to be afraid of doing wrong? How would I get them to offer and learn desired behaviours if they were too afraid to mess up? I dont want dogs that are robots, only doing what they're told, never setting a toe out of line. I want dogs that love training sessions so much that a 15 minute training session is equal to a 2 hour bike ride in term of being tired. I want dogs that are so happy to do as asked they will do anything I say, with a smile and a wag.

I dont want a dog that will only wait to be told, I dont want a dog who puts his head down, ears back and holds his tail low when walking, because he's afraid of when that foot might come, or that collar pop might happen. I dont want a dog that complies because he has to, not because he wants to.

I want a friend and companion, not a slave

I want a happy dog

This is why I clicker train, and dont subscribe to dominance or pack theory


----------



## spoiler (Aug 27, 2012)

Willowy said:


> Because fear is a *destructive emotion *that shuts out all other emotions. It *hinders learning *and wears away at mental health. While it can keep us out of trouble (I have a serious fear of heights, which keeps me from falling off cliffs), it's also a negative thing (because it also keeps me off ferris wheels, and I can't clean my gutters). Fear isn't useful in training.





Gally said:


> Yes, this exactly. *Fear inhibits learning *and fear and anxiety can be both mentally and physically damaging over time. When a fear is based around the humans actions it can be detrimental to the relationship between human and dog. I want my dog to be eager to learn not afraid of doing wrong.


I know what you guys are getting at. Certainly the older sibling I was so afraid of, made me clam up completely. I couldn't be myself around him and still can't. This was a case of unhealthy fear.
But you have to be careful of making over generalisations such as "fear inhibits learning". Evidence based on reearch? What about adrenalin? Night before exams? First date? Some people (example elite athletes) thrive on fear. They actually do better when the pressure is on. When the stakes are high. I use fear of losing as a motivation sometimes. Like this morning when I got out of bed. Go to work to avoid getting fired.


----------



## Deaf Dogs (May 28, 2012)

I must also say, up until 3 years ago, I use to be a CM follower, I used to use a pinch collar, I used to use corrections and fear... I was introduced to clicker training, I have learned a better way, I am enlightened  I no longer use any corrections or force... too late for Oliver, but I'll know what to do when I adopt another like him


----------



## SassyCat (Aug 29, 2011)

Willowy said:


> Because fear is a destructive emotion that shuts out all other emotions. It hinders learning and wears away at mental health. While it can keep us out of trouble (I have a serious fear of heights, which keeps me from falling off cliffs), it's also a negative thing (because it also keeps me off ferris wheels, and I can't clean my gutters). Fear isn't useful in training.


Those are baseless and extreme assumptions. It's like saying food isn't useful in training because dog can get sick of it, or dog must be hungry which further hinders training. Or that toys are not useful in training because dog is only focused on the toy. Or, clicker should never be used because dog picks up other people's clickers.... 
For majority of pet dogs application of fear in training comes due to lack of knowledge/experience/skill or capability to cope with the situation, that's granted, but that's statistical information, not a rule. 
With poison proofing there is extreme level of fear and still when executed correctly there won't be any "fallout" (when dog is overstressed, shut down and afraid of things he shouldn't be). Dog will smell meat, but won't it eat it. A lot of people simply assume dogs would shut down on mere smell of food or it would turn Cujo because he was being "abused".


----------



## SassyCat (Aug 29, 2011)

qingcong said:


> What is basic leadership and what is dominant behavior?


KBLover gave a nice simple example of "basic leadership" and actually even dominant behaviour. I would just add your emotional state to the list, if you're stressed and anxious you're then automatically lacking leadership skills.


----------



## Deaf Dogs (May 28, 2012)

SassyCat said:


> Those are baseless and extreme assumptions. It's like saying food isn't useful in training because dog can get sick of it, or dog must be hungry which further hinders training. Or that toys are not useful in training because dog is only focused on the toy. Or, clicker should never be used because dog picks up other people's clickers....
> For majority of pet dogs application of fear in training comes due to lack of knowledge/experience/skill or capability to cope with the situation, that's granted, but that's statistical information, not a rule.
> With poison proofing there is extreme level of fear and still when executed correctly there won't be any "fallout" (when dog is overstressed, shut down and afraid of things he shouldn't be). Dog will smell meat, but won't it eat it. A lot of people simply assume dogs would shut down on mere smell of food or it would turn Cujo because he was being "abused".


It's not baseless and extreme, it's science. Anxiety and fear hinder learning. You can teach a dog avoidance by using fear, but that's all you're doing. He's not learning new concepts, he's avoiding what he's afraid of. And the stuff you used as an example is simply untrue, and not based on science. those are just myths that are perpetuated by people who have no understanding of the science behind training. Again, I'd like to see someone use corrective based training on a tiger or a lion, or a bear... it's not going to happen, that animal will just kill you or hurt you enough to get away. Yet clicker training always works, as long as it's applied properly. Why use fear and punishment at all? these are supposed to be our partners and companions, why are we hurting them? why are we scaring them? why are we using barbaric methods to "train" them?

No thank you


----------



## SassyCat (Aug 29, 2011)

Deaf Dogs said:


> It's not baseless and extreme, it's science. Anxiety and fear hinder learning. And the stuff you used as an example is simply untrue, and not based on science.


I was more focused on claims that fear/avoidance isn't useful in training.



Deaf Dogs said:


> those are just myths that are perpetuated by people who have no understanding of the science behind training.


We can agree there .



Deaf Dogs said:


> You can teach a dog avoidance by using fear, but that's all you're doing. He's not learning new concepts, he's avoiding what he's afraid of.


Right, that's the whole point. It would be ignorant (albeit not impossible) to teach new concepts with fear, intimidation, punishments....



Deaf Dogs said:


> Again, I'd like to see someone use corrective based training on a tiger or a lion, or a bear... it's not going to happen, that animal will just kill you or hurt you enough to get away.


Unfortunately my experience with wild animal trainers is exactly the opposite. Also (unfortunately) no bear and tiger trainer was ever killed or even hurt. On the contrast, unfortunately, purely positive reinforcement trained orcas have killed and attacked trainers on multiple occasions. I'm not going to use wild animals as an argument but am ready to point to the pointlessness of those arguments. You can learn a lot from observing wild animal trainers but you can't simply create one single template made from those observations and apply it on all dogs and expect it to work flawlessly - dogs are not dolphins.



Deaf Dogs said:


> Yet clicker training always works, as long as it's applied properly.


Nothing ever _always_ works. I always eventually find that people who claim that something always works are easily proven false in real world... Anyway, your term "clicker training" is very broad and has really nothing to do with what I was saying - I've never said that clicker training doesn't work.



Deaf Dogs said:


> Why use fear and punishment at all? these are supposed to be our partners and companions, why are we hurting them? why are we scaring them? why are we using barbaric methods to "train" them?
> No thank you


Of course, but definitions of "hurt", "barbaric" and similar words are very subjective depend on individual perception and experiences. When people read some of my posts they probably often have an image of an old, ugly, grumpy guy with whips, remote controls, torture devices, protection gear and other such unnecessary implements of destruction causing some rottweiler to scream in fear and suffering with its tail tucked. I'll say I have met some really old school trainers who used to train working dogs and I must admit I had some prejudice about their "methods" but it turned out it was nothing like what I thought at all... they can get extremely crafty with food, toys and various strange inventions in order to avoid force and compulsion because after all a shut down dog is a useless dog.

But I can see I'm opening a can of worms here so I'll back off.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

> I'll say I have met some really old school trainers who used to train working dogs and I must admit I had some prejudice about their "methods" but it turned out it was nothing like what I thought at all... they can get extremely crafty with food, toys and various strange inventions


I can only talk about pointing dogs and unnecessary force/abuse destroys style when a dog is pointing a bird. In competition a dog with no style just does not win.


----------



## hanksimon (Mar 18, 2009)

I agree that fear is not useful for general training. However, I also agree with Sassycat's specific example for poison training. In Texas, we have significant rattlesnake issues, and the most common way to stop a dog from attacking a live rattlesnake (and getting fatally bitten) is through fear training. It may not be the "best" universal way to training, but it seems to be the most effective method for quickly getting the idea across to a wide variety of dogs. I wouldn't use this method for other training, but in this case, it is life or death and must be absolutely 100% successful in having a dog actively alert to and avoid snakes.

Disclaimer: I live in the suburbs with no poisonous snakes, and don't take my dog hunting, so I have never used this method myself.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

spoiler said:


> What about adrenalin? Night before exams? First date? Some people (example elite athletes) thrive on fear. They actually do better when the pressure is on. When the stakes are high. I use fear of losing as a motivation sometimes. Like this morning when I got out of bed. Go to work to avoid getting fired.


 Isn't there a difference between fear and competition, excitement, anticipation? Even so, you can't teach new behaviors when someone is in that kind of mental state. Adrenaline doesn't leave room for new stuff. I can't imagine you got much out of algebra class on days you had a first date, right?

I go to work because I like my job. And when that fails, I go to work to get money. If I had to worry about being fired all the time, I wouldn't be able to function. Fortunately, I can't be fired, barring serious wrongdoing. And I avoid that behavior because I'm a good person, not because I'm afraid of being fired. I've seen the stress and anxiety that high sales quotas can cause. And maybe the salesperson steps up and gets those sales, but I stand by the negative effect on mental health. Someone who has a backup job plan and money in the bank may do OK with that kind of pressure, but when someone is afraid they won't be able to feed their family if they don't make their quotas, that kind of stress can be a real killer.

Now, obviously pain and fear can be used to create avoidance. But if you ever needed a poison-avoidance trained dog to eat off the ground or a snake-avoidance trained dog to approach a snake for some reason, it wouldn't happen, or at least not without causing the dog severe anxiety.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

spoiler said:


> But you have to be careful of making over generalisations such as "fear inhibits learning". Evidence based on reearch? What about adrenalin? Night before exams? First date? Some people (example elite athletes) thrive on fear. They actually do better when the pressure is on. When the stakes are high. I use fear of losing as a motivation sometimes. Like this morning when I got out of bed. Go to work to avoid getting fired.


Fear doesn't inhibit all learning, no. Fear can teach what to avoid, which, techinically, is learning. If you want to train the avoidance of something, creating a fear of it can and likely will work. Classical conditioning can work both ways.

Pressure <> fear. In fact, if you're scared, you're more likely to flub the pressure situation. Those that handle pressure take it from a scary moment to a chance to shine. They remove the fear from the situation and stay under control and focused on what needs to get done. 

As far as adrenaline - that's not tied to fear, but tied to events where the body feels it needs to be ready to perform, which are not always fearful. An athlete is not scared of performing or even scared of losing, and does it because of adrenaline "making" them do it anyway. Any competitive athlete for a significant amount of time has lost a match, game, playoff, championship, etc, but he/she knows she has to be at his/her best to have the best chance of winning, and the body responds accordingly by heightening the senses/awareness/response times, etc. They don't WANT to lose, but that doesn't mean they are SCARED of losing. Athletes scared of losing don't perform well. They get too tense, they try to do to much. They "think too much" so their response times drop, causing them to make worse plays. 

Desire often drives athletes. They want to win, they want the gold medal, they want the Super Bowl ring, they want to do well so they can make more money next contract, etc. So they work hard and play hard since that's the best chance to claim those rewards. Some are just completely neutral about it, they don't see "the big deal" but it's "just another race, game, batter, play" and take it "one play at a time". 

You also don't "need" fear to perform. You might go to work because you are scared of getting fired. Someone else might go because they have a fun boss in a loose environment that makes a dull job otherwise more enjoyable. Some people take jobs that align with their abilities and thus perform well and they want to face another day of challenge and chance to succeed. 

To take that to dog training, I don't understand why you "need" to make a dog fear of anything (unless avoidance training). If you're the fun boss that can make training even 'boring' stuff enjoyable and find things that line up with his innate abilities, why would you need to introduce fear? He's likely already WANTING to train (he wants to come to work). Don't need to scare a dog like that into "losing his job". Even if it is healthy fear. If the dog desires the possible reward, he may well tackle even a difficult learning session because of the 'lure' of the reward, not the fear of making mistakes.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Willowy said:


> Adrenaline doesn't leave room for new stuff. I can't imagine you got much out of algebra class on days you had a first date, right?


Also, this. 

The athlete (to use spolier's example) isn't trying to learn a new technique or refine his existing skills in those situations. Learning is non-factor. He/She is trying to win, not train.


----------



## hanksimon (Mar 18, 2009)

>>> if you ever needed a poison-avoidance trained dog to eat off the ground or a snake-avoidance trained dog to approach a snake for some reason, it wouldn't happen...

Agreed! In these circumstances and locations, the need for 100% avoidance ( and the extreme consequences of failure) are worth the loss of ground-eating or snake-hunting function and capability...


----------



## spoiler (Aug 27, 2012)

No analogies between humans and dogs is not ideal I admit.
Still my point remains. Fear has not been statistically proven to decrease learning outcomes in dogs or humans.
Period!


----------



## spoiler (Aug 27, 2012)

KBLover said:


> Fear doesn't inhibit all learning, no. Fear can teach what to avoid, which, techinically, is learning. If you want to train the avoidance of something, creating a fear of it can and likely will work. Classical conditioning can work both ways.
> 
> Pressure <> fear. In fact, if you're scared, you're more likely to flub the pressure situation. Those that handle pressure take it from a scary moment to a chance to shine. They remove the fear from the situation and stay under control and focused on what needs to get done.
> 
> ...


All you've proven is that we think differently.


----------



## spoiler (Aug 27, 2012)

> Even so, you can't teach new behaviors when someone is in that kind of mental state. Adrenaline doesn't leave room for new stuff.


From your experience?
Didn't know it was a given.


----------



## spoiler (Aug 27, 2012)

> Unfortunately my experience with wild animal trainers is exactly the opposite. Also (unfortunately) no bear and tiger trainer was ever killed or even hurt. *On the contrast, unfortunately, purely positive reinforcement trained orcas have killed and attacked trainers on multiple occasions.* I'm not going to use wild animals as an argument but am ready to point to the pointlessness of those arguments. You can learn a lot from observing wild animal trainers but you can't simply create one single template made from those observations and apply it on all dogs and expect it to work flawlessly - dogs are not dolphins.


Now someone is talking sense.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

spoiler said:


> Of course I like nice bosses too. But if they are all carrot and no stick, you start to lose respect for them. A little healthy fear, reminds you of the bottom line. They can and will fire you if you aren't doing your job.
> Maybe that analysis isn't fair though. I mean I treat my dog like he's my own child, which surely crosses sensible boundaries of the dog/master relationship. Familiarity breeds contempt? ........



I don't need or want my dogs to fear me. I think familiarty breeds respect if you are consistent and clear.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

spoiler said:


> Now someone is talking sense.


Because orcas are large predators who can kill you with one flip of their tail. Interestingly, Sea World used to use negative punishment (sending them to their individual pools) in the past, and there was a lot of aggression toward the trainers. Now there's less aggression, although whenever working with wild animals (or any animals) there's going to be some risk. Are you saying that punishment-based training would eliminate orca aggression? How do you hurt an animal that big anyway?


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

spoiler said:


> From your experience?
> Didn't know it was a given.


Pretty sure there's scientific proof out there somewhere. You can't learn if you're all amped up. Tthat's why reactive dogs have to be brought below threshold before they can learn.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

spoiler said:


> All you've proven is that we think differently.


What have you proven?

The same thing? That we think differently? Don't see what your point is.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

spoiler said:


> Why are so many people afraid of "fear"?
> No need to assume it's worst case scenario.
> Like that awful word "dominance". I'm just a junior member here. Is there a smilie icon for rolling over to appease?


You mean you are so afraid of us, that you are willing to grovel? LOL. Actually, there was a great on-line lecture recently by Robert Sapolsky (a favorite neurobiologist of mine) on the consequences of stress in our lives. In nature the sympathetic nervous system provides us with important fight-or-flight responses that may save our life, but operates on a level where our body maintenance system (the parasympathetic nervous system) is put on temporary hold. We are not able to rest, we are not able to digest, and we are not able to heal injuries when that lion is chasing us. ALL our resources are put into use for survival and avoidance. As Sapolsky points out, in nature, the sympathetic nervous system generally only kicks in for a short period of time - and after three seconds, you've either evaded the lion -then you are able to go back to maintaing your body and health - or you are no more and none of it is any longer an issue. In our lives (and in our dogs lives sometimes, because we tend to treat them in certain ways and ask them to live in our world) we have more chronic stress and input from the sympathetic nervous system. This can - over time - lead to immune difficiencies and chronic disease. I have to teach my dogs certain rules for their survival, and my sanity. (not to mention avoiding a house full of pee and poo.) But I'm going to do it as low stress a way as possible with my dogs. I recognize that I can't avoid stress in learning altogether (learning is stressful) but I'm going to rely on other things than teaching them to fear me (or that sometimes I'm scary and sometimes I'm less so.) I don't need their fear to gain cooperation. I want eustress, not distress
http://www.openculture.com/2012/08/..._with_stanford_biologist_robert_sapolsky.html
or, you can read his wonderful book "Why Zebras Don't Get Ulcers"


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

SassyCat said:


> I was more focused on claims that fear/avoidance isn't useful in training.
> 
> Unfortunately my experience with wild animal trainers is exactly the opposite. Also (unfortunately) no bear and tiger trainer was ever killed or even hurt. On the contrast, unfortunately, purely positive reinforcement trained orcas have killed and attacked trainers on multiple occasions..


I remember the bear trainer at our local zoo when I was a kid. We were rather horrified by him hitting the bears with a stick. And . . . one day he was killed by his bear. I recall hearing of elephant trainers (who were also training coercively) being killed by their elephants. So, no. Your above analogy doesn't really work.


----------



## LittleFr0g (Jun 11, 2007)

> On the contrast, unfortunately, purely positive reinforcement trained orcas have killed and attacked trainers on multiple occasions.


Actually attacks by orcas on their trainers have been linked to neurotic behavior developed from confining a highly social animal in small, isolated tanks. There is also some indication that constantly having their sonar vocalizations bounced back at them from the concrete walls of the tanks also contributes to this neurotic behavior. In addition, a number of attacks have been contributed to play behavior on the part of the orca, and to sexual aggression in animals frequently used for breeding. None of this has anything to do with the training method used.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Sooo... because orcas (which are a wild predator much larger than a human btw) who have been trained with positive methods have killed people, I should not use positive methods to train my dog?


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Laurelin said:


> Sooo... because orcas (which are a wild predator much larger than a human btw) who have been trained with positive methods have killed people, I should not use positive methods to train my dog?


Well I hate to tattle but I heard through the grapevine that Mia ordered some swim fins and a doggy snorkel. You might want to take care. Just sayin'....


----------



## Avery (Nov 22, 2011)

wvasko said:


> Well I hate to tattle but I heard through the grapevine that Mia ordered some swim fins and a doggy snorkel. You might want to take care. Just sayin'....


I had to chime in here to say: Lol!


----------



## sheep (Aug 22, 2012)

IMO, both positive and aversive can work if well applied. Animals are capable of learning through aversive situations, as long as it's not too aversive that it goes threshold. That said, often aversive methods are misused or over used that it's not only counter productive, but also really ends up damaging/hurting the dog and the handler/dog relationship. But if well applied, a dog can learn what not to do, and it doesn't really traumatize nor damage the relationship.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Avery said:


> I had to chime in here to say: Lol!


 That's cause all you little dog owners with the giant ears stick together.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

sheep said:


> IMO, both positive and aversive can work if well applied. Animals are capable of learning through aversive situations, as long as it's not too aversive that it goes threshold. That said, often aversive methods are misused or over used that it's not only counter productive, but also really ends up damaging/hurting the dog and the handler/dog relationship. But if well applied, a dog can learn what not to do, and it doesn't really traumatize nor damage the relationship.


 But, if it's not necessary to use aversives, then why do it?


----------



## Avery (Nov 22, 2011)

wvasko said:


> That's cause all you little dog owners with the giant ears stick together.


Hey! My ears are perfectly average sized.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

wvasko said:


> That's cause all you little dog owners with the giant ears stick together.


They're just working on their take-over.  

I guess world domination would make Mia 'dominant'.

In all seriousness I don't see how using aversives or training with fear would have changed the situation with the killer whales. Maybe they're called killer whales for a reason?


----------



## sheep (Aug 22, 2012)

Willowy said:


> But, if it's not necessary to use aversives, then why do it?


Hmm let me see if I can explain it well. I think that it's possible that there are positive methods that could work with any case or at least most of it (how can we assume that an entire training philosophy won't work with all dogs or will necessarily work with all dogs anyways?). The problem is often the lack of knowledge/information. For example, we might have learned some methods through books, sharing and scattered information online, but then what if what we have learned is not enough for a certain situations, due to some limitations (environmental/resources)? Also, maybe these limitations might actually be solvable by some creative positive way? Yet how many books or how creative we have to be before we can find out these alternate solutions to tweak the methods we are applying?
Personally, I don't like being extreme, like saying "positive is the only way" or "positive won't work with this or that case". If a certain positive method doesn't work, then I might need to learn more and/or incorporate some creative alternatives to make it work. Yet on the other hand, I might use corrections if they can work for certain situations, as I think that refusing an alternative sometimes can affect a dog's quality of life, and I don't want to wait for a long time just coz I can't figure out what else to do.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

sheep said:


> IMO, both positive and aversive can work if well applied. Animals are capable of learning through aversive situations, as long as it's not too aversive that it goes threshold. That said, often aversive methods are misused or over used that it's not only counter productive, but also really ends up damaging/hurting the dog and the handler/dog relationship. But if well applied, a dog can learn what not to do, and it doesn't really traumatize nor damage the relationship.


Both can work. Here's a little template on "over threshold". Your dog is well under threshold. Let's say he is really chill and his stress level is about a two. Something slightly scary happens and pushes the dog up to about a 7. (say, 10 is over threshold). Takes a while for adrenaline levels to come back down. Something minorly scary (say a prong collar correction or a slap) happens when the dog has come back down to a 6, pushing him back up to a 9, and then something minorly stressful (like seeing another dog) adds three more points and then wham-o you have over-threshold. Many dogs spend their lives bouncing between slightly under and over threshold. There are enough stressors out there in the world that I neither need nor want to add more in the way of aversives. I just dont.


----------



## sheep (Aug 22, 2012)

Pawzk9 said:


> Both can work. Here's a little template on "over threshold". Your dog is well under threshold. Let's say he is really chill and his stress level is about a two. Something slightly scary happens and pushes the dog up to about a 7. (say, 10 is over threshold). Takes a while for adrenaline levels to come back down. Something minorly scary (say a prong collar correction or a slap) happens when the dog has come back down to a 6, pushing him back up to a 9, and then something minorly stressful (like seeing another dog) adds three more points and then wham-o you have over-threshold. Many dogs spend their lives bouncing between slightly under and over threshold. There are enough stressors out there in the world that I neither need nor want to add more in the way of aversives. I just dont.


I think that it depends, coz it's important to not let things escalate right to level 7 when we use corrections too. I personally don't think that it's good enough to just put a prong on a reactive dog and then force him to sit right next to a dog is a good thing. It would be more preferable to do gradual approaches too, even with corrections too. And by letting dog pass threshold, we are creating a failure scenario in which dog won't learn anything anymore.
Also, even when a correction is strong enough to break a level 7 reaction away, the dog is still stressed, just repressing it. When it happens, you need to allow a dog to calm down a bit, which is also what a correction is for (dog reacts, correction is used to repress behavior, dog stops reacting and then gradually calms down, as long as it's not forced to approach the trigger too soon that it can't even have some time to calm down).


----------



## qingcong (Oct 26, 2009)

SassyCat said:


> KBLover gave a nice simple example of "basic leadership" and actually even dominant behaviour. I would just add your emotional state to the list, if you're stressed and anxious you're then automatically lacking leadership skills.


What's the criteria for judging whether someone is a leader? Similarly, how do you determine if a behavior qualifies as a dominant behavior?


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

sheep said:


> I think that it depends, coz it's important to not let things escalate right to level 7 when we use corrections too. I personally don't think that it's good enough to just put a prong on a reactive dog and then force him to sit right next to a dog is a good thing. It would be more preferable to do gradual approaches too, even with corrections too. And by letting dog pass threshold, we are creating a failure scenario in which dog won't learn anything anymore.
> Also, even when a correction is strong enough to break a level 7 reaction away, the dog is still stressed, just repressing it. When it happens, you need to allow a dog to calm down a bit, which is also what a correction is for (dog reacts, correction is used to repress behavior, dog stops reacting and then gradually calms down, as long as it's not forced to approach the trigger too soon that it can't even have some time to calm down).


If I am understanding correctly, I think what Pawz is saying is that there are enough things in the environment that are unpredictable and that we CAN'T control that can add stress and get dogs close to or over their threshold (say, a car backfiring or a clap of thunder), that why should we intentionally add more.


----------



## lil_fuzzy (Aug 16, 2010)

hanksimon said:


> I agree that fear is not useful for general training. However, I also agree with Sassycat's specific example for poison training. In Texas, we have significant rattlesnake issues, and the most common way to stop a dog from attacking a live rattlesnake (and getting fatally bitten) is through fear training. It may not be the "best" universal way to training, but it seems to be the most effective method for quickly getting the idea across to a wide variety of dogs. I wouldn't use this method for other training, but in this case, it is life or death and must be absolutely 100% successful in having a dog actively alert to and avoid snakes.
> 
> Disclaimer: I live in the suburbs with no poisonous snakes, and don't take my dog hunting, so I have never used this method myself.


Avoidance training has its place. I've used corrections to teach my dogs to stay away from cane toads. I probably could have trained them to leave toads alone using rewards, but it would have taken a lot longer, and I'm not sure if would be reliable once prey drive kicks in. It only took about 4-5 corrections for Obi, and 2 for Pixie, and now they avoid cane toads like the plague.

I don't like to use corrections or fear, I don't even use verbal corrections for anything, but when it's a matter of life and death, I want it fast and I want it reliable.


----------



## Amaryllis (Dec 28, 2011)

sheep said:


> Hmm let me see if I can explain it well. I think that it's possible that there are positive methods that could work with any case or at least most of it (how can we assume that an entire training philosophy won't work with all dogs or will necessarily work with all dogs anyways?). The problem is often the lack of knowledge/information. For example, we might have learned some methods through books, sharing and scattered information online, but then what if what we have learned is not enough for a certain situations, due to some limitations (environmental/resources)? Also, maybe these limitations might actually be solvable by some creative positive way? Yet how many books or how creative we have to be before we can find out these alternate solutions to tweak the methods we are applying?
> Personally, I don't like being extreme, like saying "positive is the only way" or "positive won't work with this or that case". If a certain positive method doesn't work, then I might need to learn more and/or incorporate some creative alternatives to make it work. Yet on the other hand, I might use corrections if they can work for certain situations, as I think that refusing an alternative sometimes can affect a dog's quality of life, and I don't want to wait for a long time just coz I can't figure out what else to do.


I don't think "I don't feel like doing research" is a reason to hurt or scare your dog. 

Frankly, the science is in. Has been for a while. Dominance is bunk and aversive training is stressful to the dog and potentially quite damaging and positive reinforcement really, really works. You don't get to have an opinion about science. It is what it is. The earth revolves around the sun, no matter how you feel about. 

Also, note that the punishment advocate here is engaging in goalpost shifting, ie, you disproved one of his points so he them says "but what about this one?" that is dishonest argumentation. He also started his involvement with a tone argument, as if being rude, which no one was, somehow changes scientific fact. Again, dishonest argumentation.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Laurelin said:


> Sooo... because orcas (which are a wild predator much larger than a human btw) who have been trained with positive methods have killed people, I should not use positive methods to train my dog?


Imitating the theme to "Jaws" do-doot, do-doot, do-doot. Beware the Mia! (signed, the lady with medium sized fuzzy dogs with smaller ears)


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

sheep said:


> I think that it depends, coz it's important to not let things escalate right to level 7 when we use corrections too. I personally don't think that it's good enough to just put a prong on a reactive dog and then force him to sit right next to a dog is a good thing. It would be more preferable to do gradual approaches too, even with corrections too. And by letting dog pass threshold, we are creating a failure scenario in which dog won't learn anything anymore.
> Also, even when a correction is strong enough to break a level 7 reaction away, the dog is still stressed, just repressing it. When it happens, you need to allow a dog to calm down a bit, which is also what a correction is for (dog reacts, correction is used to repress behavior, dog stops reacting and then gradually calms down, as long as it's not forced to approach the trigger too soon that it can't even have some time to calm down).


the fact is, we can't always control the environment totally, even if we're trying to. Sometimes 7 happens. I agree that letting a dog go over threshold is undesirable. But again - we can't always control the environment and not all stressors are aversives coming from the trainer. Most are not. We can help the dog by teaching them behaviors which are not compatible with over threshold behavior (as Brenda Aloff says, a dog can't be in both lizard brain reactive) and einstein brain (problem solving) at the same time. Once you have those behaviors, and with a little distance the dog can often be brought back into einstein brain. If the dog doesn't know if he's going to get a cookie or a collar pop, he's likely to spend a lot of time near lizard brain. Because face it, a handler who does both isn't totally on the dog's side. By the way, another good book to read is Aloff's Aggression in Dogs. I find her much more effective a a writer than as a seminar giver, as I've seen her push dogs way past what they are ready for in an attempt to "fix" something in a two day seminar.


----------



## sheep (Aug 22, 2012)

Amaryllis said:


> I don't think "I don't feel like doing research" is a reason to hurt or scare your dog.
> 
> Frankly, the science is in. Has been for a while. Dominance is bunk and aversive training is stressful to the dog and potentially quite damaging and positive reinforcement really, really works. You don't get to have an opinion about science. It is what it is. The earth revolves around the sun, no matter how you feel about.
> 
> Also, note that the punishment advocate here is engaging in goalpost shifting, ie, you disproved one of his points so he them says "but what about this one?" that is dishonest argumentation. He also started his involvement with a tone argument, as if being rude, which no one was, somehow changes scientific fact. Again, dishonest argumentation.


Please calm down.

First, I didn't mean "I don't feel like doing research" so that it's ok to hurt or scare a dog (that argument just makes correction users seem lazy and just going for the easy way). What I meant was more like "I can't find enough information for my situation even after doing some research, so that for now, I will use an alternate method that can work".
This is my opinion, but I think that sometimes, it's not good to just let certain problems (reactivity or other behavioral problems) continue developing while we spend months or even years researching for positive alternatives that works. Yet what would be good is to continue researching while resorting to alternate methods (that are not as bad as many might think), so that if we ever need to deal with similar problems in the future, we would be better prepared with better methods.

Also, not all correction users supports the old dominance theory. This would be like saying that all positive only guys are bribers using treats.

And back to the corrections. We can indeed talk about science. Science has proven that both positive methods and corrections works. But of course, if we are talking about really harsh corrections and correction only trainings, then of course it's already proven that these don't really work well. But then this does not mean that we can generalize and group every kind of correction together. A simple collar pop is definitely not the same as a harsh choke collar jerk that even hangs the dog. The second one is definitely bad and ineffective, specially on softer dogs.

Lastly, I can't understand exactly what you meant with the last paragraph. I didn't notice who is the punishment advocate here that you're talking about, just noticed that there's a debate about corrections going on. And I'm not really targeting anyone, just giving my own opinion about corrections. But I don't understand where's the dishonesty of what I've said.


----------



## sheep (Aug 22, 2012)

Pawzk9 said:


> the fact is, we can't always control the environment totally, even if we're trying to. Sometimes 7 happens. I agree that letting a dog go over threshold is undesirable. But again - we can't always control the environment and not all stressors are aversives coming from the trainer. Most are not. We can help the dog by teaching them behaviors which are not compatible with over threshold behavior (as Brenda Aloff says, a dog can't be in both lizard brain reactive) and einstein brain (problem solving) at the same time. Once you have those behaviors, and with a little distance the dog can often be brought back into einstein brain. If the dog doesn't know if he's going to get a cookie or a collar pop, he's likely to spend a lot of time near lizard brain. Because face it, a handler who does both isn't totally on the dog's side. By the way, another good book to read is Aloff's Aggression in Dogs. I find her much more effective a a writer than as a seminar giver, as I've seen her push dogs way past what they are ready for in an attempt to "fix" something in a two day seminar.


I agree with teaching behaviors that are not compatible with the threshold behaviors. For example, sometimes a reactive dog is not sure of a situation, and having him do alternate behaviors before the reactivity escalates can be better than simply correcting.
Although I think that using rewards and corrections at the same time can be useful too, as long as the corrections are well applied that the dog does know why he's corrected for (so that he can avoid the corrections).


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

> And back to the corrections. We can indeed talk about science. Science has proven that both positive methods and corrections works. But of course, if we are talking about really harsh corrections and correction only trainings, then of course it's already proven that these don't really work well. But then this does not mean that we can generalize and group every kind of correction together. A simple collar pop is definitely not the same as a harsh choke collar jerk that even hangs the dog. The second one is definitely bad and ineffective, specially on softer dogs.


I don't get into these training debates/opinions too much cause most everybody has researched/read more on the operant stuff in 10 minutes than I have in 50 years. I don't have a clue as to what science has proved or not proved but the above paragraph at least I can understand. 

This does not make it gospel because most of work I've done was to change the dogs from one type to another type in 30 to 45 days.


----------



## SassyCat (Aug 29, 2011)

Pawzk9 said:


> I remember the bear trainer at our local zoo when I was a kid. We were rather horrified by him hitting the bears with a stick. And . . . one day he was killed by his bear. I recall hearing of elephant trainers (who were also training coercively) being killed by their elephants. So, no. Your above analogy doesn't really work.


Ok a wild animal killed his trainer but that wasn't what I was trying to dispute, my analogy was aimed at claim that corrective based method doesn't work with wild animals and only gets you killed. It's just false. I used an example of Orcas to illustrate how pointless it is to blame whole part of operant conditioning because of incidents with wild animals. Well hope I make some sense now... I didn't mean that beating elephants is cool and training orcas is not. 
Edit: actually training orcas is not cool either.... but slightly cooler than beating elephants with sticks (subjective opinion).


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

sheep said:


> I agree with teaching behaviors that are not compatible with the threshold behaviors. For example, sometimes a reactive dog is not sure of a situation, and having him do alternate behaviors before the reactivity escalates can be better than simply correcting.
> Although I think that using rewards and corrections at the same time can be useful too, as long as the corrections are well applied that the dog does know why he's corrected for (so that he can avoid the corrections).


It can be somewhat difficult to know with certainty if the dog knows why he's being corrected. I try to err on the side of the dog. I also will not apply aversives and appetitives when training behaviors. I want a dog who is constantly trying to solve my problems. Dogs who have been told their choices are wrong enough times will wait to be told what to do or helped into doing something. That not what I'm looking for.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

SassyCat said:


> Ok a wild animal killed his trainer but that wasn't what I was trying to dispute, my analogy was aimed at claim that corrective based method doesn't work with wild animals and only gets you killed. It's just false. I used an example of Orcas to illustrate how pointless it is to blame whole part of operant conditioning because of incidents with wild animals. Well hope I make some sense now... I didn't mean that beating elephants is cool and training orcas is not.
> Edit: actually training orcas is not cool either.... but slightly cooler than beating elephants with sticks (subjective opinion).


Done thoughtfully it can create safer conditions for handling - and for the animals. For instance, when a hyena has been taught to target his neck to the chain link for a blood draw, the risks of anesthesia can be avoided. The fact is, any time you are dealing with wild animals (heck, sometimes when you are dealing with dogs, even) there is some risk involved. Your first post on this subject indicated that traditional wild animal trainers didn't get killed but clicker wild animal trainers do. Which is patently false and needed to be called on it. And . . . the woman who was pulled under because the orca was playing with her swingy pony tail did not maul her, he drowned her, which would unlikely be an issue with land mammals.


----------



## spoiler (Aug 27, 2012)

> Personally, I don't like being extreme, like saying "positive is the only way" or "positive won't work with this or that case


This is all I was saying too. You'd be surprised to know that I am considering learning clicker training for my dog. Of course I prefer using positive methods most of the time. But I'm willing to accept an alternative approach works too. eg. Cesar's. My impression is that on dog forums there is a kind of propoganda being promoted for one style of training.


----------



## spoiler (Aug 27, 2012)

> Also, note that the *punishment advocate *here is



"Here ye! Here ye! Bring thy canine to my midst and I will surely curb its evil ways with my cat o' nines!"


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

i see a different distinction. two way vs one way communication. In aversive focused training, the dog is not allowed any room to explore, to give feedback, to be an active participant in the partnership. Methods involving things like shaping and reward based programs give the dog a say in the development of behaviors. It's two way communication.

much prefer a spirited conversation to a finger wagging lecture any day of the week. and generally so does any dog i work with...or cat...or fish....or chicken....etc.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

spoiler said:


> "Here ye! Here ye! Bring thy canine to my midst and I will surely curb its evil ways with my cat o' nines!"


You know, that could be a good marketing slogan 

The Medieval Canine Trainer. Why not, there's a label for every other kind of training.


----------



## qingcong (Oct 26, 2009)

spoiler said:


> This is all I was saying too. You'd be surprised to know that I am considering learning clicker training for my dog. Of course I prefer using positive methods most of the time. But I'm willing to accept an alternative approach works too. eg. Cesar's. My impression is that on dog forums there is a kind of propoganda being promoted for one style of training.



It's not propaganda, it's that a lot of people started off as leash em up & jerk em trainers and then slowly learned the benefits of reward based methods. A lot of people will tell you how they resisted the idea of reward training, much like you are doing now and how I once did, and then once they got good at it, they can't believe there was ever a debate. 

If a technique of Cesar Millan's works, then it's because it falls within the realm of learning, not because it's an "alternative method". What you're not getting is that, reward based trainers aren't following a faith, they're doing it because learning is proven science and not some nebulous concept of energy. Us reward trainers do it because we can successfully train/modify/rehabilitate without needing to risk it with dangerous aversive methods.


----------



## spoiler (Aug 27, 2012)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> i see a different distinction. two way vs one way communication. In aversive focused training, the dog is not allowed any room to explore, to give feedback, to be an active participant in the partnership. Methods involving things like shaping and reward based programs *give the dog a say in the development of behaviors. It's two way communication.
> 
> *much prefer a spirited conversation to a finger wagging lecture any day of the week. and generally so does any dog i work with...or cat...or fish....or chicken....etc.


Yeah OK I do try to be democratic but sometimes I feel my dog would prefer to call the shots on everything. "Don't come near me while I'm chewing a bone. Can't you see I'm busy!"...for instance.


----------



## spoiler (Aug 27, 2012)

qingcong said:


> It's not propaganda, it's that a lot of people started off as leash em up & jerk em trainers and then slowly learned the benefits of reward based methods. A lot of people will tell you how they resisted the idea of reward training, much like you are doing now and how I once did, and then once they got good at it, they can't believe there was ever a debate.
> 
> If a technique of Cesar Millan's works, then it's because it falls within the realm of learning, not because it's an "alternative method". What you're not getting is that, reward based trainers aren't following a faith, they're doing it because learning is proven science and not some nebulous concept of energy. Us reward trainers do it because we can successfully train/modify/rehabilitate without needing to risk it with dangerous aversive methods.


OK you're right. Thanks for that. I am gradually being influenced on here.


----------



## Deaf Dogs (May 28, 2012)

qingcong said:


> It's not propaganda, it's that a lot of people started off as leash em up & jerk em trainers and then slowly learned the benefits of reward based methods. A lot of people will tell you how they resisted the idea of reward training, much like you are doing now and how I once did, and then once they got good at it, they can't believe there was ever a debate.
> 
> If a technique of Cesar Millan's works, then it's because it falls within the realm of learning, not because it's an "alternative method". What you're not getting is that, reward based trainers aren't following a faith, they're doing it because learning is proven science and not some nebulous concept of energy. Us reward trainers do it because we can successfully train/modify/rehabilitate without needing to risk it with dangerous aversive methods.


I just wanted to say ^^ EXACTLY!!!! I wish there was a like button on this forum! very well said!


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

spoiler said:


> This is all I was saying too. You'd be surprised to know that I am considering learning clicker training for my dog. Of course I prefer using positive methods most of the time. But I'm willing to accept an alternative approach works too. eg. Cesar's. My impression is that on dog forums there is a kind of propoganda being promoted for one style of training.


People will post opinions. Hopefully honest opinions, based on personal experience. If I agreed that punishing dogs and rewarding dogs in rapid - and to the dog unknowable variations created a willing and confident learner, I'd be lying. I don't intend to lie to make people feel better about what they do in training. I intend to promote the training I've seen work best.


----------



## spoiler (Aug 27, 2012)

eace:


KBLover said:


> You know, that could be a good marketing slogan
> 
> The Medieval Canine Trainer. Why not, there's a label for every other kind of training.


OK I'll sign you up as my first satisfied customer. You can write a testimonial for me on my new website.eace:eace:


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

spoiler said:


> Yeah OK I do try to be democratic but sometimes I feel my dog would prefer to call the shots on everything. "Don't come near me while I'm chewing a bone. Can't you see I'm busy!"...for instance.



you can be democratic then too. just have to be open to finding the right compromise...like...to use a real world example..."How about you dont try to rip other dogs to shreds and Ill let you play hunter with this toy on a cord Ive got here." She was like "WORD UP" and all was good.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

spoiler said:


> Yeah OK I do try to be democratic but sometimes I feel my dog would prefer to call the shots on everything. "Don't come near me while I'm chewing a bone. Can't you see I'm busy!"...for instance.


Zim's approach is pretty the one I took with Wally.

Combine that by teaching with shaping 95% of the time, and it's pretty much a "Wally-directed" training program, if you can call it that. Even to the point where I'll sometimes just see what he comes up with, or if he's "not following my steps", but is getting it done because he has his own ideas, or he does something interesting and I start running with that instead.

I found it dramatically increased his confidence, made him love training, and it's just fun to observe his behaviors and see a glimpse of how he's thinking and sees the problem or the progression of what he offers as we go along or if he can figure out what I'm rewarding in all the behaviors I'm offering (say a paw raise, I might click sit pretty because it moved a paw, but just sitting, nope, walking around, yep, "climbing" up my legs like walking up a ramp, yep, can he figure out he just needs to move a paw?)

I just can't get this kind of interaction with him if I focused on dominance instead of his creativity.


----------



## spoiler (Aug 27, 2012)

How things have changed. Now we have to negotiate with our pets. I imagine scenes of calling in a professional negotiator to get our tennis ball back from the dog. "Sunny. It's not worth it. Come on. Hand it over. You owe it to yourself. "


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

To paraphrase Diane Bauman "knowing when to correct is what makes one a better trainer"

Nominated for Dog Writers Award, 1996
Achieved 16 perfect scores of 200 in obedience on four different breeds (Golden, Belgian Tervuren, Keeshond and Pomeranian)
Trained the first AM, Can, OTCH (Obedience Trial Champion – the highest AKC Obedience Award), TD (Tracking Dog) Keeshond in the history of the breed
Trained OTCH Pomeranian (Rescued from a shelter at theage of six)
Trained the first OTCH, UDX (Utility Dog Excellent – the newest high AKC Obedience Award) Pekingese in the history of the breed (Rescued from an animal shelter at 10 
months)
Four OTCH’s (Golden Retriever, Keeshond, Pomeranian and Pekingese)
Five Tracking Titles (Golden, Keeshond, Papillon and Cocker Spaniel, Icelandic Sheepdog) Trained the first Icelandic Sheepdog in history to earn a tracking degree from the AKC.
Put Breed Championships on two Keeshonden
Placed fourth in Open and second in Utility with a Pekingese at the Gaines/Cycle Eastern Regionals
Won the Canadian Centennial Obedience competition with a Keeshond.
First AKC Master Agility Excellent (MX, MXJ) Afghan in the history of the breed.
Another MX, MXJ Afghan Hound under the age of 2!
Third Master Agility Champion (MACH) of any breed in the history of Agility with a Cocker Spaniel.
Member of the AKC World Agility Team 1998, 1999 and 2000, winning gold and silver medals with a Black American Cocker Spaniel.
MACH 4 on a rescued Border Collie. Top Herding Dog in US in JWW Agility for 2004.
Put the first herding title on an Icelandic Sheepdog in the U.S. and Canada. Now with a second herding title.
Appeared on Animal Planet Dogs 101 for Afghan Hounds
Placed 6th at the 2009 AKC Eukanuba Agility Invitational with an Afghan Hound.


----------



## RonE (Feb 3, 2007)

spoiler said:


> How things have changed. Now we have to negotiate with our pets. I imagine scenes of calling in a professional negotiator to get our tennis ball back from the dog. "Sunny. It's not worth it. Come on. Hand it over. You owe it to yourself. "


I prefer to think of it as a symbiosis, not a negotiation.

With my dog, who would rather chase tennis balls than eat (and she really likes to eat) it's a choice between, "Bring back the ball and I'll throw it again. If you don't, I can't." or "Bring back the ball or I'll chase you down and beat you." 

I made my choice when I realized fetch is supposed to be FUN for both the dog and for me.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

spoiler said:


> How things have changed. Now we have to negotiate with our pets. I imagine scenes of calling in a professional negotiator to get our tennis ball back from the dog. "Sunny. It's not worth it. Come on. Hand it over. You owe it to yourself. "


Well that's not correct, negotiation with pets did start way back in the Jurassic era. (I was there) It's how we negotiate with dogs that has evolved. But the good news is that everybody can still solve their own dog problems as they wish.


----------



## trainingjunkie (Feb 10, 2010)

Diane Bauman in very much into positive reinforecement training. She clearly states that she ignores behaviors she doesn't want and reinforces desireable behavior. She says she wants a thinking partner and that dogs clearly learn from being allowed to make mistakes. On her home page, she has a very clear 2 1/2 minute video clip where she explains all of this. She would never be considered a "yank and crank" trainer.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

jiml said:


> To paraphrase Diane Bauman "knowing when to correct is what makes one a better trainer"
> 
> Nominated for Dog Writers Award, 1996
> Achieved 16 perfect scores of 200 in obedience on four different breeds (Golden, Belgian Tervuren, Keeshond and Pomeranian)
> ...


Oh my, I do believe the lady has some serious dog training ability flowing through her veins. It appears the only thing she needs is a 4 legged dog with the standard head, tail stuff and she gets the job done. Just Sayin'..


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

spoiler said:


> How things have changed. Now we have to negotiate with our pets. I imagine scenes of calling in a professional negotiator to get our tennis ball back from the dog. "Sunny. It's not worth it. Come on. Hand it over. You owe it to yourself. "


you dont HAVE to, however, there is a significant increase in the probability that your pet will become more and more willing to do as asked each time you take into consideration what they want. no professional negotiator needed. like with the tennis ball example...dog is all "I HAZ TEH BALL!!' and you go "Well I haz one too and this one squeaks...wanna trade?"...ive never seen the answer be "no" in those kinds of scenarios.

I dont deny there are times when a demand is necessary but those usually seem to come when the situation goes beyond normal parameters...like a snapped leash on a busy road.

but i also dont deny that there have been times when a dog has made those same demands on me and if i had not complied, the results would have been an utter disaster. like when i was in the bathroom and my son was silently choking to death and she busted into the room and latched on to my pants leg, practically screaming....all behaviors that i normally frown upon. If i had just punished her or ignored her and not listened to her and trusted her...Id be a very very regretful person indeed.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

spoiler said:


> How things have changed. Now we have to negotiate with our pets. I imagine scenes of calling in a professional negotiator to get our tennis ball back from the dog. "Sunny. It's not worth it. Come on. Hand it over. You owe it to yourself. "


It's all negotiation.

You want something, the dog wants something. You could say "give it up and I'll give you something even better" or "give it up or I'll make you wish you had".

I prefer the former, you might like the latter. 

Over time, it's more like placing a bet. The dog "bets" the bone and maybe he'll get a jackpot, or maybe not this time. VSR can be quite powerful.

I do what works for me and my dog with the least possibility of unintended undesired results.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

RonE said:


> I prefer to think of it as a symbiosis, not a negotiation.
> 
> With my dog, who would rather chase tennis balls than eat (and she really likes to eat) it's a choice between, "Bring back the ball and I'll throw it again. If you don't, I can't." or "Bring back the ball or I'll chase you down and beat you."
> 
> I made my choice when I realized fetch is supposed to be FUN for both the dog and for me.


Or even just "Bring it back and I'll throw it again" or "Don't bring it back and the game is over because honestly, I don't care if I ever throw that ball again."


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> but i also dont deny that there have been times when a dog has made those same demands on me and if i had not complied, the results would have been an utter disaster. like when i was in the bathroom and my son was silently choking to death and she busted into the room and latched on to my pants leg, practically screaming....all behaviors that i normally frown upon. If i had just punished her or ignored her and not listened to her and trusted her...Id be a very very regretful person indeed.


Yep, had that experience a couple years back. Wally didn't like the look of something he saw in the darkness - usually, it's just an overturned chair that wasn't there or something, but this time, he pulled TO it instead of away. Instead of just correcting the pull, I wanted to see what's up since this was rather unusual behavior for him to go TOWARDS something he is that uncertain about. The sound was from a teenage girl who was crying her eyes out asking if I had a phone so she could call the cops and her clothes were all messed up. 

On a more mundane level, when he's suddenly "bothering me" and demanding my attention, especially since he usually just rests or amuses himself, I know he's either got to go out NOW or is about to puke, or something is out of the ordinary and has caught his attention. Telling him to go away would just get me a mess on the floor or maybe worse.


----------



## spoiler (Aug 27, 2012)

sassafras said:


> Or even just "Bring it back and I'll throw it again" or "Don't bring it back and the game is over because honestly, I don't care if I ever throw that ball again."


Yeah. I've felt exactly the same. The thing is though. "It's my tennis ball. You don't own it. Why are you hogging it? Give it back or I'll call the police for stealing.Do you want a criminal record?"


----------



## spoiler (Aug 27, 2012)

KBLover said:


> *It's all negotiation.*
> You want something, the dog wants something. You could say "give it up and I'll give you something even better" or "give it up or I'll make you wish you had".
> 
> I prefer the former, you might like the latter.
> ...


That's where I differ for sure. Like negotiating with a 2 year old child. My canine has no commonsense when it comes to eating. He would eat what is in front of him until he passes out!


----------



## spoiler (Aug 27, 2012)

> like when i was in the bathroom and my son was silently choking to death and she busted into the room and latched on to my pants leg, practically screaming


Sounds like a major drama to me. Choking to death? What!


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

spoiler said:


> Yeah. I've felt exactly the same. The thing is though. "It's my tennis ball. You don't own it. Why are you hogging it? Give it back or I'll call the police for stealing.Do you want a criminal record?"


I don't really care who owns the tennis ball, though. Certain behavior by the dog (bringing the ball back) earns a certain reward (me throwing the ball again). Who "owns" the ball doesn't enter into the equation for me.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

spoiler said:


> That's where I differ for sure. Like negotiating with a 2 year old child. My canine has no commonsense when it comes to eating. He would eat what is in front of him until he passes out!


Negotiation doesn't mean "let him do whatever he wants all the time". It mean you both communicate about what you both want.

Punishment is still negotiation. You're saying "do this or I'll do this bad thing to you" and then the dog decides whether that bad thing is bad enough to make him do "this" or not. 

And if you don't sometimes negotiate with a 2-year-old, you're going to have a very bad toddler experience .


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Willowy said:


> Negotiation doesn't mean "let him do whatever he wants all the time". It mean you both communicate about what you both want.
> 
> Punishment is still negotiation. You're saying "do this or I'll do this bad thing to you" and then the dog decides whether that bad thing is bad enough to make him do "this" or not.



This. (too short)


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

spoiler said:


> That's where I differ for sure. Like negotiating with a 2 year old child. My canine has no commonsense when it comes to eating. He would eat what is in front of him until he passes out!


Wally has no sense with food - except "does it smell good?" and if yes, he tries to eat it. Used to do this all the time outside. Wally is a complete food whore.

That said, instead of just punishing him, I worked on "Leave it" and if he left the food alone, he got something still (the reward, in this case a piece of bread - he LOVES bread). It was faster for me to teach him "it's good to leave food on the ground since I might get something even better from my person", than to constantly 'punish' him as he again tried to eat off the ground. 

Giving him the behavior chain of "see food -> look at person" worked better than "claiming" the food. Most I'll do is body block him from it and when he looks up from it, reward that.

Again, it might not be something you want to do, and that's fine, it worked for me and without risking throwing "unhealthy fear", to use your words, into the mix (i.e. make him skittish of me again).


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

KBLover said:


> Wally has no sense with food - except "does it smell good?" and if yes, he tries to eat it. Used to do this all the time outside. Wally is a complete food whore.
> 
> That said, instead of just punishing him, I worked on "Leave it" and if he left the food alone, he got something still (the reward, in this case a piece of bread - he LOVES bread). It was faster for me to teach him "it's good to leave food on the ground since I might get something even better from my person", than to constantly 'punish' him as he again tried to eat off the ground.
> 
> ...


Agreed 100%. Leave It/Puppy Zen/It's Yer Choice is the bomb. Never see that "can I make it to the food before she does" look on your dog's face again.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

wvasko said:


> Well that's not correct, negotiation with pets did start way back in the Jurassic era. (I was there) It's how we negotiate with dogs that has evolved. But the good news is that everybody can still solve their own dog problems as they wish.


This, too (too short).


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

trainingjunkie said:


> Diane Bauman in very much into positive reinforecement training. She clearly states that she ignores behaviors she doesn't want and reinforces desireable behavior. She says she wants a thinking partner and that dogs clearly learn from being allowed to make mistakes. On her home page, she has a very clear 2 1/2 minute video clip where she explains all of this. She would never be considered a "yank and crank" trainer.


I don't know how much she's changed over the years (I think I saw her in the late 80s). At the time she gave me lots to think about in terms of being fair to dogs. But she did plenty of traditional training as well - including teaching a retrieve with an ear pinch.


----------



## sheep (Aug 22, 2012)

Just wanted to comment the unusual situations that others have shared... I also let my dog display certain behaviors, whenever it seems that there's a reason behind it. Like barking towards the darkness or some suspicious people from afar. He senses something and is insecure. Why punishing that? He might as well be right. I might tell him "it's ok" as a sign to calm down, or "wait" and then go check what he spotted (he would look at me and the spot alternately then, trying to see if I sense something).
The only situation that I've got a "I've warned you so!" was not serious thought, and it was during a morning, when my dog was waiting for my partner to take him for a walk. He started to walk around the room, and then started to demand my attention (nudging, mouthing and then barking). Since he usually does that to initiate play, I've told him "no" and ignored him. I also tried to call him to the bed, but he refused (which was unsual). And then after a while, he just peed a river! He just looked at me with a poor doggy look, while I just looked at him and was like "omg" (he didn't have accidents at home for a long time). I've felt bad for him, and then remembered what was the cause: he ate one of those smoked dry bones (salty food + the whole night waiting = lots of pee).

I think that being firm with rules is important, but then we should also be more understanding sometimes.


----------



## spoiler (Aug 27, 2012)

> Like barking towards the darkness or some suspicious people from afar. He senses something and is insecure. Why punishing that?


According to the Medieval School of Punishment which I worked at, we need to punish these kinds of things. Otherwise the dog won't know whos's boss.


----------



## sheep (Aug 22, 2012)

spoiler said:


> According to the Medieval School of Punishment which I worked at, we need to punish these kinds of things. Otherwise the dog won't know whos's boss.


Actually, our dog kind of warded off a bad guy once. My partner was taking him for a fast walk around midnight. Our dog started to bark but he didn't know what he's barking at. And then a very suspicious guy approached him and said things like "it's not that I wanted to rob you or anything... Can you lend me your moblie phone?? Does your dog bite?" My partner said that he was just walking his dog so that he had nothing else with him, and that our dog can bite. Our dog barked a bit towards that guy and that guy left then.


----------



## trainingjunkie (Feb 10, 2010)

Pawzk9 said:


> I don't know how much she's changed over the years (I think I saw her in the late 80s). At the time she gave me lots to think about in terms of being fair to dogs. But she did plenty of traditional training as well - including teaching a retrieve with an ear pinch.


From poking around her website, it looks like she's evolved, pretty much like the rest of us! I remember learning how to use a choke chain in the mid-80's. It seems like a lifetime ago. I swore I would never be so stupid as to use food to train. I actually once beat a dog with a dead rabbit. I was a moron. I cringe when I think of the stupid and mean things I did in the name of training. My only consolation is that when I knew better, I did better. 

Live and learn.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

spoiler said:


> Sounds like a major drama to me. Choking to death? What!


he was premie. premies often have issues. he has a serious reflux incident that completely clogged his passages.


----------



## Deaf Dogs (May 28, 2012)

trainingjunkie said:


> From poking around her website, it looks like she's evolved, pretty much like the rest of us! I remember learning how to use a choke chain in the mid-80's. It seems like a lifetime ago. I swore I would never be so stupid as to use food to train. I actually once beat a dog with a dead rabbit. I was a moron. I cringe when I think of the stupid and mean things I did in the name of training. My only consolation is that when I knew better, I did better.
> 
> Live and learn.


Exactly!!! Alot of trainers evolve over time. maybe she "USED" to say that, but she would no longer use that. I know I used to use pinch collars, choke collars and other punishment practices (except the dead rabbit LOL) but no longer do. People change as they learn, why would we expect someone not to change her training approach since the 80's?


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

trainingjunkie said:


> Diane Bauman in very much into positive reinforecement training. She clearly states that she ignores behaviors she doesn't want and reinforces desireable behavior. She says she wants a thinking partner and that dogs clearly learn from being allowed to make mistakes. On her home page, she has a very clear 2 1/2 minute video clip where she explains all of this. She would never be considered a "yank and crank" trainer.


agreed but she also does use pos punishment once she feels the dog is disobeying a known command. She uses pos reinforcement but is not afraid to say "no" and help them through the process of learning. She is against overly "pattern" trained dogs and as you say wants them to think.


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

Pawzk9 said:


> I don't know how much she's changed over the years (I think I saw her in the late 80s). At the time she gave me lots to think about in terms of being fair to dogs. But she did plenty of traditional training as well - including teaching a retrieve with an ear pinch.


She still does use the ear pinch, Prob more pos than then though.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Deaf Dogs said:


> Exactly!!! Alot of trainers evolve over time. maybe she "USED" to say that, but she would no longer use that. I know I used to use pinch collars, choke collars and other punishment practices (except the dead rabbit LOL) but no longer do. People change as they learn, why would we expect someone not to change her training approach since the 80's?


Not saying she hasn't changed (I know, I also come from a traditional background). Even at that time she was philosophically ahead of a lot of the trads. I hope she has evolved and is teaching new things now.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

jiml said:


> She still does use the ear pinch, Prob more pos than then though.


There IS no "kind" way to use an ear pinch. It is pure out coercion. (And yes, I've done it, but would not do it now.)


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

There IS no "kind" way to use an ear pinch. It is pure out coercion.>>>>

I agree, I was not talking about the ear pinch but her overall philosophy I believe is mostly positive as I understand from a friend that is currently training w her.


----------



## lil_fuzzy (Aug 16, 2010)

Even traditional trainers don't use the ear pinch anymore, or they shouldn't anyway. They've come up with a new method to teach holding a dumbbell using R- that is gentler. I can't remember the exact technique, but it involves putting some pressure under the chin on the dog, like digging a finger in to make them open their mouths. I've seen both the ear pinch and the finger digging done on the same dog (to demo it) and he didn't mind the finger digging so much, but when the trainer used the ear pinch he yelped and then smooched up to his handler to be comforted.


----------



## SassyCat (Aug 29, 2011)

lil_fuzzy said:


> Even traditional trainers don't use the ear pinch anymore, or they shouldn't anyway. They've come up with a new method to teach holding a dumbbell using R- that is gentler. I can't remember the exact technique, but it involves putting some pressure under the chin on the dog, like digging a finger in to make them open their mouths. I've seen both the ear pinch and the finger digging done on the same dog (to demo it) and he didn't mind the finger digging so much, but when the trainer used the ear pinch he yelped and then smooched up to his handler to be comforted.


Ear pinching evolved into finger digging? Last I've heard forced retrieve is trained with an e collar and clicker. There is also a system I call drive-compulsion-drive with an e collar, Bill Hillman explains it in his DVDs (haven't seen any though), I only know the very basics of how/why it works. There's also a force-less retrieve or motivational retrieve pushed by guys like Bernhard Flinks and Michael Ellis but it doesn't seem to have progressed into field work a lot, I guess people are reluctant to give it a chance esp. since you need to have a very close bond with the dog.


----------



## trainingjunkie (Feb 10, 2010)

The forced retrieve is what stopped me dead in my tracks with my open work for obedience. I don't care if it's collar pressure, digging in the dogs chin, ear pinching, e-stim, whatever. I was not going to punish my dog for not doing something he didn't understand in order to get me to stop punishing him. The entire concept of the forced retrieve made me sick to my stomach, so I quit with my dogs after the CD.

Then, wanting to go on, I decided to just use the da##ed clicker and see what happened. What happened was I got two dogs who would retrieve through ANY distraction because they were so excited to see the dumbell. So I went back to class with dogs who would take, hold, carry, and retrieve the dumbell reliably. I never needed to "demo" my correction because my dogs never refused, mouthed, or dropped the dumbell.

I know that the forced retrieve is still considered the "gold standard" by many, but for the life of me, I don't know why.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

jiml said:


> There IS no "kind" way to use an ear pinch. It is pure out coercion.>>>>
> 
> I agree, I was not talking about the ear pinch but her overall philosophy I believe is mostly positive as I understand from a friend that is currently training w her.


If someone uses an ear pinch, that is a part of her overall philosophy.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

lil_fuzzy said:


> Even traditional trainers don't use the ear pinch anymore, or they shouldn't anyway. They've come up with a new method to teach holding a dumbbell using R- that is gentler. I can't remember the exact technique, but it involves putting some pressure under the chin on the dog, like digging a finger in to make them open their mouths. I've seen both the ear pinch and the finger digging done on the same dog (to demo it) and he didn't mind the finger digging so much, but when the trainer used the ear pinch he yelped and then smooched up to his handler to be comforted.


Many obedience trainers (and hunting dog trainers) still use an ear pinch. It's not necessary, but it is their tradition. Clicker works better though!


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

SassyCat said:


> Ear pinching evolved into finger digging? Last I've heard forced retrieve is trained with an e collar and clicker. There is also a system I call drive-compulsion-drive with an e collar, Bill Hillman explains it in his DVDs (haven't seen any though), I only know the very basics of how/why it works. There's also a force-less retrieve or motivational retrieve pushed by guys like Bernhard Flinks and Michael Ellis but it doesn't seem to have progressed into field work a lot, I guess people are reluctant to give it a chance esp. since you need to have a very close bond with the dog.


Yes, by all means, lets substitute force and discomfort for a close bond with the dog. I will no longer hurt my dog to get obedience behaviors.


----------



## EdDTS (May 30, 2012)

Deaf Dogs said:


> It's not baseless and extreme, it's science. Anxiety and fear hinder learning. You can teach a dog avoidance by using fear, but that's all you're doing. He's not learning new concepts, he's avoiding what he's afraid of. And the stuff you used as an example is simply untrue, and not based on science. those are just myths that are perpetuated by people who have no understanding of the science behind training. Again, I'd like to see someone use corrective based training on a tiger or a lion, or a bear... it's not going to happen, that animal will just kill you or hurt you enough to get away. Yet clicker training always works, as long as it's applied properly. Why use fear and punishment at all? these are supposed to be our partners and companions, why are we hurting them? why are we scaring them? why are we using barbaric methods to "train" them?
> 
> No thank you


Not to be too rude but I absolutely hate when people say positive training is the way to go just because they use it for lions, tigers and bears.
Lions, tigers and bears are not asked the same things as our dogs. No one in their right mind will ask a bear to walk on the sidewalk with them, or go to the store with them, or meet random people and be friendly, or interact with other bears and play. Those animals are trained to perform when they are needed to perform and they are usually confined in a large safe area when it is not performing, and when it is on the road it is usually in a cage. To an extent they will be fine with people but they won't always be. I recall one case where there was a well trained bear and a new person came in with the trainer and the person tried to give the bear a cue and the bear started tearing up the guy until someone shocked the bear to calm down.
You cannot compare a domesticated animal to a wild animal. A wild animal has instincts that we have bred out of dogs.
Dogs are asked a lot more. They are asked to be completely calm, to ignore people but at the same time be fine with greeting them, ignore dogs but be fine with meeting them, be good when off-leash, come when called, sit, stay, etc. You cannot do half the things you can do with a dog with an animal like a bear or tiger safely.
Since they are completely different you can use corrective methods with a dog, the point is to use them correctly.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Well I think the whole point is that if those methods work so well with animals who are NOT domesticated, just think how well they can work with dogs.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

> recall one case where there was a well trained bear and a new person came in with the trainer and the person tried to give the bear a cue and the bear started tearing up the guy until someone shocked the bear to calm down.


Oh my, I guess the use of e-collars when needed is to calm the dogs. Interesting play of words.


----------



## EdDTS (May 30, 2012)

sassafras said:


> Well I think the whole point is that if those methods work so well with animals who are NOT domesticated, just think how well they can work with dogs.


So saying that "Positive training works for wild animals! So we should use exclusively for dogs!" is the way to go? That's like saying, "Wolves growl at eachother! Let's growl at our dogs!"
Neither makes sense.
Positive training and Correction-based training are just methods that should be used when appropriate, there shouldn't be this "This is the only way to do it! No you're way is wrong!"
If both are used correctly and when appropriate you can create and happy, healthy relationship with your dog, no matter what. Whatever method you choose will be based on the situation.



wvasko said:


> Oh my, I guess the use of e-collars when needed is to calm the dogs. Interesting play of words.


You're also mistaken if you think I was in some way advocating e-collars BUT I would love to see how you would "positively" get a bear off you. Just saying...
I can't find the video of it but it was the same bear that was featured in the movie Semi-pro, after it killed it's trainer, they were trying to rehabilitate it and it attacked again, and that's when they shocked it to get it off the person.
They used a cattle prod by the way, not an e-collar.


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

SassyCat said:


> Dominant behaviour in dogs isn't bunk. It's just that it's not applicable in dog training for the most part and people often try to apply it without understanding it. Most often *lack of basic leadership in the owner* is attributed to *dominant behaviour in dog*. A lot of other issues are wrongly attributed to dominance like disobedience, hyperactivity, aggression, leash reactivity etc.


dominance when its applied to humans/dogs in relationship is bunk... we are ALREADY dominant, & the dogs know it, we have selected them for 10,000 or so yrs for the traits of dependance! a dog knows it cant survive without its human & will try to the best of its knowledge to appease us. 

if the dog is doing something undesirable its either because it wasnt trained not to do otherwise. FYI, if you dont train your dog to: leave the garbage, your shoes, etc alone... they won't! its not like they can read minds. some dogs, like my Josefina for example are (now i love her to death but it is true :/) eh... to say it nicely, a little ... slow. So she needs a little firmer consequence for naughty behavior, esp behavios she knows is wrong, so she gets a time out when she is naughty, & that works very well for us. With Buddy you just whisper the word 'no' & he stops what he is doing, i have to be careful to stay as positive as i can with him, as he's deathly afraid of disappointment.

the problem isnt always the trainer... or even the method, its often times, the owner & their inability or unwillingless to read their dog. most of aggression is rooted in fear, you know.


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

no one can be totally positive, the key is to be humane.

i am not out to force my dogs to do anything, i COULD but i dont, i will admit to instilling fear into dogs when its things, like snakes they should be afraid of by using the vibe only setting on an e collar. do i use them in every day training? no of course not. 

i used a snake who i had already blown the head off of just for the smell & went inside the house so the dog would not associate me with the pulse. every time he approached the snake, i would pulse him, & now he associates the sight & smell of snakes with that uncomfortable sensation (i used several different kinds of snakes, including a few live, non venomous ones that stood their ground). now he gets the point & wont even go near anything that even smells like a snake. 

In everyday training i use NILF & kind of a 'you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours' method, basically its 'you will get what you want (whatever that is) as long as you first do & continue to do what I want.the second you dont, privlages are lost. Josefina has tried me by playing the keep away game when she knows she's going to get a time out. so i just bring all the other dogs in the house & we chill for a few minutes, leaving her out by herself LOL.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

> You're also mistaken if you think I was in some way advocating e-collars BUT I would love to see how you would "positively" get a bear off you. Just saying...
> I can't find the video of it but it was the same bear that was featured in the movie Semi-pro, after it killed it's trainer, they were trying to rehabilitate it and it attacked again, and that's when they shocked it to get it off the person. They used a cattle prod by the way, not an e-collar.


No I did not think you were an e-collar advocate or that the bear had an e-collar on. I was just being being a tad silly/sarcastic on the shock calming the bear down. It very easily could have gone the other way but in all fairness something had to be done so not gonna knock it too much.


----------



## sheep (Aug 22, 2012)

EdDTS said:


> So saying that "Positive training works for wild animals! So we should use exclusively for dogs!" is the way to go? That's like saying, "Wolves growl at eachother! Let's growl at our dogs!"
> Neither makes sense.
> Positive training and Correction-based training are just methods that should be used when appropriate, there shouldn't be this "This is the only way to do it! No you're way is wrong!"
> If both are used correctly and when appropriate you can create and happy, healthy relationship with your dog, no matter what. Whatever method you choose will be based on the situation.


I agree that comparing dogs with wild animals might not be very useful, since we might not really know how it really is to train wild animals, and then dogs are exposed to many different environments and demanded of very different things that it's not really the same. I was also inspired by this before, but then I've heard many things (including rather disappointing ones like how some are deprived of stimuli and food so that +R might work better) that in the end, I didn't bother to compare anymore.

I think that both positive methods and aversive methods can work, and if someone says that they have tried a certain method and it didn't work, then it might be more coz the person didn't know enough about the method and implemented it in the wrong way, or that the method was not appropriate for a certain case. If someone tells me how they've tried corrections and didn't work, I'd see it the same way as someone that tells me how they've tried +R and didn't work.

Although I do believe that +R is always more preferrable, and that +P has higher chances of getting things worse when someone implements it wrongly.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

EdDTS said:


> So saying that "Positive training works for wild animals! So we should use exclusively for dogs!" is the way to go? That's like saying, "Wolves growl at eachother! Let's growl at our dogs!"


What? Those two statements are nothing like each other.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

EdDTS said:


> So saying that "Positive training works for wild animals! So we should use exclusively for dogs!" is the way to go? That's like saying, "Wolves growl at eachother! Let's growl at our dogs!"
> Neither makes sense.


Isn't that part of how the whole "alpha" theory came to being with dogs? "Wolves do it, dogs are related to wolves, therefore do it to dogs."





EdDTS said:


> Positive training and Correction-based training are just methods that should be used when appropriate, there shouldn't be this "This is the only way to do it! No you're way is wrong!"
> If both are used correctly and when appropriate you can create and happy, healthy relationship with your dog, no matter what. Whatever method you choose will be based on the situation.


Why don't we just call it operant training, say we all do it, and call it a day?

Like you said, we're going to do what works for our situations anyway. So...why have a war over it? Never understood the "training wars".


----------



## Deaf Dogs (May 28, 2012)

KBLover said:


> Why don't we just call it operant training, say we all do it, and call it a day?
> 
> Like you said, we're going to do what works for our situations anyway. So...why have a war over it? Never understood the "training wars".


Training wars happen because people dont want to see dogs punished when there's absolutely no need to begin with, and the opposite side thinks punishment is necessary. We are trying to educate (It is infact, how we all learned to begin with), and it is a common thing on dog forums.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Deaf Dogs said:


> Training wars happen because people dont want to see dogs punished when there's absolutely no need to begin with, and the opposite side thinks punishment is necessary. we are trying to educate (It is infact, how we all learned to begin with), and it is a common think on dog forums.


I didn't learn from a training war - I just absorbed everything I could find and used it and see what worked for myself (i.e. what I could/would do) and how Wally responded. I didn't become a "shaping lover" from a shaping vs <insert method here> war. I didn't learn calming signals and start to use and look for them as part of a "are calming signals important" debate. As a first time owner - I didn't even know any of this kind of debate existed, let alone learn from it.

I just don't think it achieves much when a person is "defending their method" in an argument/debate. Just like we say dogs don't learn well when overthreshold - when people are in "defense mode", it seems not to be conducive to learning.

And punishment is necessary. It seems the "war" isn't over that, it's over what kind of punishment is necessary (withholding the reward vs an aversive, for example), as well as positive vs negative reinforcement. It just seems to turn into "so-and-so does it like this and is successful so it must be okay" and of course both "sides" can produce that because there's lots of ways to be successful. 

Read the dog, respect the dog, and be fair and humane. You can do that with any training method, no matter how you combine the OC quadrants and in what proportions.

I can see why Wvasko tends to stay out of these things.


----------



## Deaf Dogs (May 28, 2012)

Well, debates like this are how I learned (well, more how the seeds were planted and I then went out to learn more) I was a corrective based trainer, who liked CM... And am now completely the opposite. There has to be something driving the change, doesn't there? 

And I do not expect the people arguing the opposite side to change their ways, they likely wont. it's the people who dont know, or who just silently read this and say hmmmm yeah, that makes alot more sense, that are going to be the ones to change/learn. It's about imparting info. If there wasn't debates on the internet about training methods, how many people would still love choke collars, that now dont? How many people would see what's on TV and thin k that's what they need to do? VERY few people wopuld go looking for books about training some way different when they see it "work" on tv? These discussions, debates and arguments serve a serious purpose... even if some people dont like them.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Deaf Dogs said:


> Well, debates like this are how I learned (well, more how the seeds were planted and I then went out to learn more) I was a corrective based trainer, who liked CM... And am now completely the opposite. There has to be something driving the change, doesn't there?
> 
> And I do not expect the people arguing the opposite side to change their ways, they likely wont. it's the people who dont know, or who just silently read this and say hmmmm yeah, that makes alot more sense, that are going to be the ones to change/learn. It's about imparting info. If there wasn't debates on the internet about training methods, how many people would still love choke collars, that now dont? How many people would see what's on TV and thin k that's what they need to do? VERY few people wopuld go looking for books about training some way different when they see it "work" on tv? These discussions, debates and arguments serve a serious purpose... even if some people dont like them.


I like you. 

Reading these kinds of debates is getting people to THINK. Do the people arguing get swayed? Of course not. But it sends the silent majority (or mostly silent majority) off to research and think and ponder and figure out how they feel about things. That makes all the difference in the WORLD.

And I say that as someone who, you know, was once ignorant and got most of my information by asking questions (stupid ones) and reading debates. Figuring out how people think and what they think and why they think that thing they do is USEFUL. I can say 'Yes' or 'wtf, no'. It also exposes people to the idea that there IS something to learn, and some question, and to not just blindly follow what they know. Given that I grew up with a 'yank and crank' (I think that's the term) father, who used to HANG his GSD bitch by her choke chain as a means of 'teaching' - learning about other options, long before I had a dog - was a good, good thing.


----------



## sheep (Aug 22, 2012)

I think that people do get convinced by each other, if the arguments of a debate are good enough. The problem is, just like KBLover said, we stop listening when we get into defense mode. And that is so common in the dogs forums, coz accusations are so easy to arise, whether directly or indirectly. And the misunderstandings too of course.

Also, one of the popular arguments is how someone has tried a method and it didn't work and so the person assumes that the whole learning quadrant doesn't work. This is true for both +R and +P. Someone tries to use treats with a dog and it didn't work well, so then he/she assumes that the whole +R doesn't really work. Someone tries to put a choke chain on a dog and it didn't work well (and by the way, choke chain is not to choke a dog, but to deliver a fast jerk-release...), so then he/she assumes that the whole +P doesn't really work.
When we have two sides arguing and any of the sides or both sides uses this kind of argument, it's obvious that the other side wouldn't feel convinced at all, since each side is showing how little they understand the other side ("why would I feel convinced by someone who knows so little about what I do?"). So in the end, aside the usual exchange of wrong assumptions, misunderstandings and even accusations, there's so little we can really conclude from such arguments.

But honestly, I think that marginalizing any side just coz we can't reach a better understanding together, and then just let newbies come read the debates and then decide for themselves what to believe isn't really a good way. That way, we can never truly achieve a better understanding of the best ways to train dogs, and with that, there will always be confusions and the dogs are the ones who suffers from the lack of knowledge of the owners.


----------



## Deaf Dogs (May 28, 2012)

I was just sent this really awesome article... It's a topic I think people will enjoy  http://pawsforpraise.wordpress.com/2012/08/27/my-dog-isnt-food-motivated-really/


----------



## SassyCat (Aug 29, 2011)

Deaf Dogs said:


> I was a corrective based trainer, who liked CM... And am now completely the opposite. There has to be something driving the change, doesn't there?


You may just picked another extreme... A lot of trainers are put off by the arrogant, self righteous, holier than thou, know it all mindset that is abundant in these "trainer wars", not to mention stereotyping. Hardly an enlightening experience...

It reminds me of vegan/vegetarian community, me being a vegetarian myself really really dislike debating it even with "fellow" vegetarians because they are often so extremely arrogant and close minded. The logic goes like this: I don't hurt animals therefore I am superior. That world view is pretty black & white and simplistic. I myself don't eat meat because I don't have to, I can easily afford myself not eating it but I don't shove my lifestyle down people's throats. And one's dog training (IMO) is also one's lifestyle. That's at least how I feel.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

> Like you said, we're going to do what works for our situations anyway. So...why have a war over it? Never understood the "training wars"


I also don't understand training wars.



> I can see why Wvasko tends to stay out of these things.


I tend to stay out of this stuff because I never have a clue as to what the actual dog that all the different posters are debating/arguing about is actually doing in real life. 

I only have the info that the OP is dropping on the forum, this might be accurate info or maybe not even in the same ball park as to what the real problem is with the dog. 

When a trainer reads a dog he/she then makes a decision on what needs to be done to make the dog a better dog. How many times have posters said that their real life trainers have hurt/ruined their dogs. An online trainer is just not gonna get the job done. The good new is that the positive online stuff is not gonna hurt any dogs. (said this before)


----------



## SassyCat (Aug 29, 2011)

@wvasko, couldn't agree more with everything you said.... You put things pretty well.


----------



## petpeeve (Jun 10, 2010)

> I was a corrective based trainer, who liked CM... And am now completely the opposite.


When one hears of a "crossover trainer", it usually means someone who has forsaken any prior preference for correction-based methods, in favour of more positive-based methods. 

Seldom - if ever - does the term denote trainers who may have crossed the floor in the _opposite_ direction, going from positive-based to correction-based (probably because there aren't m/any trainers doing so). 

Perhaps this 'unilateral exodus', itself, tells the tale best ???



Just my 5 bucks worth, I hope. 
lol


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

petpeeve said:


> When one hears of a "crossover trainer", it usually means someone who has forsaken any prior preference for correction-based methods, in favour of more positive-based methods.
> 
> Seldom - if ever - does the term denote trainers who may have crossed the floor in the _opposite_ direction, going from positive-based to correction-based (probably because there aren't m/any trainers doing so).
> 
> ...



Sort of. I crossed from corrective based, to positive only, to - moderate. I don't hit or yell at my dogs. I am not positive only - that didn't work out so well with me, and a reason I don't (and won't) own super soft dogs. If 'No' or 'EH" or interruptors/no-reward markers are going to devastate them, they're not a dog I am going to get on with. I would, and have, also used shock collars (in the past, because of where we lived) for snake training.

So, one extreme to the other to back to the middle.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

> If 'No' or 'EH" or interruptors/no-reward markers are going to devastate them, they're not a dog I am going to get on with.


Yes the above says a bunch. As far as your training trip, way to go. I think everybody has their own personality programs to fight or adjust with while training dogs. Not gonna say more, just good trip.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

sheep said:


> Also, one of the popular arguments is how someone has tried a method and it didn't work and so the person assumes that the whole learning quadrant doesn't work..


Reallly, I mostly see people saying that positive punishment based training DOES work. It's just a matter of what is most effective for circumstances, and how you want to feel about your relationship with your dogs. I will say that positive punishment/negative reinforcement does work. I have a number of high level obedience titles, national rankings and other awards accomplished using those methods to prove it works. When I started training (late 1970s) there basically was no internet and not much information available on other ways to train. I used an ear pinch, I used a prong collar. My dogs adored me anyway, and I certainly didn't use the methods I used because I didn't love them greatly. But, as I've trained, I think I've learned better methods and become more thoughtful in what I am willing to do to succeed. I will no longer intentionally cause a dog discomfort to get behavior or to win ribbons. And the best news is that I can train better and more complex behavior WITHOUTcausing discomfort. Coercion works, but it hardly ever is necessary. It is especially unnecessary for teaching a dog sport behaviors - things which are SUPPOSED to demonstrate our teamwork and partnership. How insane is it that it is still common for a well-respected "expert" to charge money to show you how to dig a collar ring or fingernail into the sensitive cartiladge of your dog's ear, or apply an electric shock to force the dog to take a dumbbell? And how insane that people are still willing to pay for and use that information? I would so much rather my dog's eyes light up with joy when they have a chance to play the dumbbell game than have the dog flinch and reflexively grab when I brush her ear, because she knows that is a threat that if she doesn't pick up the dumbbell quick enough, I will cause her pain. So, when I hear of a well known trainer who has supposedly become more "positive" but is still using an ear pinch, a toe pinch, a thumb into the soft tissue under the chin, etc.,I know that is someone who still doesn't "get" it and is only paying lip service to the newer, more humane ways. I apologize to my past dogs that I did things which weren't necessary in the name of training and caused them discomfort. But, they were good dogs and forgave me my human ego issues. I did then what I knew to do. Now that I know better, I do better (thanks Maya A)


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

CptJack said:


> Sort of. I crossed from corrective based, to positive only, to - moderate. I don't hit or yell at my dogs. I am not positive only - that didn't work out so well with me, and a reason I don't (and won't) own super soft dogs. If 'No' or 'EH" or interruptors/no-reward markers are going to devastate them, they're not a dog I am going to get on with. I would, and have, also used shock collars (in the past, because of where we lived) for snake training.
> 
> So, one extreme to the other to back to the middle.


Name me ONE person who is actually "positive only". Personally, I'm quite satisfied with LIMA (least invasive, minimally aversive.) I have recently taken to using the word "no" to teach Alice the behind me position for Freestyle. When she gets out of position, it's no - behind - follow (or reverse) However, it's just another piece of information. It's not a threat because it never has been.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

> I have a number of high level obedience titles accomplished using those methods to prove it works. When I started training (late 1970s) there basically was no internet and not much information available on other ways to train. I used an ear pinch, I used a prong collar. My dogs adored me anyway, and I certainly didn't use the methods I used because I didn't love them greatly. But, as I've trained, I've grown in understanding (and also became more thoughtful in what I am willing to do to succeed.) I will no longer intentionally cause a dog discomfort to get behavior or to win ribbons


Another training trip, at the end of the day you got to face the person inside your head. It's pretty cool training dogs and liking yourself while your training.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Pawzk9 said:


> Name me ONE person who is actually "positive only". Personally, I'm quite satisfied with LIMA (least invasive, minimally aversive.) I have recently taken to using the word "no" to teach Alice the behind me position for Freestyle. When she gets out of position, it's no - behind - follow (or reverse) However, it's just another piece of information. It's not a threat because it never has been.


I would be hard pressed to name anyone *I* believe is positive only. That doesn't mean there aren't people I run across regularly who will claim to be. I certainly TRIED to be - dog did something wrong, I simply redirected it to do the right thing. Dog in the garbage? I'd call the dog, or tell them to sit. (That thing quoted here often: you need to tell the dog what TO do, instead of what NOT to do -phrased in various ways). I have certainly seen dogs, even puppies, where an "Eh" or "No" would crush their little hearts, though admittedly only a couple, ever.

That doesn't work well for me, as it turns out. Dog's getting into the garbage my instinct is "NO" or "EH". It's never been followed up with more than removing the dog, so there's no threat there, but - I still don't tell them to sit down, or call them or give another command. The NO is the command -to stop what they are doing. I train dogs and kids about the same, as it turns out. No violence, no threats, but - like I said, 'stop what you are doing' is something I consider a useful piece of information. If they don't, or even while I'm saying it, I'm getting up and physically moving them away from the garbage.


----------



## hanksimon (Mar 18, 2009)

>>> Name me ONE person who is actually "positive only". 

Turid Rugaas, Sue Ailsby, Karen Pryor (for training, only) ... I'll defer to your experience with those.

Turid gets a bad rep for being TOO positive and gentle. I don't know enough about Sue. Karen has written about positive reinforcement in training... but do what is necessary in life situations ... like running into the street!


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

hanksimon said:


> >>> Name me ONE person who is actually "positive only".
> 
> Turid Rugaas, Sue Ailsby, Karen Pryor (for training, only) ... I'll defer to your experience with those.
> 
> Turid gets a bad rep for being TOO positive and gentle. I don't know enough about Sue. Karen has written about positive reinforcement in training... but do what is necessary in life situations ... like running into the street!


To my knowledge, Turid doesn't think in terms of operant conditioning (and dislikes clicker training - but she also thinks TTouch is a bad thing). Karen briefly wrote about using punishment in "Lads Before The Wind" and this article (by Melissa Alexander who is definitely a predominantly +R trainer appears on her website! http://www.clickertraining.com/node/988
Sue Ailsby definitely uses some negative punishment and wrote a brilliant article on how she used negative reinforcement (release of social pressure) to teach a llama to stop kicking by marking and moving away when the llama put his foot on the ground. I think it is less about being 'purely' positive than about thinking about how to communicate effectively and humanely.


----------



## hanksimon (Mar 18, 2009)

I submit


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

CptJack said:


> I would be hard pressed to name anyone *I* believe is positive only. That doesn't mean there aren't people I run across regularly who will claim to be. I certainly TRIED to be - dog did something wrong, I simply redirected it to do the right thing. Dog in the garbage? I'd call the dog, or tell them to sit. (That thing quoted here often: you need to tell the dog what TO do, instead of what NOT to do -phrased in various ways). I have certainly seen dogs, even puppies, where an "Eh" or "No" would crush their little hearts, though admittedly only a couple, ever.
> 
> That doesn't work well for me, as it turns out. Dog's getting into the garbage my instinct is "NO" or "EH". It's never been followed up with more than removing the dog, so there's no threat there, but - I still don't tell them to sit down, or call them or give another command. The NO is the command -to stop what they are doing. I train dogs and kids about the same, as it turns out. No violence, no threats, but - like I said, 'stop what you are doing' is something I consider a useful piece of information. If they don't, or even while I'm saying it, I'm getting up and physically moving them away from the garbage.



Wally was one of those dogs, and even now, getting upset puts him into anxiety mode, though now it takes much more, so it hardly ever triggers, but sometimes if he's feeling unnerved by something else and is more 'fragile' that day, I have to be aware of that.

That said, it's also why I've stopped with the 'no' (unless the dog has a specific, exact behavior he's supposed to do, which in my case at the time, there wasn't one) and instead give him a specific, exact behavior to perform. While this was before we developed a no-reward marker, even now I prefer to give him an exact instruction, though I do say "hey!" which is just an interrupter. If he knows the situation, he'll know what to do, if not, the interrupter gives me a chance to give an instruction to teach him (a teachable moment). If he fails it - it's because either it's not conditioned strongly enough and is not able to give it in response to the distraction/situation, or he doesn't truly yet understand it, both of which are my fault and I make a note to work on it further and the situation so I can set it up as close as possible.

As far as my training trip, it's mostly from NILIF (which made him more anxious/apprehensive) to shaping and calming signals (which combined to finally unlocked "the true Wally") to mixing that with taking his behavior to try to understand what he's thinking/interpreting and figuring out how to adjust that picture, so to speak. If I run into a behavior that "can't be shaped", well, that means I'm not looking hard enough. Every behavior can be broken down into smaller pieces, it's up to me to find the pieces and teach them to him.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

hanksimon said:


> Turid gets a bad rep for being TOO positive and gentle.


Really? Why is that? Because she defers to the dog's calming signals?


----------



## hanksimon (Mar 18, 2009)

Turid used to assert that dogs should be kept calm, and in her own gentle way, she was somewhat 'militant'  about it. This means NO excited, rough dog play, no running and barking, (no sure about her opinion of zoomies), and walking off leash with the dog to allow it to calmly sniff the scenery. She can do this in the country in Norway, but I don't know if the rest of us have that luxury. When my dog was 5 yo and younger, I didn't agree with it. Now that he's 11 yo, I see the wisdom of the trend... but he still has zoomies when it's cold, and sometimes he barks at people and dogs to be friendly (or a pest) rather than threatening. He'll play tug with me, tho it is a gentler game. If you watch the Rugaas videos, you can see that most of her dogs seem quite placid .... I don't think that my dog is like that, even after a 30 min. walk in 105 degree heat.... However, I think I recall that she doesn't train her dogs [to do tricks], mainly just family pet behaviors. Also, I believe that her expertise is fear aggressive dogs ... Calming Signals were described in those terms. That would color her philosophy.

For example, I'd believe that Wally leads a much calmer life than Shep [by necessity?]. And, while Shep is annoyed by enthusiastic puppies - "go away boy, you bother me," I can imagine that Wally might be threatened ? So, Turid's philosophy might apply more to Wally that to Shep ?


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

LOL, someone should tell my dogs that they need to "calmly sniff the scenery" when walking offleash. Maybe Norwegian dogs are placid and sedate like Norwegian people?


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

hanksimon said:


> Turid used to assert that dogs should be kept calm, and in her own gentle way, she was somewhat 'militant'  about it. This means NO excited, rough dog play, no running and barking, (no sure about her opinion of zoomies), and walking off leash with the dog to allow it to calmly sniff the scenery. She can do this in the country in Norway, but I don't know if the rest of us have that luxury. When my dog was 5 yo and younger, I didn't agree with it. Now that he's 11 yo, I see the wisdom of the trend... but he still has zoomies when it's cold, and sometimes he barks at people and dogs to be friendly (or a pest) rather than threatening. He'll play tug with me, tho it is a gentler game. If you watch the Rugaas videos, you can see that most of her dogs seem quite placid .... I don't think that my dog is like that, even after a 30 min. walk in 105 degree heat.... However, I think I recall that she doesn't train her dogs [to do tricks], mainly just family pet behaviors. Also, I believe that her expertise is fear aggressive dogs ... Calming Signals were described in those terms. That would color her philosophy.
> 
> For example, I'd believe that Wally leads a much calmer life than Shep [by necessity?]. And, while Shep is annoyed by enthusiastic puppies - "go away boy, you bother me," I can imagine that Wally might be threatened ? So, Turid's philosophy might apply more to Wally that to Shep ?


I think it depends on how the dog approaches him, which is where I like calming signals since I can see if the other dog is doing them. He certainly had fun with an enthusiastic pug a couple times, one of the few times I've seen him actually have fun with a dog. That Pug used calming signals to approach. Just like he was okay with that boxer that used like 4 signals (3 nose licks and approached in a curve). When she approached directly after I gave a signal, Wally didn't really care at all and was actually very fascinated. 

But I notice most dogs don't seem to use calming signals and as such Wally does tend to feel more anxious/threatened. Wally himself tends to give signals usually play bowing with a bark (the play bow is the calming signal) like he did with the pug and one lab at Petco that did the sniffing and a brief look away. Otherwise, he often yawns, which makes me wonder if different signals mean different things even if they are all calming signals.



Willowy said:


> LOL, someone should tell my dogs that they need to "calmly sniff the scenery" when walking offleash. Maybe Norwegian dogs are placid and sedate like Norwegian people?


That's what Wally and I mostly do - walk around calmly and he gets to sniff whatever he's interested in. Even during times we play or train, a majority of the walk is this.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Ah, I guess some dogs do walk calmly off-leash. My dogs run around wildly like psycho nuts. And dig, Penny digs. All the ditches in the township are well aerated .


----------



## sheep (Aug 22, 2012)

I've read "Calming Signals" before (first book I've got ), and I think that it was great coz many people doesn't notice dog's body language. Most of the things I've already noticed (although the yawning/shaking I've never thought about it before), but it made me started trying to do calming signals to my dog and try to encourage it on my dog.  He's not good at communicating with dogs that are not confident or doesn't show intent to play (he got parvo along with his litter mates and he was the only survivor, and he got separated from mom since then). He would be mean towards submissive ones too. But I've been trying to encourage calm interactions plus calming signals, at least with me, hoping that it can help him noticing that in dogs too (or at least be calm when interacting).

The only thing I don't agree with Tuurid is that every signal is about stress and being uncomfortable, I think that's not always true. For example, dogs licks lips in different situations (including stress free ones) and not just when stressed. I feel that if I didn't know how to read dogs at all, I'd be very paranoid with my dog's behavior after reading the book lol.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

sheep said:


> The only thing I don't agree with Tuurid is that every signal is about stress and being uncomfortable, I think that's not always true. For example, dogs licks lips in different situations (including stress free ones) and not just when stressed. I feel that if I didn't know how to read dogs at all, I'd be very paranoid with my dog's behavior after reading the book lol.


I do agree that it's not always stress, but I think calming might just be that - calming from _any_ emotion the dog is feeling overwhelmed by as well as maybe calming another dog (or person). Perhaps "non-threatening" signals would be a better term. 

I mean, I see these signals in Wally all the time, but not always when he's stressed or anxious. Sometimes when he's wound up in a good way. If we're playing, he'll "shake off" sometimes. When he's barking at the door bell or because a timer went off in the kitchen, he's like RUFFRUFF-RUFFRUFFRUFFRUFF-RUFFRUFF-RUFFRUFF-RUFFRUFFRUFF...while giving a play bow. If we bump into each other or get crossed up on which way we were going, I'll get a nose lick. Not stressed, but still got a signal. Kinda like an "I'm sorry" or "oops, excuse me". If he's excited because he thinks I might take him out, he'll be "tap dancing" in that spot, looking up at me eagerly and giving me a nose lick is I come out of the room towards him. Sometimes he's barking his head off, and I just look at him, watching him bark "for no reason", he'll sometimes drop into a play bow and bark while looking away (which makes it look like he's barking at the wall LOL) and/or with a slightly tilted head (trying not to look like he's staring at me?) like he's saying "I'm not trying to be rude, but I need to tell/show you something!" 

That said, I think the book just 'awakened' me to a whole new world and maybe I missed the "they are always stressed" part (because I really didn't get that out of it) as I was too excited to watch Wally for signals like nose licks or "out of context" yawns and looking for them in other dogs. 

It seems that the signals get thrown out when a dog is uncertain (not necessarily stressed, per se, but "I don't know about this...") when trying to show what they are doing isn't mean to offend/appear threatening ("I'm growling and barking loud at you, but it's in play, see, I'm play bowing!") or maybe too excited ("I need to calm myself down!") or to be "polite" (as if saying "please", "I'm sorry", and "thank you")


----------



## sheep (Aug 22, 2012)

There's also the affectionate mode, they lick the nose and others a lot when they get affectionate.  And for example, when a dog is very very happy seeing someone, we can have ears down and licking nose too.

I think that dogs are very expressive, and it's amazing how much they can tell us sometimes.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

KBLover said:


> Really? Why is that? Because she defers to the dog's calming signals?


Turid finds most formal training, including clicker training "too stressful" for dogs and thinks people should take 6 months off work to raise a new puppy (nice idea, but not practical for most people I know)


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

sheep said:


> There's also the affectionate mode, they lick the nose and others a lot when they get affectionate.  And for example, when a dog is very very happy seeing someone, we can have ears down and licking nose too.
> 
> I think that dogs are very expressive, and it's amazing how much they can tell us sometimes.


Yep - they tell us a lot indeed  Good point about the affection side, too.



Pawzk9 said:


> Turid finds most formal training, including clicker training "too stressful" for dogs and thinks people should take 6 months off work to raise a new puppy (nice idea, but not practical for most people I know)


Interesting. I wonder how she trains, then. She probably would consider shaping the most stressful thing ever (and for a while, it DID freak the crap out of Wally, literally in some cases). Interestingly enough, I DON'T get calming signals during shaping. Only time I get them during training is if I'm pushing too hard or it's too complex and I'll get the moving slowly sometimes. I saw it a lot when I was trying to teach colors.


----------



## hanksimon (Mar 18, 2009)

Yeah, I think she's in a situation that most of us (in the USA?) don't have. In her seminar, she did say to observe our individual dogs to interpret what we see. And, I think that's the most important part, that "Calming Signals" offer a baseline from which we can be more observant.

I'm confident that Shep is not anxious all the time, although he may be unhappy (lip lick) that I don't give him a bite of my burger, or may be disappointed that I'm busy on the computer when he wants another belly rub 

I pounced on him one day - clearly not his favorite action - and he gulped/swallowed - he has also done this when I hug him... also a doggie no-no ... but he tolerates them, with his own 'calming signal.' If I want to play, and he doesn't ,but I start teasing him, he will move his whiskers, but otherwise not react. ... Yes, I am really a tortuous, tedious ten -year old little boy...

And, when I'm scratching an ear, or better, one side of his jaw, he licks his lips, which I take to mean: "enough on that side." So I switch to his other side, he leans into it and after a while licks his lips. If I switch back to the first side, he may lean into it or may lick his lips. Not sure that my interpretation is correct, but he doesn't walk away...


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

hanksimon said:


> And, when I'm scratching an ear, or better, one side of his jaw, he licks his lips, which I take to mean: "enough on that side." So I switch to his other side, he leans into it and after a while licks his lips. If I switch back to the first side, he may lean into it or may lick his lips. Not sure that my interpretation is correct, but he doesn't walk away...


I read that licking/smacking the lips can be a 'satisfaction signal' (and same in humans, like when they smack their lips after a tasty drink or after a meal). I found that out trying to find out why Wally smacks his lips just after lying down. 

Perhaps that's the case here with Shep. He's liking the scratches and like saying, "oh yeah there. Ohh, yeah, that feels good too! Oh, you're going to do that side too?" BTW, I've seen Wally do the "lick the air" where he sticks the tip of his tongue out (while leaning into the scratch and lifting his head up so I can get his whole neck and chest and under his chin...)


----------



## hanksimon (Mar 18, 2009)

And, I think we get 'additional' Claming Signal expressiveness, not b/c we were more observant, but b/c we paid attention and provided feedback or reactions in response to what the dog was doing. I have noticed what Turid reported, that when I react to or echo a calming signal to someone else's dog, I get a small 'shocked' and enthusiastic response that I anthropomorphize to be similar to speaking Texan to an American in Paris  

>>>"I DON'T get calming signals during shaping. Only time I get them during training is if I'm pushing too hard ..." 
I think that is a very good sign that Wally doesn't feel like he's being pushed too much, and understands what to expect. ... Comunication is working, even though you may be pushing him fairly 'hard,' it's not too much for him.

Shep used to 'complain' when we did distance Sit -stays, and later when I yelled for long distance Sits. If he was sniffing, he wasn't looking at my hand signals, so I had to shout, and he'd lick his lips... or nose. That has stopped. (Of course, now, if I cue him to distance Sit, then he runs away faster, but that's a different training/communication issue  )


----------



## sheep (Aug 22, 2012)

Yeah some dogs feels happy when we echo some of the calming signals.  They can feel unsure sometimes, and when we do it, they can know that we are friendly too. One of my favorite signals I like to mimic is closing the eyes slightly (like when we smile or look at something and feel affectionate) while moving my head a bit as if I'm sniffing upwards (yeah it's weird I know ). I do this when they start doing this to me, and they get friendlier and even give kisses. My dog doesn't know what this means when I've tried to close my eyes slightly lool but some dogs do (cats also do), and it's a good way to reply to their friendliness.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

> I feel that if I didn't know how to read dogs at all, I'd be very paranoid with my dog's behavior after reading the book lol.


and then you read the 2nd book. I wonder just how many read that book (or others) and get a tad paranoid/confused etc

I wonder if any dogs have ever been dumped because of book paranoia.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

hanksimon said:


> And, I think we get 'additional' Claming Signal expressiveness, not b/c we were more observant, but b/c we paid attention and provided feedback or reactions in response to what the dog was doing. I have noticed what Turid reported, that when I react to or echo a calming signal to someone else's dog, I get a small 'shocked' and enthusiastic response that I anthropomorphize to be similar to speaking Texan to an American in Paris


Hahaha  

Yep, it's like positive reinforcement on another level, so to speak. Dog sees his signals get a response and if that response is at least favorable, we'll get more and more signals since "talking" to us actually makes a difference.

I love that description, btw. Sometimes I feel like I'm having a conversation. I'll yawn at some dog, he looks away briefly. I act like I'm sniffing the ground (or actually do it, which has gotten me some strange looks at the ground like "what's he smelling? what's on the ground?"), the dog starts getting all excited (and her person is wondering why) and nose licks and stretches and sniffs...makes me wonder what I'm 'saying' LOL. 

And of course Wally is licking my face since it's down at his level (WTF Wally? I'm trying to communicate here!) 



hanksimon said:


> I think that is a very good sign that Wally doesn't feel like he's being pushed too much, and understands what to expect. ... Comunication is working, even though you may be pushing him fairly 'hard,' it's not too much for him.
> 
> Shep used to 'complain' when we did distance Sit -stays, and later when I yelled for long distance Sits. If he was sniffing, he wasn't looking at my hand signals, so I had to shout, and he'd lick his lips... or nose. That has stopped. (Of course, now, if I cue him to distance Sit, then he runs away faster, but that's a different training/communication issue  )


Heh, yeah. I hear that. I tell Wally to go get his ball. He's thinking about peeing and THAT is why he's looking at me, so he assumed I told him to go pee. So then I redirect him to the ball and think, "okay, he's got it now", and proceeds to pee on the ball and looks at me like "I did it!"



wvasko said:


> I wonder if any dogs have ever been dumped because of book paranoia.


Somehow, I wouldn't be surprised if it has happened.


----------



## hanksimon (Mar 18, 2009)

Wally is just too smart  

I have read some of Turid's other books, but when I first learned about Calming Signals, becoming more observant, I did get a lot more paranoid... I knew at that point that I needed to put my car keys away


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

I agree that i dont have to the ways that Pawz & KBlover do because i am not asking my dogs to do exteemely complex behaviors, in fact the best dog i ever had, Izze barely knew the basics. Josefina knows a lot more commands & tricks & such but she in many ways is a harder more frustrating dog (for me) to work with because of her moments of 'huh? what are you asking of me?' when she has done the behavior many many times under many situations & even when we are doing a repetive behavior like when i am playing fetch with the other fetcher & she likes to join in, but she has to get behind me & sit before i will throw the ball, which i always make sure she is before i throw it (so she has never been rewarded for not sitting) she knows the routine but still will sometimes refuse to do it, wherein i will just wait til she complys (no sit, no throwing of the ball) no matter how long it takes, & i only say sit once.


----------



## sheep (Aug 22, 2012)

wvasko said:


> and then you read the 2nd book. I wonder just how many read that book (or others) and get a tad paranoid/confused etc
> 
> I wonder if any dogs have ever been dumped because of book paranoia.


Aww actually by saying paranoid I meant being stressed if my dog is often in a stressed state, since the book describes calming signals as stress signals. I'd be very stressed if I misunderstood certain signals and think that I'm often causing stress to my dog, when he is actually just being affectionate or friendly.  But dumping dogs would be more likely for those who are paranoid due to dominance theories, since all they could think is how their dogs wants to dominate them!


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

hanksimon said:


> Wally is just too smart
> 
> I have read some of Turid's other books, but when I first learned about Calming Signals, becoming more observant, I did get a lot more paranoid... I knew at that point that I needed to put my car keys away


He certainly makes things interesting sometimes (read: almost always LOL) 

Luckily, I had an extra poop bag so that's where the ball went until I could wash it off.

And, yeah, the keys are out of Wally's reach..and on me. And with him knowing how to open and close doors...that gets interesting too . Nothing like having a dog close the front door on you, especially if you had the kind that locks automatically instead of the one I have now that doesn't.


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

@KBlover better watch it, soon he'll be stealing your car for a joy ride like the dogs in the Subaru commercial


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

dogdragoness said:


> @KBlover better watch it, soon he'll be stealing your car for a joy ride like the dogs in the Subaru commercial


Yeah, no kidding! 

Heck, if he was tall like a Great Dane, it might have happened already LOL


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

sheep said:


> Aww actually by saying paranoid I meant being stressed if my dog is often in a stressed state, since the book describes calming signals as stress signals. I'd be very stressed if I misunderstood certain signals and think that I'm often causing stress to my dog, when he is actually just being affectionate or friendly.  But dumping dogs would be more likely for those who are paranoid due to dominance theories, since all they could think is how their dogs wants to dominate them!


Sometimes a lick is a lick and a sniff is just a sniff. And sometimes I think calming signals signify only the minor stress that comes with daily life. It's just another way to get insight into what a dog may be processing.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Pawzk9 said:


> Sometimes a lick is a lick and a sniff is just a sniff. And sometimes I think calming signals signify only the minor stress that comes with daily life. It's just another way to get insight into what a dog may be processing.


I wouldn't say "only" minor stress. I know Wally has given them to me when he was feeling far more than just "normal stress from daily life". What changes is which signals I'd get. Normal life situations (wouldn't even call them 'stress', per se - like if I happen to look at him as he comes up to me at the computer (he wants to get to his other favorite spot in front of the TV), I'll get a nose lick and maybe an out-of-context stretch (simulating a play bow). Or if he barks at me because he needs to go out NOW, he'll play bow while barking his head off and his gaze is slightly tilted/off to the side. When he's more highly stressed, I'll see the tail "cut off" (really low and it looks like he doesn't have a tail), walking crouched lower to the ground and moving slowly (combination of signals to really try to make the point). If he's sitting, he'll yawn a lot while panting hard (out of context so it's not just a panting from exercise/play/activity or a yawn because he's tired). 

There just seems to be a "grammar" to how Wally uses them and maybe for dogs in general. But I don't agree it's just only minor stress.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Pawzk9 said:


> Sometimes a lick is a lick and a sniff is just a sniff. And sometimes I think calming signals signify only the minor stress that comes with daily life. It's just another way to get insight into what a dog may be processing.


Oh my, please say it again.


----------



## sheep (Aug 22, 2012)

Sometimes, when my dog is under stronger stress and even fear, he would lick his nose too, but the differences between when he is relaxed and/or being affectionate and when he is stressed are noticeable to me. If he's really stressed but not reaching the level that he would run away no matter what (like if we stand in front of something he is not comfortable with or afraid of - he used to be reluctant to go inside cars coz he gets sick with car rides), he would have ears down, have that look in his eyes and his body might even seem to have shrunk a bit.

Their eyes can be very expressive too, and with all the body signals/language, it can be very clear sometimes.
Maybe some signals are more black and white, but a lot of signals can be displayed in many contexts that it's important to look at the whole and the context.

By the way, some days ago, I've seen a documentary called "The Secret Life of the Dog", that is an amazing documentary that talks about human's capacity to read dogs (they did a test with dog barks) and dogs' capacity to read humans.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

KBLover said:


> I wouldn't say "only" minor stress. I know Wally has given them to me when he was feeling far more than just "normal stress from daily life". What changes is which signals I'd get. Normal life situations (wouldn't even call them 'stress', per se - like if I happen to look at him as he comes up to me at the computer (he wants to get to his other favorite spot in front of the TV), I'll get a nose lick and maybe an out-of-context stretch (simulating a play bow). Or if he barks at me because he needs to go out NOW, he'll play bow while barking his head off and his gaze is slightly tilted/off to the side. When he's more highly stressed, I'll see the tail "cut off" (really low and it looks like he doesn't have a tail), walking crouched lower to the ground and moving slowly (combination of signals to really try to make the point). If he's sitting, he'll yawn a lot while panting hard (out of context so it's not just a panting from exercise/play/activity or a yawn because he's tired).
> 
> There just seems to be a "grammar" to how Wally uses them and maybe for dogs in general. But I don't agree it's just only minor stress.


I guess I should have said CAN signify only minor stress. However, dogs who are terribly stressed are beyond giving calming signals (freeze or act out) so seeing calming signals is a good sign that the dog is still in a thinking, negotiating state of mind.


----------

