# Not Positive Reinforcement Training



## CuddlyKat (Apr 22, 2012)

Hey All, 

Not really an advice seeking thread but more like a discussion starter I guess. I know training is very varied and there is a jump in the popularity of positive reinforcement training. Well recently I've reconnected with my dog's breeder and I'm doing lessons under her and I'm preferring her over the positive reinforcement classes I've gone to just because I don't think positive reinforcement works with my pup. He's great and does well in class and everyone compliments him but honestly...he does things when its convenient for him. :/ He can do fabulously even in a park with loose dogs who are playing he can do his platz-blieb. But the fact of the matter is that the if he doesn't want to he ignores me. 

So I got the information that he has no respect for me and I'm like his sibling/friend. And then we did a class. It involves the highly debated prong collar and a ton of praise. Basically it's very clear about what is yay and nay, even when he is corrected he gets praised when he fixes it. And she first did a short lesson with one of her younger dogs with no leash training yet. In one lesson she learned leash manners and how to down and stay until released. And at the end she was still bouncing around happy as a lark. No fear no nothing and then I decided I wanted to give it a go. I guess I wanted to start a discussion about whether there's a time where positive reinforcement isn't the best method.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

No. Anything will work if the proper skill/time/effort/etc. is put into it. It all depends on what you want to do.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

Good timing -- I just read this today.



> In my experience, when someone says, “But every dog is different,” what they are actually claiming is, “There are some classes of dogs that can’t be trained to fluency without aversives.”
> 
> ...
> 
> What I honestly think the claim boils down to: it’s OK to use aversives on particular dogs or particular behaviors that are hard for that particular person to train to the degree of reliability or precision they want. And that most of the people who say “all dogs are different” believe that since they don’t know how to get the results they want without aversives, it can’t be done. And because punishment comes so naturally to all of us.


Pretty much that. If you can't get your dog to learn things using positive reinforcement, it's because you haven't figured out the right method for you yet (there's not just one!) and/or you haven't figured out how to motivate your particular dog. You want to switch to using pain because it's easier and it gets fast results. That's your choice, but I'd think about what kind of relationship you want to have with your dog.


----------



## HollowHeaven (Feb 5, 2012)

It's pretty true that negative treatment works pretty quickly. For a while at least. It's not teaching the dog what's right, it's punishing the dog for making a mistake. Dog doesn't make the mistake anymore.
Yeah, it works. But personally I wouldn't feel right about punishing my dog for not getting it right. It's like shocking a mouse until it knows that doing a certain thing = pain -or discomfort, however you want to slice it.

If you feel fine about negative enforcement, go for it. Personally I'd rather teach my dog what to do and ignore what's being done wrong.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

People like aversives because they work faster, and they don't require patience or consistency. That doesn't mean they work better. 

I have used some HARSH aversives in some situations. Those are situations that are life and death (to the dog) such as snake aversion training, where I never, ever want the dog to go near a snake and to be afraid of it for life. I fried the HECK out of those dogs with an e-collar, and if I lived in an area with a high poisonous snake population I would do it again.  I would resort to similar tactics if my dog was a danger to itself or someone else, if the issue was not resolved, quickly.

For other things? Basic obedience and manners? No. I see no reason that I should go with a method that is painful and unpleasant for the dog, when consistency, patience, and effort will get me the same result. My lack of patience is not something my dog should be punished for. 

And I have trained some danged hard headed, independent, dogs who don't care much about pleasing people. No reward markers are as far as I find it necessary to go to communicate that the dog is not giving me what I want. Making the dog obey out of fear of pain has no interest for me. I have seen what compulsion training, with even mild corrections can do to a dog. He's danged well behave, but trying to teach him something new is pulling teeth. Because he learned REAL WELL what NOT to do with unpleasant methods, he now does only what he knows is safe. New behavior isn't safe. Shutting that part of a dog's brain has no interest to me.

That's not to say I think punishment's abusive or anything. I just think it's kind of lazy, and doesn't give me the ultimate result I want. I would rather work for 6 months on a behavior, than 10 minutes and get a dog who's interest in learning is being squashed rather than nurtured. I don't want a dog to just do what I say. I want the dog to THINK and to ENJOY doing what I ask for.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

I'd highly recommend a book called _When Pigs Fly_ by Jane Killion. I don't completely agree with everything in it, but it's a great discussion of successfully using positive reinforcement training methods with less biddable dogs. 

I do think aversives have their place. But I think _most_ of the time, we talk ourselves into that place and into believing it's the "only" method that will work for a particular problem or dog because it's easier and gives us instant gratification.


----------



## CuddlyKat (Apr 22, 2012)

Here's the thing I spent some time around her dogs and how she's training them and I don't see her dogs ever cower or be fearful. They're extremely attentive and after the initial stuff they don't even use a collar or anything they're not scared they just know okay I have this job to do and I want to do it. They get praised just as much as in positive reinforcement and are so cheerful during training. 

It's interesting that immediately anything less that than all positive is training a dog out of fear for some people. This isn't the first time I've spoken to someone who is highly knowledgable and accustomed to the breed and has told me that he'll just do things when he feels like it. I got warned and I kind of just kept it in mind but just went with doing all positive and really he's learned but unless he feels like the reward is worth his effort he's not all there and will go on about his way. In any case I guess we'll see how it goes and how he takes to it. I'd love to talk to someone that seriously competes about they're training.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

CuddlyKat said:


> I got warned and I kind of just kept it in mind but just went with doing all positive and really he's learned but unless he feels like the reward is worth his effort he's not all there and will go on about his way.


Well, part of your job as a trainer is to motivate your dog enough that it IS worth his effort.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

"All positive"/"purely positive" training doesn't really exist. That's a term that people who rely on aversives trot out along with their "but how do you train a dog not to run out in front of cars using only cookies?" arguments. This article explains.



> First, the term implies that clicker trainers use no aversives. Extinction and negative punishment are both used by clicker trainers, and BOTH are aversive. Extinction is every bit as aversive as punishment, sometimes even more so. So even trainers who try to avoid negative punishment still have an aversive element to their training if they're using extinction. All aversives are not created equal. Some are mild and some are severe. Whether the aversive is due to something being added, something being removed, or something just not paying off does not determine the severity of the consequence.





> Second, the term "purely positive" suggests that clicker trainers are permissive, that we just ignore unwanted behavior and pretend it doesn't exist. That is blatantly untrue, at least with any trainer with any skill and knowledge. There are many, many ways to effect behavior. Clicker trainers eschew methods that rely on pain, fear, or intimidation. That still leaves a whole world of possibilities open to us.


If your dog is not motivated, then you have not figured out what motivates him. You need to figure out what really drives him.


----------



## lil_fuzzy (Aug 16, 2010)

Crantastic said:


> Good timing -- I just read this today.
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty much that. If you can't get your dog to learn things using positive reinforcement, it's because you haven't figured out the right method for you yet (there's not just one!) and/or you haven't figured out how to motivate your particular dog. You want to switch to using pain because it's easier and it gets fast results. That's your choice, but I'd think about what kind of relationship you want to have with your dog.


Well said, that's what I was thinking but you worded it very nicely


----------



## BernerMax (Mar 15, 2013)

Well all I can say is I have used other than positive for my Layla (choke prong and for recall only with her trainer-- e collar for a yr), and she is my velcro dog even as I type she has her head in my lap.... Aversives seem to roll right off her ....She is not food or treat motivated, her drives seemed to rule, but now that we are bonded (it took 3 years) she DOES SEEM TO CARE what I want...more than what her drives tell her to do, for example.


----------



## Greater Swiss (Jun 7, 2011)

I don't use pure positive, though I am against using aversives (other than a firm "NO" or a time out) for a puppy. 
I do however believe that aversives can be useful, and have their place, a very specific place. There are also degrees of aversives....Mike Ellis talks about this in this short clip which I find interesting. 
There is also an interesting blog post, which, although does come across in a somewhat extreme way, does make sense "A Silent Killer". If you do read this, for those who are against aversives, please read with an open mind. There are some points worth considering. One in particular I find very clear is the fact that dogs are PTS all of the time because of undesirable behaviors....therefore, just ignoring undesirable behaviors and rewarding the good can be very detrimental to a dog's future. This may not be the case with all dogs, and with all undesirable behaviors, but the statement does ring true for many things. 
One way I look at it is the fact that we can't talk dog....and when there is a really bad behavior, or one that could develop into something bad, and ignoring it or using very mild aversives (not giving a treat, etc) isn't working, the fact that the behavior is undesirable needs to be communicated. I'm not saying snapping a prong collar with sharpened prongs hard, or zapping with an e collar at the highest level, but something to make things a tiny bit uncomfortable and communicate that the behavior truly is undesirable, which all depends on the dog of course. There seems to be a constant assumption that any physical aversive means pain, sure, it could mean a degree of pain (which may only be discomfort), but it doesn't necessarily mean scaring, or causing real harm. 
I'm with Cpt Jack regarding his point of life and death stuff. I personally believe though that recall training can be life or death (which it certainly can if you live near a road, or somewhere with dangerous animals nearby). Caeda has been e collar conditioned for her recall, and the conditioning has been at a low level (as in I've put it on myself and tested it and it doesn't hurt...though it could be considered uncomfortable), and using the vibrate function. Her recall is somewhere in the 98% range, even with the geese out in the field, deer running along, ducks flying nearby and people or dogs on the other side of the road. The conditioning wasn't a short easy process, it took a great deal of time and effort, as well as learning. She wears it when we go on our off-leash walks, just as insurance, but it has very rarely been used outside of her training (which does include some maintenance, if she gets an inch she'll take a mile, so we have refresher training). I've also used it a limited amount for a down at a distance, for those circumstances where running towards me is the worst thing she could do. Other than that, it isn't really used. Oh, and all of this training was started with treats, she knew the commands before we started. 
The prong collar....yeah, I use it a bit, especially on Diesel, he is big, heavy, strong and if I tug on his leash without a prong I might as well be a three year old gently tugging at mom's skirts. Considering his past he is a dog that I need to have good control over in public, so his ability to just take off dragging me needed to be controlled (actually, he could probably drag over 200lbs of my DH down the road too). If I only taught this guy leash walking with treats we wouldn't have ever gotten three feet down the road, and he badly needed the experience of going for a good long walk.
My general opinion is that so long as it isn't changing the dog's demeanor, making it scared or anything, it still acts happy etc, some aversives aren't going to hurt the relationship, and of course treats and tons of praise are still essential! They are not mutually exclusive training methods. There are many well known trainers that use these kinds of methods, Bart Bellon for instance and his NePoPo methods, Mike Ellis (who uses marker training first for sure!). It depends on the dog and on the trainer, though when it comes down to it, aversives should NEVER be the first method used, but they shouldn't be considered the last resort either when a dog is so out of control that only heavy corrections and even being "broken" might be necessary. My opinion, always positive first, always! I am a huge fan of kikopup style training for the beginning of pretty much everything, but after that, and only if necessary (especially life or death stuff!), the mildest aversives possible.
I'm no expert and I'm no trainer, but I've got an awesome happy dog of my own in Caeda, plus two fosters who have come a LONG way in our care. Anyway, that's my ranting opinion on that..... I'll duck and cover now since I'm sure I'll be shot for this post lol.


----------



## cookieface (Jul 6, 2011)

I pretty much agree with what's been said by Crantastic, HollowHeaven, CptJack, and Sassafras. 

A trainer who suggests "just ignoring undesirable behaviors and rewarding the good" is not someone I would consider competent. An experienced, knowledgeable trainer would provide ways to manage and redirect undesirable behaviors while also training alternative and / or incompatible behaviors. An experienced, knowledgeable trainer should also have a variety of techniques to train appropriate behavior in a multitude of dogs. If a dog isn't food motivated, try a toy. If a dog is reactive because he's scared, use CC and DS. If luring isn't working, try shaping. 

To say that positive trainers simply ignore undesirable behaviors indicates one does not have a full understanding of what positive trainers actually do.


----------



## lil_fuzzy (Aug 16, 2010)

Reward based training isn't about "ignoring undesirable behaviours". No good reward based trainer does that. I know a lot of people think that that's what you do in reward based training, and then they try it and of course it doesn't work, so they think it doesn't work for their dog. When really it was the application of reward based training that was wrong.

Reward based training works for all dogs. End of story.

That being said, I fully understand that not everyone trains completely without positive punishment. And I don't think it's a huge deal if someone decides to use a correction collar, as long as it's used correctly. But the reason why people need a correction collar is not because reward based training doesn't work for their dog. It's the owners skill that's lacking, not the training method or the dog.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Also, a dog can be shut down without being fearful or cowering. Like Jack, who won't engage with training because he has learned that not doing anything is safer. And it doesn't even need to be harsh punishment to get this effect, or even what most people consider punishment---if you're going through a maze, and there's a voice guding you through, if that voice tells you "wrong way" no matter which way you turn, you're eventually just going to sit down and wait to be rescued. That's shut down. lf course, a lot of people WANT their dog to be shut down like that, because he's well-behaved. 

But like I said, it's all about what you want to do. Obviously someone is not going to put much effort into a method they don't want to use.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

I agree with what has been said so far by most posters. Aversives are not necessary for training basic obedience and saying that a dog is "different" and doesn't respond to PR says more about the trainer's ability than anything else.

I think it's the old issue about assuming PR is permissive. I have an adolescent dog from a breed that is often called "stubborn". Now, I don't think he's stubborn, but I do think he's easily distracted and not always interested in doing what I want. So I make him do what I want, every time. If I ask for a sit and he blows me off (because he's distracted or I'm not motivating enough, *not* because he's "stubborn" or doesn't respect me), I change my position, change his position, change the rewards, reset the situation, etc until I get that sit. I use PR, but I also don't let him get away with not doing what I've asked. No prong collar necessary, just consistency and changing tactics. 

I don't think +P is always going to result in a fearful and shutdown dog. However, it's not conducive to the type of relationship I want with my dog.

ETA: Your dog is an adolescent now, correct? This is the time in their life when they start to test you and drive you crazy. Assuming that PR doesn't work for your dog when he's just acting like every other adolescent dog is lazy training. This is the time of the dog's life when you're really building a relationship and the dog is learning to work with you and resorting to aversives is going to effect that.


----------



## petpeeve (Jun 10, 2010)

CuddlyKat said:


> Here's the thing I spent some time around her dogs and how she's training them and I don't see her dogs ever cower or be fearful. *Just because you can't 'see' fallout doesn't mean it isn't there. Conflicts can manifest in many different ways, and some can be very subtle especially to the untrained eye.* They're extremely attentive and after the initial stuff they don't even use a collar or anything they're not scared they just know okay I have this job to do and I want to do it. *They 'want' to do it ? Aversives often create a very oppressive atmosphere. I suspect the dogs may, in fact, be working out of fear, albeit low-grade perhaps, yet it's been misinterpreted as desire. Fear can be a tremendous motivator, in many cases the most powerful of all. But still, it is what it is: fear.* They get praised just as much as in positive reinforcement and are so cheerful during training. *Using praise IS positive reinforcement training, (which seems to contradict the thread title). Thing is, if you're getting results from praise alone, it can only get better with further and proper implementation of more advanced R+ techniques.*
> 
> It's interesting that immediately anything less that than all positive is training a dog out of fear for some people. *Again, if it's not fear, then what is it ? Aversives involve discomfort, unpleasantness, ... and subsequently, fear. * This isn't the first time I've spoken to someone who is highly knowledgable and accustomed to the breed and has told me that he'll just do things when he feels like it. I got warned and I kind of just kept it in mind but just went with doing all positive and really he's learned but unless he feels like the reward is worth his effort he's not all there and will go on about his way. *Well then, use rewards that your dog feels ARE worth the effort. Simple. Allow your dog to determine what is reinforcing. A popular premise in R+ training is, do whatever it takes to 'get the behaviour'.* In any case I guess we'll see how it goes and how he takes to it. I'd love to talk to someone that seriously competes about they're training. * My suggestion would be to find a crossover trainer/competitor, and have them explain the pitfalls of using aversives.*


comments and opinions in bold


----------



## HollowHeaven (Feb 5, 2012)

Yesterday I taught a young dog with -zero- training how to 'come' and 'sit'.
If he did the behavior correctly, I threw him a party. If he did the behavior incorrectly I ignored it. Just 'Lets try again.' If he ignored me, I found something more motivating.
Both behaviors took about 30 minutes to teach and repeat a few times, without popping a collar, or using a prong. Not even the word 'no'.
Must be some sort of magic. Lol

It's all about motivation, especially in the beginning. Find what motivates your dog to pay attention and work. A lot of us wouldn't go to work in the morning if weren't interested in the pay would we?


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

lil_fuzzy said:


> Reward based training isn't about "ignoring undesirable behaviours". No good reward based trainer does that. I know a lot of people think that that's what you do in reward based training, and then they try it and of course it doesn't work, so they think it doesn't work for their dog. When really it was the application of reward based training that was wrong.
> 
> Reward based training works for all dogs. End of story.
> 
> That being said, I fully understand that not everyone trains completely without positive punishment. And I don't think it's a huge deal if someone decides to use a correction collar, as long as it's used correctly. But the reason why people need a correction collar is not because reward based training doesn't work for their dog. It's the owners skill that's lacking, not the training method or the dog.


Agreed 100%. Again, I think aversives have their place - but I think in _most_ cases we choose to use them because they are easier or faster than sticking with positive reinforcement. And honestly I think that's ok, because some things (like the snake training CptJack mentioned) you NEED results really fast. 

My biggest frustration is misrepresentation of positive reinforcement training. Like when people say things like "oh your dog is chasing deer, how do you call him off with a clicker and a cookie?" When the answer is -- I didn't set my dog up to fail a skill and then START training him to recall off distractions. The positive reinforcement training for a skill like that has been taking place continuously LONG before my dog was in a position to chase deer by starting in low distraction environments, increasing distractions, and proofing. So by the time my dog is off leash in an area where there might be something fun, his recall is already solid. 

The very first time I took Squash to an off leash dog park I easily recalled him off wildlife and out of play with other dogs because of all the hard work we'd done before - but I also didn't take him to a dog park until he was a year and a half old. Some people just don't want things to take that long and be that much work, and that's perfectly ok -- but then don't blame and mischaracterize the _method_ for your own choices and because it doesn't give instant gratification. 



Willowy said:


> Also, a dog can be shut down without being fearful or cowering. Like Jack, who won't engage with training because he has learned that not doing anything is safer. And it doesn't even need to be harsh punishment to get this effect, or even what most people consider punishment---if you're going through a maze, and there's a voice guding you through, if that voice tells you "wrong way" no matter which way you turn, you're eventually just going to sit down and wait to be rescued. That's shut down. lf course, a lot of people WANT their dog to be shut down like that, because he's well-behaved.
> 
> But like I said, it's all about what you want to do. Obviously someone is not going to put much effort into a method they don't want to use.


Also, some dogs who are afraid throw off appeasement signals like crazy - which can be misinterpreted as "happy" - Maisy is like this. For a long time I thought she was a very "hard" dog and over time I've come to learn she's actually quite soft, she sometimes goes into appeasement overdrive when she is very stressed or afraid - and she looks sort of excited and "happy" the whole time. When she's not doing that, she just shuts down - and she looks sort of calm. In both cases she is actually very tense.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

CptJack said:


> People like aversives because they work faster, and they don't require patience or consistency. That doesn't mean they work better.


"...[D]on't require patience or consistency"? I love this forum. I've learned so many new things here.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

There's no time when positive reinforcement isn't preferred...unless, you don't know what behavior you want more of. If you don't know what behavior you want or how to get it, I suppose what other people do is best. But I'd still wonder why you can't get the behavior you want.


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

I say aversives are ok as long as they arent cruel or mentally damaging to the dog. Josefina is like that, she needs to know that there is a clear & swift consequence for not doing what she is supposed to or acting bad.

Example: when I am playing fetch with her & Bear & she gets snarky when he gets the ball & she doesnt (this rarely happens anymore) she gets a verbal correction ("Hey!" or "Ahht!" usually) & the next time she does it, she gets put on tie down & she doesnt get to play for the rest of the session. I was actually surprised his quick that worked. Loss or privlage works very very well for her with most of the stuff she does wrong... which is hardly anything anymore. 

With Buddy its as positive as I can be with him, I try say "no" as little as possible & when I find him doing something I dont want him to do (which is rare but it happens) I just call him to me.

But I dont think training is as black & white as "you should never have to use aversives on your dog ever" because there are some dogs that would "laugh" at you if you just ignored the naughty stuff they did & just rewarded the right decisions all the time. Josefina is one of them LOL. some dogs need to know that the decision they just made was bad & what to do instead.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

dogdragoness said:


> Example: when I am playing fetch with her & Bear & she gets snarky when he gets the ball & she doesnt (this rarely happens anymore) she gets a verbal correction ("Hey!" or "Ahht!" usually) & the next time she does it, she gets put on tie down & she doesnt get to play for the rest of the session. I was actually surprised his quick that worked. Loss or privlage works very very well for her with most of the stuff she does wrong... which is hardly anything anymore.


This is negative punishment, which I think most here would agree has its place in a PR training program. We are advocating against the use of +P in this case.

It goes back to the belief that PR training is permissive and just ignores any bad behavior, when that isn't true.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

elrohwen said:


> It goes back to the belief that PR training is permissive and just ignores any bad behavior, when that isn't true.


Right? Drives me nuts.


----------



## doxiemommy (Dec 18, 2009)

cookieface said:


> I pretty much agree with what's been said by Crantastic, HollowHeaven, CptJack, and Sassafras.
> 
> A trainer who suggests "just ignoring undesirable behaviors and rewarding the good" is not someone I would consider competent. An experienced, knowledgeable trainer would provide ways to manage and redirect undesirable behaviors while also training alternative and / or incompatible behaviors. An experienced, knowledgeable trainer should also have a variety of techniques to train appropriate behavior in a multitude of dogs. If a dog isn't food motivated, try a toy. If a dog is reactive because he's scared, use CC and DS. If luring isn't working, try shaping.
> 
> To say that positive trainers simply ignore undesirable behaviors indicates one does not have a full understanding of what positive trainers actually do.


I think some people (I don't mean you, cookieface!) hear people recommend "ignoring bad behaviors" and "rewarding good behaviors" and assume that means you can ignore ALL bad behavior. Yes, you can ignore some bad behaviors, but not all bad behaviors can be ignored, simply because they can escalate, or can even lead to dangerous situations. I agree that managing and redirecting can be very powerful, because you can extinguish certain behaviors before they really get interested in repeating those behaviors, if you stay on top of it. But, I think, definitely, there are behaviors you cannot simply choose to ignore.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

When you're training a new behavior, you ignore what you don't want instead of "correcting" (I hate that word. Punishment rarely actually corrects anything) the dog. When managing bad behaviors, of course you can't ignore it! Otherwise the dog is just self-rewarding. You remove the dog from the situation, or make it impossible for him to continue.


----------



## BernerMax (Mar 15, 2013)

Wow, Caeda that was an awesome post, great links. It was hard for me to post what I did(well my nightly hot toddy helped), I really went out on a limb telling my training experience, living with a large, out of control(playful as well as over over reactive), powerful dog (we switched training methods after two of the more traditional PR classes, shed had her spay and was about 10months old)....Of course everyone I think agrees you should start with Positive training for all dogs, and proceed from there ....


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Willowy said:


> When you're training a new behavior, you ignore what you don't want instead of "correcting" (I hate that word. Punishment rarely actually corrects anything) the dog. When managing bad behaviors, of course you can't ignore it! Otherwise the dog is just self-rewarding. You remove the dog from the situation, or make it impossible for him to continue.


Right, exactly. People generalize "ignore incorrect behaviors specifically in the context of teaching a new skill" to incorrect contexts or just plain don't understand the concept and somehow think it means that I'm blissfully ignoring my dog when he gets into the garbage or somesuch. NOT TRAINING.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

dogdragoness said:


> Example: when I am playing fetch with her & Bear & she gets snarky when he gets the ball & she doesnt (this rarely happens anymore) she gets a verbal correction ("Hey!" or "Ahht!" usually) & the next time she does it, she gets put on tie down & she doesnt get to play for the rest of the session. I was actually surprised his quick that worked. Loss or privlage works very very well for her with most of the stuff she does wrong... which is hardly anything anymore.


Like others have said, that is negative punishment and that's something that positive trainers do! (I know, it's confusing that "negative punishment" is "good" and "positive punishment" is "bad" -- this page briefly explains.) It's the same thing as giving a nipping puppy a "time out" to teach him that when he nips, the fun stops. _Positive_ punishment would be if you shocked Izzy or gave her a harsh collar correction every time she got snarky with the ball.


----------



## CuddlyKat (Apr 22, 2012)

I didn't think I'd get up to this many responses. I don't consider it being bad behaviour if a dog just goes and pays attention to other things and I don't think dogs are these feeble weak minded things that are going to break if you tell them no or yell or correct them every once in a while. Especially if it's not something that is hurting them or goes on for a long time. With a dog that's nervous and soft you want to go soft and be gentle but coddling can be just as damaging. Way I see it dogs are like kids, different things work. My dog is pretty biddable and you don't have to do anything harsh or extreme for him to get the message. He learns with luring but quite frankly he knows nothing will happen if he doesn't do it now and just does it later. If I want to take him into a pen with livestock he needs to know he can't just half way decide to not do it and then get hurt by being kicked. I don't want him to just be a house pet and know his sit and down and stay and not chew on everything. He knows all that and fine but as far as taking it up a notch to be able to get him in a ring he can't do things sometimes. So I'm taking direction from someone who's shown, trained and worked with the breed all her life and trusting that all will be fine. I've never tried this type of training so we'll see how it pans out.


----------



## cookieface (Jul 6, 2011)

doxiemommy said:


> I think some people (I don't mean you, cookieface!) hear people recommend "ignoring bad behaviors" and "rewarding good behaviors" and assume that means you can ignore ALL bad behavior. Yes, you can ignore some bad behaviors, but not all bad behaviors can be ignored, simply because they can escalate, or can even lead to dangerous situations. I agree that managing and redirecting can be very powerful, because you can extinguish certain behaviors before they really get interested in repeating those behaviors, if you stay on top of it. But, I think, definitely, there are behaviors you cannot simply choose to ignore.


I'm confused. I thought I was saying the same thing as you until the part about managing and redirecting. So, if there are behaviors that can't be ignored, and managing and redirecting aren't appropriate methods (that's how I interpreted your statement), how does one address undesirable behaviors?


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

CuddlyKat said:


> ...but quite frankly he knows nothing will happen if he doesn't do it now and just does it later.


That's not a failure of positive training... it's a failure to find what motivates your dog enough that it's more worth it to him to listen and do it NOW rather than whatever else he wants to do right now. I mush and do rally with my dogs and use very few corrections. Mostly verbal, a few physical for mushing. Otherwise all positive reward. It's a lot of work to keep a dog working through the distractions in the ring at a trial, but it can be done positively. 

Also, there is far more to positive training than luring. 

Now if you're talking about about being safe in a pen with livestock, you may not have the luxury of time (or not want to spend the time) to use positive reinforcement. But it's not because positive reinforcement _can't_ work in that situation. Aversives are simply easier and faster.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

CuddlyKat said:


> I don't want him to just be a house pet and know his sit and down and stay and not chew on everything. He knows all that and fine but as far as taking it up a notch to be able to get him in a ring he can't do things sometimes.


Are you trying to say that positive training is only good for teaching the basics? Because if so, you don't really understand it.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

You haven't built up your own value enough, imo. That is one of the first things you have to deal with with any dog training really- you have to have a very very high value. Is that easier with some dogs than others? Yes. But it makes a huge huge difference. What kind of foundation work have you done? How do you train? Is it fun for the dog? Most people I see with dogs that 'just don't listen' aren't engaging their dogs in a way that the dog enjoys and understands. Basically, you are failing to motivate your dog. Pulling out an aversive isn't going to fix that.

I don't train 100% positive (I don't think it's possible) but I am always skeptical when people say they HAVE to train XYZ way. Especially when the dog 'just won't listen'. Trying to shut down the run off behavior seems silly when the problem is that the dog isn't engaging. Be more engaging.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

It might help to know what you're training in. Stock work is approached much much differently than say agility. You just said 'get him in a ring'. Well what ring?


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Marsh Muppet said:


> "...[D]on't require patience or consistency"? I love this forum. I've learned so many new things here.


Depends on the degree of aversive. I've used them, and when I use them I use them hard enough that once, maybe twice, is all it takes. Doesn't take repetition, patience or consistency to do something once or twice, does it? Of course, I only use them when I want a negative association there for life. Otherwise, why bother?

Again, note: If I'm using an aversive (as in a punishment or pain, rather than a no reward marker or removing a reward) I'm doing it because it's a life or death scenario for the dog. Snake aversion is the easiest example I have of this. Anything else? I'm pretty confident I can teach without resorting to something that asks the dog to AVOID a stimulus from me, rather than trying to get me to give them what they want. 

And yes, absolutely, Willowy, I came back here to say you can shut a dog down without it cringing or showing fear. Jack's a pretty confident dog, and he's certainly not afraid of me, or anyone else. There is no fear OR appeasement behavior from him. His desire to learn and try things has been shut down. That means he waits for you to show him what to do, precisely, and if you're not going to show him he's not going to do any.thing. And he hates training. HATES. The association in his head to it is negative. Not worth it, IMO. Kylie, Thud, even Bug, all of whom I've trained from the ground up are thrilled by training sessions. They throw behaviors, they wiggle, they're happy. Jack? Loathes and despises. Spends most of his time staring blankly and his highest value reward (which I use) is letting the session END.

**ETA:** And the next person who says positive training can only be used to train house pets really needs to go to a freestyle, flyball or agility match. Or, heck, come meet Kylie.


----------



## CuddlyKat (Apr 22, 2012)

He's going to be doing agility and obedience eventually and stock. The person teaches all of those on her own dogs. He won't be on a collar or anything forever or for most of these. The idea is for every correction he gets 3x as much praise. So if, and I mean if because he's been really good, when he corrects himself he gets like a whole party and everything is happy and pets etc. to ingrain okay if I did this its happy but that other thing is a no. Like I said don't have experience in this so I'm trusting someone else. I saw what the ground work leads to and while I don't like correcting him, in the long run he won't need any of this and he won't run into the road or get kicked by a cow. It's not like hes getting chocked out in training and if at the end I would have to spend any time consoling him or rebuilding a bond then I wouldn't do any of it. When she asks her dogs you want to go work they jump up and go nuts, if you say any of the agility equipment, like 'go tunnel', they're so excited in they house they cant contain themselves and go looking for it. I want him to enjoy doing these things that much, not for me but because he likes it. So I'm trusting he'll get to that point.


----------



## trainingjunkie (Feb 10, 2010)

What kind of corrections does your trainer use in agility? And is praise the only reinforcer that he/she uses in agility?


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Does she use corrections in agility? You should not ever use a correction collar- prong or choke- in agility. It is dangerous. Some venues even require you to run your dog without any collar on at all. I train agility with people that compete with all kinds of dogs. The dogs are out there performing because the drive for playing with their handler is built up. You can't do that until the handler has a very high value.


----------



## CuddlyKat (Apr 22, 2012)

trainingjunkie said:


> What kind of corrections does your trainer use in agility? And is praise the only reinforcer that he/she uses in agility?


Don't know yet right now she just has young dogs just getting started like mine or the others are already trained. The ones that do agility, stock and obedience all have the same enthusiasm for just working. And when they do it they don't have anything on them, no shock collar, nothing they just listen to her voice. But from what I gather the positive currency she uses is praise and being happy with the dog and sometimes they get a treat when they're done like a piece of cooked steak or another food treat. And by done I mean with the training session no like each trick. The younger dogs are basically at the same level with mine because they're from the same litter or from a litter around that time. But like if she works one on a course and not the other he's like upset until he gets to do something. They enjoy what they're doing, it's like meeting true farm dogs that like they're happy to be working. 

That was a tangent. I haven't done an agility class with her yet, my dog isn't ready to do jumps and such. I have done a different agility class with him but it was like just seeing what the equipment is and walking through the jumps and walking over the A-Frame. I decided to mentor under his breeder and this entails classes with her and stuff. I had a really good experience so I posted on here regarding a training method that isn't positive reinforcement. Like it's positive with the consistent praise and throwing a 'party' when the dog gets it right but it also has corrections for unwanted things. Idk why I always wind up on a tangent when you asked such a simple thing >_<


----------



## Amaryllis (Dec 28, 2011)

CuddlyKat said:


> I didn't think I'd get up to this many responses. I don't consider it being bad behaviour if a dog just goes and pays attention to other things and I don't think dogs are these feeble weak minded things that are going to break if you tell them no or yell or correct them every once in a while. Especially if it's not something that is hurting them or goes on for a long time. With a dog that's nervous and soft you want to go soft and be gentle but coddling can be just as damaging. Way I see it dogs are like kids, different things work. My dog is pretty biddable and you don't have to do anything harsh or extreme for him to get the message. He learns with luring but quite frankly he knows nothing will happen if he doesn't do it now and just does it later. If I want to take him into a pen with livestock he needs to know he can't just half way decide to not do it and then get hurt by being kicked. I don't want him to just be a house pet and know his sit and down and stay and not chew on everything. He knows all that and fine but as far as taking it up a notch to be able to get him in a ring he can't do things sometimes. So I'm taking direction from someone who's shown, trained and worked with the breed all her life and trusting that all will be fine. I've never tried this type of training so we'll see how it pans out.


Good luck with that. My dog is feeble, weak minded thing (well, I don't consider him that. I think he's a brave little guy who's dealt with horrible things and come out the other side capable of trusting and loving, but whatevs) who will be crushed if you shout at him. 

Here's the thing. You're going to try this and see what happens. What if your dog becomes my dog? Kabota is a lovely dog, so well behaved, hardly barks, no trouble at all. Because he learned that doing things gets him pain and fear. So he just doesn't do things. Is that really what you want? You really, really want a dog that it takes 6 months to get a tail wag out of?

Why? Why would you want that?

Maybe you won't get that. Some dogs are "hard" and can take being hit with a 2x4 with equanimity. But you won't know what sort of dog you've got until afterwards. All the regret in the world won't change what you've done then.

That's why I use and have always used PR methods only. They train every dog (and bear and tiger and killer whale) without risking damage to the "feeble minded" ones.


----------



## CuddlyKat (Apr 22, 2012)

I think what I would compare it to is how I've seen some people train horses....where it's not all happy go lucky but the horses are kept in a working and positive space. It's not intimidating to them for them to shut down but it's just not all positive. 

I realize. She judges these events and she has a dog that competes in utility and so only subtle gestures and no sound.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

CuddlyKat said:


> Don't know yet right now she just has young dogs just getting started like mine or the others are already trained. The ones that do agility, stock and obedience all have the same enthusiasm for just working. And when they do it they don't have anything on them, no shock collar, nothing they just listen to her voice. But from what I gather the positive currency she uses is praise and being happy with the dog and sometimes they get a treat when they're done like a piece of cooked steak or another food treat. And by done I mean with the training session no like each trick. The younger dogs are basically at the same level with mine because they're from the same litter or from a litter around that time. But like if she works one on a course and not the other he's like upset until he gets to do something. They enjoy what they're doing, it's like meeting true farm dogs that like they're happy to be working.
> 
> That was a tangent. I haven't done an agility class with her yet, my dog isn't ready to do jumps and such. I have done a different agility class with him but it was like just seeing what the equipment is and walking through the jumps and walking over the A-Frame. I decided to mentor under his breeder and this entails classes with her and stuff. I had a really good experience so I posted on here regarding a training method that isn't positive reinforcement. Like it's positive with the consistent praise and throwing a 'party' when the dog gets it right but it also has corrections for unwanted things. Idk why I always wind up on a tangent when you asked such a simple thing >_<


Do you reward with anything other than praise? Praise means jack squat for most dogs. If you want them REALLY working and working in drive, you want a jackpot reward. Food, toys, whatever the dog goes crazy for.

For agility, I would go to a trainer that competes and has titles. I'd prefer someone involved in a local agility club or someone that puts on trials. Does she have that? There are a lot of shoddy agility trainers out there because a lot of people want to train in it. I've been through two really bad ones and it's just not worth it if you want to compete.

A lot of people fall into a trap of 'obedience agility' where the dog sure does do what you ask him to but without much speed at all. It works for dogs that naturally have a lot of drive but for others they will run slow and eliberate and many times eventually slow down. It is really easy to teach dogs obstacles but to teach them to drive through them at speed and properly, it's a lot more difficult.


----------



## Amaryllis (Dec 28, 2011)

CuddlyKat said:


> I think what I would compare it to is how I've seen some people train horses....where it's not all happy go lucky but the horses are kept in a working and positive space. It's not intimidating to them for them to shut down but it's just not all positive.
> 
> I realize. She judges these events and she has a dog that competes in utility and so only subtle gestures and no sound.


You do realize the dogs of hers you've seen in the ring are the ones who survived the training and had the temperament for it, right? The ones the turned out like Kabota don't ever get seen. That's how that works.


----------



## RabbleFox (Jan 23, 2013)

I am extremely anti-correction in agility training. You correct one too many times for knocking a jump or missing a weave and your dog suddenly becomes AFRAID to approach the obstacle. Then you have to retrain the obstacle from the ground up. We had a Pitbull in our agility class who would get popped on her prong collar for doing the channel weaves wrong. It took ages for her to actually want to even go into the weaves, wide open off leash. She was fearing failure and a solid prong pop to the neck.

Maybe its just because my dog is kind of soft but I can see when he is in the middle of shutting down or becoming tired of practicing a certain obstacle or trick. Getting it wrong and having to retry gets to him sometimes. If simply retrying an obstacle a couple times can cause him to shut down, I can't imagine what a couple prong pops or ill timed shocks* would do to him.

Have you tried different forms of treats? Hotdogs, cheese, raw treats, homemade treats? What about mixing them up? What about a favorite toy? Have you tried building his play drive? For some reason I don't think you've exhausted all the forms of reward based, positive reinforcement. Have you perhaps let him get away with a few things? Have you put him in situations where he could succeed, building into more difficult situations? Teaching a command and then applying it in the busiest, most hectic situation ever is most likely a situation your dog will fail in.

*We do use an electric fence but, because there is no human element to it, the shocks are low level and consistent. I don't think I could trust myself to hold the button.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

CuddlyKat said:


> I think what I would compare it to is how I've seen some people train horses....where it's not all happy go lucky but the horses are kept in a working and positive space. It's not intimidating to them for them to shut down but it's just not all positive.
> 
> I realize. She judges these events and she has a dog that competes in utility and so only subtle gestures and no sound.


This is going to depend on the dog and his drive and how much of a reward the equipment is - and how much positive association he has to working! Frankly speaking, Jack never got anything more than leash corrections and no, and he HATES working. No positive association and working has no innate payoff for him. Some working dogs will find the work, of a certain type, rewarding. Some won't. Jack finds treeing squirrels rewarding and that's kind of work. Training for anything I want? Nope. 

Praise doesn't mean crap to your dog, except 'this means I won't get hurt/there is no aversive'. If your dog doesn't care about working for you, as you said, your praise doesn't mean anything either. Job well done, if the dog doesn't care about pleasing you *isn't a reward*. You CAN get good behavior with negatives, but you're contradicting your own logic. If the dog doesn't want to work for you NOW, and you're using punishment to motivate him to get the correct behavior, he is not working for the praise. He is working to avoid the negative. Praise has meaning to him that means 'not gonna hurt' and that is IT. Because, as you said yourself, he isn't interested in performing for you. 

Doesn't mean you'll shut him down and break him. It does mean that he's not performing because he enjoys it. That means he's never, ever, going to be great at agility. Those dogs perform for love of the sport and the game. When they're performing to avoid punishment, it doesn't work. THey might do it and look enthusiastic, but you're never going to get the same results. If you said obedience, I'd say you can still get what you want. Agility? No way.


----------



## CuddlyKat (Apr 22, 2012)

Amaryllis said:


> Good luck with that. My dog is feeble, weak minded thing (well, I don't consider him that. I think he's a brave little guy who's dealt with horrible things and come out the other side capable of trusting and loving, but whatevs) who will be crushed if you shout at him.
> 
> Here's the thing. You're going to try this and see what happens. What if your dog becomes my dog? Kabota is a lovely dog, so well behaved, hardly barks, no trouble at all. Because he learned that doing things gets him pain and fear. So he just doesn't do things. Is that really what you want? You really, really want a dog that it takes 6 months to get a tail wag out of?
> 
> ...


Get over yourself. Why would I want my dog to be shut down? Or abused in anyway? If I felt like any of this would endanger his wellbeing or was harsh enough to break him mentally then I wouldn't ever sign up for this. You're talking about a dog that probably was in a very damaging environment and was abused. I bought my puppy as a puppy from a very good breeder, he's a lovely dog, sleeps with me, doesn't bark excessively and I have no issue with his behaviours. He's not a perfectly trained dog but he's a puppy. I'm choosing to go back to that same breeder and mentor under her for training because her dogs are what I want out of mine. They compete, but they still have their individual personalities and quirks and are still pets. They enjoy what they're doing. And I've taken a lot of everyone comments and said nothing but this is too far because how dare you suggest and accuse me of going to put my dog through such a horrible situation where he would break and be fearful.


----------



## CuddlyKat (Apr 22, 2012)

Laurelin said:


> Do you reward with anything other than praise? Praise means jack squat for most dogs. If you want them REALLY working and working in drive, you want a jackpot reward. Food, toys, whatever the dog goes crazy for.
> 
> For agility, I would go to a trainer that competes and has titles. I'd prefer someone involved in a local agility club or someone that puts on trials. Does she have that? There are a lot of shoddy agility trainers out there because a lot of people want to train in it. I've been through two really bad ones and it's just not worth it if you want to compete.
> 
> A lot of people fall into a trap of 'obedience agility' where the dog sure does do what you ask him to but without much speed at all. It works for dogs that naturally have a lot of drive but for others they will run slow and eliberate and many times eventually slow down. It is really easy to teach dogs obstacles but to teach them to drive through them at speed and properly, it's a lot more difficult.


For me I used praise, food, treats, toys, w.e. got him excited. I didn't hire a trainer, I went back to his breeder because she's titled her dogs, is a judge for all these events, trains at the local club and all that. I wanted to learn as much as possible under someone who's actually been in all these venues for a while. She also hosts club events and trials at her place.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

CuddlyKat said:


> Get over yourself. Why would I want my dog to be shut down? Or abused in anyway? If I felt like any of this would endanger his wellbeing or was harsh enough to break him mentally then I wouldn't ever sign up for this. You're talking about a dog that probably was in a very damaging environment and was abused. I bought my puppy as a puppy from a very good breeder, he's a lovely dog, sleeps with me, doesn't bark excessively and I have no issue with his behaviours. He's not a perfectly trained dog but he's a puppy. I'm choosing to go back to that same breeder and mentor under her for training because her dogs are what I want out of mine. They compete, but they still have their individual personalities and quirks and are still pets. They enjoy what they're doing. And I've taken a lot of everyone comments and said nothing but this is too far because how dare you suggest and accuse me of going to put my dog through such a horrible situation where he would break and be fearful.


I am going to be very, very quiet and polite and say Jack has never been abused. Never, ever, not once. He came from a reputable breeder, was shown and titled in weight pull, conformation, and a little bit in earth dog trials. His breeder is the head of a regional weight pull association. She trials all over the place, as well as shows conformation. He is a rock solid dog with no fear issues. He wasn't trained particularly harshly - but like what you're talking about. Prong collar, some leash corrections, a harsh voice. He was compulsion trained for obedience (sit, by putting him into a sit) etc. That's the extent of it. 

*I CAN NOT MAKE THAT DOG LIKE LEARNING* because it's not fun for him. I don't think you're going to abuse your dog. I don't think you are abusing your dog. I don't think you're going to scar him for life or make him fear you. Jack LOVES his breeder and is thrilled to see her. The thing is, you want to do dog sports. That requires a love of learning. If learning isn't fun, and isn't a game, and isn't rewarding in its own right, your dog isn't going to want to do it. That squashed enthusiasm. If you squash the enthusiasm, you can't play dog sports, because the success of a dog in those environment requires the dog's enthusiasm, not just obedience. 

I am not telling you this because I think corrections are evil. I use leash corrections, I use stern nos, I even use mild leash corrections. (Though I use none of them with Jack, because they're ineffective - he doesn't cower or cringe, he stands there and stares at me). Most of us here, do. 

But you have to make your dog love the game. Corrections WILL stop your dog from blowing you off, heck yes! But they're not going to give you a dog who is driven to play the game and loves it, and that's what agility takes. The dog has to absolutely love every second of it, to succeed. And as I said, when the dog is blowing you off - well, clearly he doesn't care if he's giving you what you want or not, so praise means NOTHING to him.


----------



## CuddlyKat (Apr 22, 2012)

RabbleFox said:


> I am extremely anti-correction in agility training. You correct one too many times for knocking a jump or missing a weave and your dog suddenly becomes AFRAID to approach the obstacle. Then you have to retrain the obstacle from the ground up. We had a Pitbull in our agility class who would get popped on her prong collar for doing the channel weaves wrong. It took ages for her to actually want to even go into the weaves, wide open off leash. She was fearing failure and a solid prong pop to the neck.
> 
> Maybe its just because my dog is kind of soft but I can see when he is in the middle of shutting down or becoming tired of practicing a certain obstacle or trick. Getting it wrong and having to retry gets to him sometimes. If simply retrying an obstacle a couple times can cause him to shut down, I can't imagine what a couple prong pops or ill timed shocks* would do to him.
> 
> ...


I mix up the treats I buy, I buy diff soft treats from the pet store that have a lot of smell so he can sniff it. And I use some human food sometimes in between, like string cheese and deli meat and sausage. But I found out that it started to be too much about the treats, hence I sought help because once I started fading the treats he knew the commands and did is most of the time even with distractions but I'd have to revert back to that if I lost he lost his drive and I don't want that to be the case if its a more dire situation. Like he gets out by the road side. And he snapped up the weaving pretty quick for treats. I think everyone just saw the 'aversive' part and just focused on that, it's not like it's the only element of training and it's not like he's a bad dog and i'm trying to get him to stop doing a specific behaviour. Like she showed me one dog that's really soft and like you look at him stern and he can shut down, and she's still training him. So I don't see her methods as being harsh because that dog is still learning and still playing and is still a great dog. My dog is half way, it doesn't take a lot for him to get that no I don't like something.


----------



## RabbleFox (Jan 23, 2013)

Perhaps you faded the treats too soon then. Or too quickly. I used to reward after every obstacle cleared properly. Then it was every 2 or 3. Now its after 12 or 14. With something particularly difficult, he gets a jackpot after completing it successfully.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

RabbleFox said:


> Perhaps you faded the treats too soon then. Or too quickly. I used to reward after every obstacle cleared properly. Then it was every 2 or 3. Now its after 12 or 14. With something particularly difficult, he gets a jackpot after completing it successfully.


Yep. It's a pretty rare dog that will work if they know, for absolute sure, that you have no treats at all. Kylie will. The others? They perform for the hope that maybe this time there will be a treat. It's why I carry treats in my pockets and randomize the reward. They MIGHT get one, so they give it a go. Eventually it becomes habit, I think, but there's a long between stage.


----------



## CuddlyKat (Apr 22, 2012)

CptJack said:


> I am going to be very, very quiet and polite and say Jack has never been abused. Never, ever, not once. He came from a reputable breeder, was shown and titled in weight pull, conformation, and a little bit in earth dog trials. His breeder is the head of a regional weight pull association. She trials all over the place, as well as shows conformation. He is a rock solid dog with no fear issues. He wasn't trained particularly harshly - but like what you're talking about. Prong collar, some leash corrections, a harsh voice. He was compulsion trained for obedience (sit, by putting him into a sit) etc. That's the extent of it.
> 
> *I CAN NOT MAKE THAT DOG LIKE LEARNING* because it's not fun for him. I don't think you're going to abuse your dog. I don't think you are abusing your dog. I don't think you're going to scar him for life or make him fear you. Jack LOVES his breeder and is thrilled to see her. The thing is, you want to do dog sports. That requires a love of learning. If learning isn't fun, and isn't a game, and isn't rewarding in its own right, your dog isn't going to want to do it. That squashed enthusiasm. If you squash the enthusiasm, you can't play dog sports, because the success of a dog in those environment requires the dog's enthusiasm, not just obedience.
> 
> ...


That post wasn't directed at you or Jack. I've read and taken your comments to mind and I'm fine with it. But he/she was pushing it by saying that I was going to turn myself dog into some feeble scared dog who was just going to behave out of fear. I accept that this is a discussion forum and everyone will have their own opinions and I can take people disagreeing but that just irked me because I've worked in shelters and seen dogs that come from abuse and are emotionally scarred and I would NEVER want my dog to fear me or break. I want him to have his personality and be his same playful self and goofily crawling to be closer to me and I would never do anything to take that out of him. And I found it extremely offensive to even hint at that. I know my dog has motivation to do it but I just think he needs a different take. This is the same person that trained his mom and says that his demeanour is very similar to her when it comes to training. So I thought it best to alter the approach.


----------



## CuddlyKat (Apr 22, 2012)

RabbleFox said:


> Perhaps you faded the treats too soon then. Or too quickly. I used to reward after every obstacle cleared properly. Then it was every 2 or 3. Now its after 12 or 14. With something particularly difficult, he gets a jackpot after completing it successfully.


My little one is pretty good about treat fading and stuff. But with the pup even with treats, like it could be anything even cooked chicken, if what he wants to do is more rewarding for him, he's not even going to do a sit for me. Like we can be in a free roam dog park and he'll do all his tricks and for that I'll def have treats but we went to his breeder's place and I guess the place is new and stuff and even with treats he was not gonna listen to me and who cared about treats lol He wouldn't even sit for food. >_<


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

CuddlyKat said:


> For me I used praise, food, treats, toys, w.e. got him excited. I didn't hire a trainer, I went back to his breeder because she's titled her dogs, is a judge for all these events, trains at the local club and all that. I wanted to learn as much as possible under someone who's actually been in all these venues for a while. She also hosts club events and trials at her place.


What venue and what level? How many different dogs and breeds? You don't have to answer it here but just something to think about. It's not all created equal.

I would not go to anyone that even allowed a correction collar in an agility class.

also check out food zen and it's yer choice. If he LOVES food you need to harness that. Him being food obsessed is a good thing but no, you don't want him focusing on the food. That has to do with training.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

I'm wondering why you asked for opinions. You've argued with everyone who answered your question with, "No, aversives aren't necessary." If your breeder/mentor is so great, why are you even questioning her methods here? You're clearly going to go ahead no matter what we say.


----------



## trainingjunkie (Feb 10, 2010)

Positive reinforcement training isn't easy to get right. If a dog is getting too focused on the treat, then there is a training issue. Switching from a steady rate of reinforcement to a random rate of reinforcement is really hard. It's a bit of an art form and every dog will randomize differently. The dog tells you if it's working. There isn't an equation to consult. It's tough.

There are some dogs and even some breeds that do just fine with a more "correction-based" method. There are dogs who love to "DO" stuff, and "Doing Stuff" becomes its own reward. These dogs are not common, but they are out there. These dogs can also be successfully trained with positive reinforcement. There are dogs that do just fine without it. When I look back over my dog history, I remember my beloved lab who was trained beautifully without ever recieving and "earned" treat in her life. She was trained exclusively using corrections and she was wonderful. When I remember her, I am filled with regret that she came into my life before I knew a different method. I can only imagine what she could have accomplished if I had been familiar with R+ training. As it was, she was FABULOUS. She held up well and forgave me everything. She was a better dog than I deserved.

Now, I own 2 terriers and a sighthound. I can tell you with certainty that correction based training would not get me into a show ring with these 3!!! All of them compete in obedience and agilitiy and they do well. However, if you told me that I had to go back to leash pops and praise, I would have to give them all away and get different dogs.

We all have to do the best we know how by the dogs we chose to own. I also think that it's a pretty good idea to just keep on learning. There are 4 quadrants of learning. They ALL work. We just individually have to decide which ones we rely on most. But all of the quadrants DO work.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

CuddlyKat said:


> My little one is pretty good about treat fading and stuff. But with the pup even with treats, like it could be anything even cooked chicken, if what he wants to do is more rewarding for him, he's not even going to do a sit for me. Like we can be in a free roam dog park and he'll do all his tricks and for that I'll def have treats but we went to his breeder's place and I guess the place is new and stuff and even with treats he was not gonna listen to me and who cared about treats lol He wouldn't even sit for food. >_<



Up your reward. Get creative. I've seen people use things from plastic bags to air blowing at them to socks to tug on... you name it. 

When you up distractions especially with a younger dog, you should expect that he won't be 100% like he would be at home.


----------



## CuddlyKat (Apr 22, 2012)

Crantastic said:


> I'm wondering why you asked for opinions. You've argued with everyone who answered your question with, "No, aversives aren't necessary." If your breeder/mentor is so great, why are you even questioning her methods here? You're clearly going to go ahead no matter what we say.


I never asked for advice. I said that in my first post that I wasn't looking for advice. I said I wanted to do a discussion about there being a possibility that PR training not being the best option. Because it wasn't something I had considered before and I'm trying to develop my own views for training. What I didn't count on was that people would come down on me for it or having to defend myself. I like different opinions and I have posted calm replies for those who came on and asked questions about things. The only time I say I argued about something was on the one person who suggested I wanted to use methods to break my dog. Which I find to be presumptuous and offensive because no one wants to be accused of basically abusing their dog.


----------



## RabbleFox (Jan 23, 2013)

CuddlyKat said:


> My little one is pretty good about treat fading and stuff. But with the pup even with treats, like it could be anything even cooked chicken, if what he wants to do is more rewarding for him, he's not even going to do a sit for me. Like we can be in a free roam dog park and he'll do all his tricks and for that I'll def have treats but we went to his breeder's place and I guess the place is new and stuff and even with treats he was not gonna listen to me and who cared about treats lol He wouldn't even sit for food. >_<


New place = completely new situation. I personally arrive early to new events or new places where I need my dog to focus. Its unfair to ask him to look deeply into my eyes when we go to the fair/street market/brand new park/into town and there are horses and dogs and people and food and OMGeverythinggggg. Arriving early allows me to walk him out, refocus his attention, and remind him that I'm the boss dog here and I'm the bees knees. 

Maybe cooked chicken isn't his favorite. It might not be good enough for him, specifically. My dog loves chicken but cheese is king. Salami is pretty darn good too. Better than Pupperonis. There is a ladder of rewards for my dog. Your pup is young so you actually might not have found what really works for him just yet!


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

Yes, the old methods worked. That's why they were used for so long. But now there are far better methods that foster an amazing relationship between dog and handler. Why wouldn't you use them? Obviously there have been obedience competitions out there for a long time - the old training methods are effective. But guess what? Dogs are now titled in those venues at younger ages than ever before because positive training methods work so much better and faster. Just because this woman has been successful doesn't mean she is using the best possible training method. 

There are people out there who have been training flushing spaniels for 30 years and have a million titles, but that doesn't mean I'm going to sign up for e-collars and the forced fetch. 

I wish I remember where I read it, but there are fantastic articles out there about why "balanced training" (what you seem to be talking about) isn't balanced at all. As CptJack said, the praise only starts to mean that no punishment is coming. The dog is still avoiding punishment. You think because you are praising that the aversives aren't as aversive to the dog, but they are.

I also want to go back to the part about how you have an adolescent dog. This is absolutely the hardest part of his training and the part that requires the most consistency and effort on your part. Throwing a prong collar on him is the lazy way out. You need to teach him that you are super high value and throwing in corrections is not going to do that. As I said in my previous post, you shouldn't let him blow you off and you should make him do what you ask, but coercion isn't necessary. If he's not performing unless you have a treat out, you have not done PR training correctly.

The thing that worries me the most about your post is that you admit to not really understanding her training or what you have done wrong so far, but you are going to do it anyway. If you are ever going to use a correction on your dog, I believe you should understand completely why and what you are doing.

ETA: I have a dog who appears super happy and excited by life at all times. I'm pretty sure you could whack him with a 2x4 and he would look similarly happy, but he would actually be shutting down. I know him and I can see it, but others might not have a clue. I have seen him start to shut down from being forced to hand stack (just someone gently holding him in a standing position until he stopped fussing) which was pretty non-aversive. Not all shut down dogs look shut down and fearful.


----------



## CuddlyKat (Apr 22, 2012)

Laurelin said:


> What venue and what level? How many different dogs and breeds? You don't have to answer it here but just something to think about. It's not all created equal.
> 
> I would not go to anyone that even allowed a correction collar in an agility class.
> 
> also check out food zen and it's yer choice. If he LOVES food you need to harness that. Him being food obsessed is a good thing but no, you don't want him focusing on the food. That has to do with training.


Up to the highest level in each, she does training classes for other breeds depending on who contacts her but primarily with Aussies (that's her breed). I don't know about how she teaches agility yet because we have yet to get there. I doubt it will go anywhere near harming any dog. 

Trainingjunkie: I agree, not every dog does well on certain things. With this I would never try it on my little dog. I'm going with this because the same person taught his mom and most of the other dogs in his line so I'm having some faith about that. Just trying to adjust according to the dog I got and become a better trainer and owner.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

CuddlyKat said:


> Trainingjunkie: I agree, not every dog does well on certain things. With this I would never try it on my little dog. I'm going with this because the same person taught his mom and most of the other dogs in his line so I'm having some faith about that. Just trying to adjust according to the dog I got and become a better trainer and owner.


As I said, people have trained flushing spaniels for a hundred years using the forced fetch and e-collars and they are successful. I still wouldn't touch either of those with a 10ft pole.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

> There are some dogs and even some breeds that do just fine with a more "correction-based" method. There are dogs who love to "DO" stuff, and "Doing Stuff" becomes its own reward. These dogs are not common, but they are out there.


Yep, agreed. I have one now and she is incredible. I'm pretty sure the highest level reward I could offer her would be to teach her another trick. It breaks my brain sometimes, and it's a beautiful thing to see. She's moderately soft and doesn't take correction beyond 'nope!' very well, but I don't need to use them since she's so into learning. 

OTOH, she's the only dog I've had like this and I've owned and fostered a whole lot of dogs over the past 30 years. I don't expect to luck into another one.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

You should look up some of Sandy's old posts (PawsK9 I believe was her name here). She was heavily involved in the ASCA and had titled dogs in many sports, including an OTCH, stock titles, agility titles, etc. She was my trainer until she passed away this year and had great insight into training and aussies. She'd gone through all kinds of training methods and when I trained with her, was doing mostly purely positive training with her dogs- as much as is actually possible. Brilliant stuff. I wish I'd been able to train with her longer.

A lot of what you are saying (dog focusing on food, for example) is showing that you really don't get positive training and what it can achieve. I have said before I (and my trainers) do use negative punishment in some occasions and I have seen some drastic situations where positive punishment is used effectively but positive training can do a lot. A lot of these issues can be solved by upping your value and the value of the training game to your dog and by doing some training (ex: food zen to fix the food obsession). 

We do training where we have dogs running agility courses with people lying on the ground or bouncing tennis balls and squeaking toys or dancing around the field. Positive training can overcome distractions. And if it makes any difference there were 2 aussies in that class.


----------



## ForTheLoveOfDogs (Jun 3, 2007)

If your dog isn't motivated by praise normally, what makes you think that it's going to make any kind of effect at all? All it is to the dog is correction. The reward is just not getting corrected. Simple. 

You aren't abusing your dog, but don't pretend the praise makes it positive at all.


----------



## Amaryllis (Dec 28, 2011)

CuddlyKat said:


> Get over yourself. Why would I want my dog to be shut down? Or abused in anyway? If I felt like any of this would endanger his wellbeing or was harsh enough to break him mentally then I wouldn't ever sign up for this. You're talking about a dog that probably was in a very damaging environment and was abused. I bought my puppy as a puppy from a very good breeder, he's a lovely dog, sleeps with me, doesn't bark excessively and I have no issue with his behaviours. He's not a perfectly trained dog but he's a puppy. I'm choosing to go back to that same breeder and mentor under her for training because her dogs are what I want out of mine. They compete, but they still have their individual personalities and quirks and are still pets. They enjoy what they're doing. And I've taken a lot of everyone comments and said nothing but this is too far because how dare you suggest and accuse me of going to put my dog through such a horrible situation where he would break and be fearful.


STOP USING THE WORD "FEEBLE". It is offensive. It is offensive to me as a disabled, i.e., "feeble" person, and to my dog, who is not less than your dog just because he's soft.

I don't think Kabota was ever abused. I think he was trained using aversives, just like you're training your dog. You are discounting the possible fallout of aversives, because you've seen dogs trained with aversives who, to you, seemed okay. First of all, very few people can actually see signs of stress in dogs, or even complete shutdown, secondly, you don't know what kind of dog you've got until you've crushed its spirit with aversives. And then it's too late.

Do whatever you're going to do, but for the love of everything fuzzy, stop calling my dog names.


----------



## doxiemommy (Dec 18, 2009)

cookieface said:


> I'm confused. I thought I was saying the same thing as you until the part about managing and redirecting. So, if there are behaviors that can't be ignored, and managing and redirecting aren't appropriate methods (that's how I interpreted your statement), how does one address undesirable behaviors?


Sorry if I was confusing. I think we are saying the same thing. And, I DO think managing and redirecting are HUGELY appropriate. I was actually quoting you to agree, and to ADD that some people have apparently gotten the idea that, when they are given GENERAL training advice to "ignore the bad and reward the good" it means you can do that with every single "bad" behavior. There are some behaviors you can't ignore, for example, self rewarding behaviors, because if you ignore them, the dog is still being reward for doing them in some way, or also, dangerous behaviors. 
So, I think I was agreeing and adding to what you said.

I agree, if a trainer only did the "ignore the bad, reward the good" I wouldn't use that trainer. There are situations that warrant other methods. I just think some folks have heard the ignore/reward thing and think it applies to everything.
And, as for managing and redirecting, I think if you do that correctly, you can prevent some bad behaviors from becoming bad behaviors. If that makes sense.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

ForTheLoveOfDogs said:


> If your dog isn't motivated by praise normally, what makes you think that it's going to make any kind of effect at all? All it is to the dog is correction. The reward is just not getting corrected. Simple.
> 
> You aren't abusing your dog, but don't pretend the praise makes it positive at all.


Yes, this! You say that the aversives are okay because the dog is praised like crazy when it stops doing the "wrong" thing and does the "right" thing instead. But if your dog doesn't care about praise now, why on earth would it consider praise a reward once you add harsher aversives?


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

CuddlyKat said:


> My little one is pretty good about treat fading and stuff. But with the pup even with treats, like it could be anything even cooked chicken, if what he wants to do is more rewarding for him, he's not even going to do a sit for me. Like we can be in a free roam dog park and he'll do all his tricks and for that I'll def have treats but we went to his breeder's place and I guess the place is new and stuff and even with treats he was not gonna listen to me and who cared about treats lol He wouldn't even sit for food. >_<


Training at home or in the dog park is different than training at your breeder's. This is something I've struggled with for Squash in Rally a great deal. At home, at our regular training club - he can be flawless. Get to a new venue, say a trial at a training club where he's never been, and it can be like we've never practiced a single skill a day in his life. Because new places are HIGHLY distracting for some dogs, you may have to practice a lot in highly distracting environments, not just go from one place to another and expect them to necessarily perform the same. 

I could have blamed positive reinforcement and tried different methods, but instead before his most recent trial, I got more serious about something I really knew I should have been doing all along - practicing attention and heeling in all sorts of unfamiliar locations starting in the alley behind our house, then the sidewalk, then the parkway, then Petco... and it really paid off. He gave me the best, most enthusiastic and most consistent performance at a trial that I've ever gotten. The method wasn't failing, I was failing to use the method properly. 

So yes, most of the time I think positive reinforcement training is the best way to get what I want. I want a dog who performs, yes, but I want to have a dog who LOVES working with me and is fun to work with and freely offers behaviors. And I have that. I don't think I'd "ruin" him with aversives because he's a very mentally resilient dog, but I also don't think we'd have as much fun or he would be as enthusiastic... and if he wasn't, what would the point be?


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

doxiemommy said:


> Sorry if I was confusing. I think we are saying the same thing. And, I DO think managing and redirecting are HUGELY appropriate. I was actually quoting you to agree, and to ADD that some people have apparently gotten the idea that, when they are given GENERAL training advice to "ignore the bad and reward the good" it means you can do that with every single "bad" behavior. There are some behaviors you can't ignore, for example, self rewarding behaviors, because if you ignore them, the dog is still being reward for doing them in some way, or also, dangerous behaviors.
> So, I think I was agreeing and adding to what you said.
> 
> I agree, if a trainer only did the "ignore the bad, reward the good" I wouldn't use that trainer. There are situations that warrant other methods. I just think some folks have heard the ignore/reward thing and think it applies to everything.
> And, as for managing and redirecting, I think if you do that correctly, you can prevent some bad behaviors from becoming bad behaviors. If that makes sense.



Agreed. And that article 'the silent killer' actually ticked me off. I would consider myself a mostly positive trainer, but I am in no way going to sit around and euth a dog or allow it to do something that would endanger its life in another way by refusing to use Positive Punishment. I mean, come on, I'm sure these people exist but positive and permissive and never mind just plain DUMB don't apply to most. If my choices are to euth a dog or get a situation under control NOW (for some reason), I'm going to try aversives. If a harsh electric shock keeps my dog from messing with poisonous snakes, I'm SHOCKING THAT DOG. 

I am not dumb. I do not let my dog play in the street because 'no' might crush his spirit.


----------



## hanksimon (Mar 18, 2009)

My two cents:

I agree that precise training - competitive obedience or agility, can't be trained using purely positive methods.... At least I don't know do fine adjustments, without some form of correction ... or infinitely patient clicking.

From the segue, I do believe that Karen Pryor, Turid Rugaas, and Sue Ailsby use no punishment during their training.

But, I want to make a point that I have seen. With corrections and punishment, regardless of how gentle, you are still telling the dog what to do. With positive methods, you are slowly introducing the dog to make decisions about what to do, which can result in a more independent dog, that becomes easier to train through the years. Not everyone wants to deal with an independent dog  

I don't know how to prove it, but I believe that a positive method trained dog is sweeter, happier, gentler, and less reactive. This is not to say that a correction based dog doesn't have these qualities. But I think if there were some way to compare apple to apples, you could point to the dog and see the greater confidence. But there are punishment trained dogs that are unflappable and positively trained dogs that are skittish, so I don't have a way to demonstrate.

We do have some expertise from the correction-based method side of the house, and I'd like to hear Pierce's opinion of his training


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

hanksimon said:


> My two cents:
> 
> I agree that precise training - competitive obedience or agility, can't be trained using purely positive methods.... At least I don't know do fine adjustments, without some form of correction ... or infinitely patient clicking.



I totally disagree. I don't do obedience (I find it boring) but good agility is about the closest to purely positive training you will find in real practice. Correcting a dog for doing something wrong is totally counter-productive to building a dog that loves the game and wants to play it at speed. 

the most punishment I've seen in agility with a trainer that knows what they're doing is putting a dog away that wasn't interested in playing at that moment.


----------



## Amaryllis (Dec 28, 2011)

hanksimon said:


> I don't know how to prove it, but I believe that a positive method trained dog is sweeter, happier, gentler, and less reactive. This is not to say that a correction based dog doesn't have these qualities. But I think if there were some way to compare apple to apples, you could point to the dog and see the greater confidence. But there are punishment trained dogs that are unflappable and positively trained dogs that are skittish, so I don't have a way to demonstrate.


There was a study done with police dogs in training, so working line mals and GSDs who were already used to being trained with heavy aversives. They took the dogs to a new location and applied an aversive to the dog (I think it was leash pop with a choke chain). The other half of the dogs were given a treat. The dogs were then brought back to the location and the dogs given a treat had a neutral or positive reaction. Most of the dogs given an aversive showed signs of stress and avoidance: ears back, whale eye, curving the body, yawning, lip licking.

That was one aversive given to a working line dog already trained with aversives.


----------



## CuddlyKat (Apr 22, 2012)

Amaryllis said:


> STOP USING THE WORD "FEEBLE". It is offensive. It is offensive to me as a disabled, i.e., "feeble" person, and to my dog, who is not less than your dog just because he's soft.
> 
> I don't think Kabota was ever abused. I think he was trained using aversives, just like you're training your dog. You are discounting the possible fallout of aversives, because you've seen dogs trained with aversives who, to you, seemed okay. First of all, very few people can actually see signs of stress in dogs, or even complete shutdown, secondly, you don't know what kind of dog you've got until you've crushed its spirit with aversives. And then it's too late.
> 
> Do whatever you're going to do, but for the love of everything fuzzy, stop calling my dog names.


And you need to learn how to correctly read and stop putting words into my mouth. When I initially said feeble I said I didn't think that of dogs and that I don't think that small corrections were going to damage a dog. You can go back and recheck too. You came on and said that about your dog being shut down. I'm not insulting your dog I'm telling you to stop saying that I'm out to ruin my dog for the rest of his life. I've never thought less of any dog for being anything, if anything I've thought less of people for being cruel to a dog. Once again stop putting words into my mouth. I'm telling you my dog isn't shut down from before I got him. I'm sorry if you think that's some now offensive to your dog but its just now my dog is. Dogs are different that's just how it is, some are soft, some are inbetween some are hard headed. They're not the same and just because its not appropriate to do any of this to your own dog do not impose that and say that I'm somehow doing harm to mine. If at any point he Wasnt himself and being big and goofy there's no question about it, this was doing him any good. And it would need to be remedied. This post is long enough so I'm going to stop ranting but ending. I shouldn't have blown up at you but you need to stop putting words in my mouth and saying that I'm out to break my dog.


----------



## CuddlyKat (Apr 22, 2012)

Laurelin said:


> I totally disagree. I don't do obedience (I find it boring) but good agility is about the closest to purely positive training you will find in real practice. Correcting a dog for doing something wrong is totally counter-productive to building a dog that loves the game and wants to play it at speed.
> 
> the most punishment I've seen in agility with a trainer that knows what they're doing is putting a dog away that wasn't interested in playing at that moment.


I don't see any punishment having a place in agility, you dnt have time, it's high energy and it should be enjoyable for a dog all the time and their handler. It's whats so great about it.


----------



## cookieface (Jul 6, 2011)

doxiemommy said:


> Sorry if I was confusing. I think we are saying the same thing. And, I DO think managing and redirecting are HUGELY appropriate. I was actually quoting you to agree, and to ADD that some people have apparently gotten the idea that, when they are given GENERAL training advice to "ignore the bad and reward the good" it means you can do that with every single "bad" behavior. There are some behaviors you can't ignore, for example, self rewarding behaviors, because if you ignore them, the dog is still being reward for doing them in some way, or also, dangerous behaviors.
> So, I think I was agreeing and adding to what you said.
> 
> I agree, if a trainer only did the "ignore the bad, reward the good" I wouldn't use that trainer. There are situations that warrant other methods. I just think some folks have heard the ignore/reward thing and think it applies to everything.
> And, as for managing and redirecting, I think if you do that correctly, you can prevent some bad behaviors from becoming bad behaviors. If that makes sense.


Got it  I was trying to say the same thing, people hear "reward the good, ignore the bad" and stop listening for the additional instruction that should follow.


----------



## blenderpie (Oct 5, 2012)

cookieface said:


> Got it  I was trying to say the same thing, people hear "reward the good, ignore the bad" and stop listening for the additional instruction that should follow.


I have caught myself saying "ignore the bad" but it never is. It should be "praise the good and ask for an alternate behavior for the bad." This is the easiest example I can think of: when we brought Ellie home, she didn't know "sit" yet, so we ignored her jumping until she had 4 on the floor. While that is still part of our training, if you think I'm going to have visitors in my home or strangers on the street wait her out, you're crazy. I'm asking for a sit before she can jump. And eventually, she'll put together that sitting is how we greet people everytime. If I had just ignored it, she would have stopped jumping, but we would have missed out on the raising of criteria and how smart she is to WANT to figure these things out for herself.

Sorry if that was confusing. It's hard for me to edit posts on my phone.


----------



## petpeeve (Jun 10, 2010)

hanksimon said:


> At least I don't know do fine adjustments, without some form of correction ... or infinitely patient clicking.


Precision reward delivery.


----------



## EagleRiverDee (Mar 14, 2011)

I've always had great relationships with my dogs and I've always used a combination of positive reinforcement and verbal aversives. I will give a firm "NO!" or "OFF!" or "AH-AH!" when the dog does something wrong and I can respond instantly. But my primary focus is on positive training with tons of edible rewards and a marker word "Yes!". (I am going to switch to a clicker, but I'm in class now that uses a marker word rather than a clicker and I'm going to wait to change until we are out of that class) My dog probably gets 200 positive reinforcers (marker word plus treats) for every negative reinforcer she gets, if not more. She's not afraid, but she is learning respect for certain things. I do use a prong collar for her training, because the professional trainer I use wants everyone in the class to use prong collars and extremely lightweight leather leashes (to prevent the dog from being used to constant pressure on their collar just from leash weight alone). Prior to this class, I thought what many people think - that prong collars are cruel. In reality, like most tools, prong collars can be cruel if misused, and can be beneficial when properly used. We have *never* been instructed to "pop" the dog's collar or otherwise use the prong collar to punish the dog and the instructor assists us in the proper set up on the collar and has us hook the leash clip into both rings to disable the "choke" feature. He is adamantly against any form of choke collar. The prong collar is strictly used for training to give the dog sensitivity to what we want from them and it provides instant feedback to the dog - I use an extremely light touch and she responds well. My dog actually loves her prong collar and she loves her training. When I call her to me and exchange her standard collar for her prong collar, she gets super excited because she associates that collar with nothing but positive things. And although the trainer we use does subscribe to what is often called dominance theory on this forum, his methods work. My dog adores him, as do all the dogs in his class. I would describe him as being 99% positive reinforcement, 1% aversive. So based on that, I think the occasional negative reinforcer has its place with many dogs, but must be applied appropriately and at the right level for that dog and no more. I do redirect when possible, rather than use a verbal aversive. We also employ counter conditioning (she came to me from a rescue group four months ago with fear aggression of other dogs and people, which she has nearly completely overcome through counter conditioning and I'm so proud of her.)


----------



## doxiemommy (Dec 18, 2009)

CuddlyKat said:


> I never asked for advice. I said that in my first post that I wasn't looking for advice. I said I wanted to do a discussion about there being a possibility that PR training not being the best option. Because it wasn't something I had considered before and I'm trying to develop my own views for training. What I didn't count on was that people would come down on me for it or having to defend myself. I like different opinions and I have posted calm replies for those who came on and asked questions about things. The only time I say I argued about something was on the one person who suggested I wanted to use methods to break my dog. Which I find to be presumptuous and offensive because no one wants to be accused of basically abusing their dog.


In this post, you quoted Crantastic, and then were answering. I am not forum savvy enough to quote two people, so bear with me. Cran asked "I'm wondering why you asked for opinions. You've argued with every person who answered your question with, "No aversives aren't necessary...." and goes on.
But, when you answered, you said you never asked for ADVICE. Cran didn't ask why you asked for advice, Cran asked why you asked for OPINIONS. And, when you want to start a "discussion" you are going to get opinions, right? 

That's what you said you wanted, right? A discussion? When we discuss things, we give our opinions on it. And, yes, sometimes we even have to DEFEND our opinion if someone questions ours or offers a differing opinion that we don't agree with. Defending your opinion is nothing new in a discussion, albeit a heated one, at times. 

It seems like you were looking for say "yes, there's a possibility that PR training isn't the best option." What happened is, yeah, maybe some people agreed that aversives might be ok in the right hands, at the right exact time, with the right dog, but lots of people also came on to disagree with that premise, and you aren't liking that, and are having to defend your opinion to those people. And, as I said, there's nothing wrong with defending your opinion, if you have beliefs, and other people offering a differing opinion hasn't changed your mind.

But, don't get upset that you have to defend your opinion, when you asked for a discussion, which is a sharing of opinions. Defending one's opinion is something people do daily.


----------



## CuddlyKat (Apr 22, 2012)

doxiemommy: I responded calmly with anyone who asked a question or was equally calm with their responses. That's a discussion but there's also a polite way to discuss things not go nuts with accusations and name calling. So far since posting this I've been called lazy and insinuated to be abusive, going to cause my dog to shut down, wanting to scare my dog into doing what I want etc. That's not a discussion and if this is a productive discussion to you and something you do daily then you must lead a pretty confrontational life. Most of the comments have been not been constructive, considerate, explorative and instead have just been "I'm going to come down on this person for doing something I wouldn't do!!" 

In regards to Crantastic's post, I was referring to the end saying that I was going to do what I wanted to do anyways. I was simply saying I never started this in order to change my mind, question what I was doing. I just thought I would a nice, calm talk to explore since this is a new training thing I've never done before. Once again read!

*"I'm wondering why you asked for opinions. You've argued with everyone who answered your question with, "No, aversives aren't necessary." If your breeder/mentor is so great, why are you even questioning her methods here? You're clearly going to go ahead no matter what we say."*

*"I've always had great relationships with my dogs and I've always used a combination of positive reinforcement and verbal aversives. I will give a firm "NO!" or "OFF!" or "AH-AH!" when the dog does something wrong and I can respond instantly. But my primary focus is on positive training with tons of edible rewards and a marker word "Yes!". (I am going to switch to a clicker, but I'm in class now that uses a marker word rather than a clicker and I'm going to wait to change until we are out of that class) My dog probably gets 200 positive reinforcers (marker word plus treats) for every negative reinforcer she gets, if not more. She's not afraid, but she is learning respect for certain things. I do use a prong collar for her training, because the professional trainer I use wants everyone in the class to use prong collars and extremely lightweight leather leashes (to prevent the dog from being used to constant pressure on their collar just from leash weight alone). Prior to this class, I thought what many people think - that prong collars are cruel. In reality, like most tools, prong collars can be cruel if misused, and can be beneficial when properly used. We have *never* been instructed to "pop" the dog's collar or otherwise use the prong collar to punish the dog and the instructor assists us in the proper set up on the collar and has us hook the leash clip into both rings to disable the "choke" feature. He is adamantly against any form of choke collar. The prong collar is strictly used for training to give the dog sensitivity to what we want from them and it provides instant feedback to the dog - I use an extremely light touch and she responds well. My dog actually loves her prong collar and she loves her training. When I call her to me and exchange her standard collar for her prong collar, she gets super excited because she associates that collar with nothing but positive things. And although the trainer we use does subscribe to what is often called dominance theory on this forum, his methods work. My dog adores him, as do all the dogs in his class. I would describe him as being 99% positive reinforcement, 1% aversive. So based on that, I think the occasional negative reinforcer has its place with many dogs, but must be applied appropriately and at the right level for that dog and no more. I do redirect when possible, rather than use a verbal aversive. We also employ counter conditioning (she came to me from a rescue group four months ago with fear aggression of other dogs and people, which she has nearly completely overcome through counter conditioning and I'm so proud of her.)"*

This is a productive comment. It contains what they do, their opinion and what goes on with THEIR dog. There is nothing about judging me about what I'm doing, nothing debating what I'm doing wrong with my dog etc. THIS is what I expected from this. 

*"I don't know how to prove it, but I believe that a positive method trained dog is sweeter, happier, gentler, and less reactive. This is not to say that a correction based dog doesn't have these qualities. But I think if there were some way to compare apple to apples, you could point to the dog and see the greater confidence. But there are punishment trained dogs that are unflappable and positively trained dogs that are skittish, so I don't have a way to demonstrate."*

This is productive! People can disagree without attacking anyone! That's a discussion. By posting this there was no reason for me to feel attacked or insulted. 

*"You should look up some of Sandy's old posts (PawsK9 I believe was her name here). She was heavily involved in the ASCA and had titled dogs in many sports, including an OTCH, stock titles, agility titles, etc. She was my trainer until she passed away this year and had great insight into training and aussies. She'd gone through all kinds of training methods and when I trained with her, was doing mostly purely positive training with her dogs- as much as is actually possible. Brilliant stuff. I wish I'd been able to train with her longer.

A lot of what you are saying (dog focusing on food, for example) is showing that you really don't get positive training and what it can achieve. I have said before I (and my trainers) do use negative punishment in some occasions and I have seen some drastic situations where positive punishment is used effectively but positive training can do a lot. A lot of these issues can be solved by upping your value and the value of the training game to your dog and by doing some training (ex: food zen to fix the food obsession). 

We do training where we have dogs running agility courses with people lying on the ground or bouncing tennis balls and squeaking toys or dancing around the field. Positive training can overcome distractions. And if it makes any difference there were 2 aussies in that class."*

This goes towards suggesting what I should do but it's not offensive or judging, it's just a suggestion for perhaps a better way to training. I've had no issue with Laurelin's participation in this thread. 

This: 

*"Here's the thing. You're going to try this and see what happens. What if your dog becomes my dog? Kabota is a lovely dog, so well behaved, hardly barks, no trouble at all. Because he learned that doing things gets him pain and fear. So he just doesn't do things. Is that really what you want? You really, really want a dog that it takes 6 months to get a tail wag out of?

Why? Why would you want that?

Maybe you won't get that. Some dogs are "hard" and can take being hit with a 2x4 with equanimity. But you won't know what sort of dog you've got until afterwards. All the regret in the world won't change what you've done then.

That's why I use and have always used PR methods only. They train every dog (and bear and tiger and killer whale) without risking damage to the "feeble minded" ones." 
*

And: 

*"You do realize the dogs of hers you've seen in the ring are the ones who survived the training and had the temperament for it, right? The ones the turned out like Kabota don't ever get seen. That's how that works."*

Is not how you talk to someone productively or in any discussion. There is no discussion. It's insulting and insinuates that not only am I going to go so far as to scar my dog for LIFE and that the person I'm working under damages soooo many dogs and then just tosses them aside because they don't turn out to be what she wants. That is over the top especially since this is someone who won't even push the sale of a pup on someone because she wants them all in good homes. And will keep the pups as long as necessary until they find the right home. I'm offended for her for that post. 

To end my rant, no I'm not upset at defending an opinion. I'm upset that this isn't a forum where someone can just ask for a civil discussion without being accused or attacked. This is a collection of dog lovers, who care enough to be on a forum for DOGS. I have no issue with any of the people who posted disagreeing and saying they do something else, I do have an issue with people not being capable of being civilised and posting without picking a fight and insulting someone. I didn't even insult or disagree with PR. I use PR as much as possible and I agree with it but I thought it interesting that people combine. I subscribe to kikopup and zack and this one girl that has trained with kikopup in switzerland. I just ask that people be civil. This is the second time this has happened to me, where I just post a harmless comment and I got attacked for it. So don't worry, lesson learned, this is not a forum for discussing anything not what the majority agree with.

EDIT: 

I just wanted to thank all the people who just popped on and added their civil opinion and did so without being accusative or mean or harsh. I appreciate it (while that may not mean a lot). I will proceed through training with as much happy times as possible and hopefully be entering his first contest this summer, apparently he should be able to do novice work. And he'll hopefully also be trying sheep in a ring for the first time.


----------



## LoMD13 (Aug 4, 2010)

Laurelin said:


> I totally disagree. I don't do obedience (I find it boring) but good agility is about the closest to purely positive training you will find in real practice. Correcting a dog for doing something wrong is totally counter-productive to building a dog that loves the game and wants to play it at speed.
> 
> the most punishment I've seen in agility with a trainer that knows what they're doing is putting a dog away that wasn't interested in playing at that moment.


Exactly. And the vast majority of the time that things go wrong in agility, it's the person telling the dog the wrong thing, usually unintentionally. I'd have zero interest in agility if punishments were used. The most aversive we get is when Lo misses a weave, I just say OOPS silly girl let's try it again! If she does it wrong again, we go and do something easy to keep her spirits up before tackling those weaves again. If my body language causes her to take a tunnel instead of an A-frame, I'll still praise her for it because SHE did it just fine, it's me that usually needs the punishment haha.


----------



## EagleRiverDee (Mar 14, 2011)

I can see how agility training should solely be done with positives. In my opinion, same goes for recall training. Any aversive, no matter how mild, in recall training can be disastrous. In my previous post where I discussed that I use verbal aversives such as "NO!" or "OFF!" I'm talking about in day-to-day activities and just life. Typically when I'm training I use only positives and redirects. But if my dog is chasing my cat and looks like she means business about it, you can bet there will be a verbal aversive.

Just clarifying.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

EagleRiverDee said:


> I can see how agility training should solely be done with positives. In my opinion, same goes for recall training. Any aversive, no matter how mild, in recall training can be disastrous. In my previous post where I discussed that I use verbal aversives such as "NO!" or "OFF!" I'm talking about in day-to-day activities and just life. Typically when I'm training I use only positives and redirects. But if my dog is chasing my cat and looks like she means business about it, you can bet there will be a verbal aversive.
> 
> Just clarifying.


Recall training is kind of weird. I train it purely positive, and I start with teeny tiny puppies and capitalizing on their desire to follow people around and turn being close and coming to me the greatest game in the world. Seriously, my dogs recall like they're shot out of a canon, even the teenaged puppy. It's awesome, and beautiful, and makes me the happiest person in the world. It's all a game to them and the results have been fantastic. 

You CAN use both compulsion (common) and +P for recall training successfully, though. The compulsion is what happens when the dog is on a long line and you reel it in, I think. Same as placing the dog into a sit and then rewarding for it. You're making the dog do what you want (compeling them) then rewarding. The positive punishment/use of harsher aversives can ONLY be done with an e-collar, though. Otherwise you have to get to your dog to punish it, and at that point the dog thinks you're punishing it for coming to you/you going to it, which is the very opposite of what you want!

Again - I don't use any sort of aversive for recall (or much else, really) and I don't think it's a good idea, but it's very possible to use an e-collar as punishment and train recall because you can punish the dog for NOT coming and take the punishment away when it does.


----------



## BernerMax (Mar 15, 2013)

I am sort of confused. I would never use ANYTHING but positives to teach agility or scentwork or rally or any of those things-- training IS supposed to be Fun.... If your dog isnt perfect, so what its supposed to be a mutually enjoyable enterprise... My use of aversives were for dangerous things (ie yes a biting dog gets PTS, and we needed a good recall in our setting-- and yes she has to recall of of animals, little dogs, tourists on horseback, little kids kicking a soccor ball, the odd homeless person that is acting very oddly and at times provocatively-- there are many, many tempatations in our setting.... And now she recalls. (I tend to use distraction and early recall than waiting last minute, of course)....as well as self rewarding behaviors... Long story..... Anyways she also has a bit of an immature rapprochement response(she always circles back and keeps me in view) so its not just the past history of e collar that causes her to return....


----------



## Greater Swiss (Jun 7, 2011)

KuddlyCat, it is a controversial topic you brought up, and I know I'm not surprised at the responses. I will say though, the "other side of the fence" can be just as adamant that they are right. Any of you who read that blog post that I linked to on "the silent killer" will see what I mean. Very harshly worded and criticizing of the Positive training world. It is a passionate topic from both sides. It is really hard to read through the passion to the points though. I personally have seen that there are great points on both sides. 

Even on the side that uses aversives there are weird biases. At Schutzhund there is a great deal of use of prong collars and physical correction.....I have Caeda on her e collar at Schutzhund as usual (it's the safety net for recall, especially in newer places), I haven't really used it at Schutzhund (except once, for a long down at a distance), but they look at me like I'm weird. As far as they are concerned I've "resorted to" an e collar. I look at them thinking they are weird since they use prongs for harsh corrections, which are on or off....the e collar can be turned very low, or can vibrate or beep. I've tested both e collar and prong on myself and find the ecollar has the capacity to be less painful than a prong (though yes, it could be cranked to really hurt, but that isn't necessary with proper use and conditioning). The prong also doesn't have the ability to cause permanent physical damage with a correction, whereas the prong can hurt the dog's trachea. My personal preference for a prong is just for some "power steering" for a big guy like our foster Diesel (for whom I still use tons of treats to teach him to heel politely). 

Aversives are a big issue, and anyone who has read my posts here, making suggestions to people on anything for training will see that I only ever suggest punishments such as removing the reward, or maybe a firm "No", and I strongly believe that any physical aversive (aside from minor restraint) on a young puppy is unwarranted. The only time I think I'd ever truly recommend an aversive is to a fairly intelligent person who understands the importance of timing and level, is training recall. As has been mentioned, the only way to correct a dog for recall is with an e collar. Caeda always wears hers off leash, and she has been conditioned to it. I have screwed up with it, yes, she yelped once, and I almost cried (ugh, forget almost), but she was running for a dog that I knew hated her (and was old, feeble and in pain) and probably would have torn her to shreds. As bad as I felt, I'd rather have the yelp than the potential death or maiming.

As for the laziness comments. Fine....I'm lazy. I would rather use the prong on Diesel for the power steering than spend 6 months and still have never taken him for a proper walk. He needed those walks, and is certainly none the worse for having had the prong on, actually its pretty gentle compared to the wounds he had on his neck when we got him from being tethered (btw, he was thoroughly healed before we even tried a prong on him). 

It is also very hard to understand the degree of aversive people are talking about in a forum situation. When someone says they corrected with a prong collar, horrible images of a dog being just yanked hard on a prong collar until they are yelping and screaming are hard to not imagine, or yanking hard out of frustration or anger. When I hear of a new owner on here saying they got a prong collar I get those images in my head too. A lot of people treat aversive tools as magic wands which they can seem like, but yes, can damage the relationship with the dog if used that way, and much faster. Aversives can't be taken lightly, actually no training should be taken lightly, all training affects the dog and their personality during their upbringing either positively or negatively, how it goes depends on the dog....something that can also be hard to understand in a forum setting, the exact temperament and reactions of the dog. The needs and temperament of the owner need to be taken into account too.


----------



## CrimsonAccent (Feb 17, 2012)

CuddlyKat, I would like to step in and politely defend Amaryllis, who has always had my respect and who has always, IMHO had productive posts.

You later say that you expect people to put dogs first on a dog forum; totally understandable. While there were a few sentences in Amaryllis' replies that could be taken as "over the top" it is all with the interests of the DOGS first, rather than the feelings of the owner. Harsh and perhaps rude? Yes. But it's putting the dog first. Amaryllis was just sharing their experience with how aversives had a very bad effect on their dog. It's very important to get every side of the issue, yes? I think its valid to bring up that with aversives, if you go too far (accidentally or on purpose) you have a high chance of damaging the dog, while positive/reward based training doesn't have the potential for such a worrying fall out.

Honestly, within the context of this discussion, I don't see anything to warrant writing off what Amaryllis has to say (how it is coming off to me, but tone is very hard to tell on the internet, so please correct me if I'm wrong).

If it makes you feel better, Amaryllis has a very consistent responses to this topic. Sometimes I suspect they copy and paste 

Good luck with your dog, I hope y'all are successful in all that y'all do. I encourage you to stick around, I've learned tons here.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

CuddlyKat, I wanted to address some things after your last post.

First is the lazy comment. Not sure if you're offended by my posts specifically, but I did bring up the "lazy" thing so I want to explain. Yes, I do think it is lazy training to get out a prong collar for an adolescent dog who is smart and biddable, but doing poorly in distracting environments. I also think it's lazy training to get a front clip harness and use it for walks instead of doing a ton of leash training, but I'm guilty of doing that  Taking the lazy way out isn't always bad if you have other priorities. If you don't want to spend a ton of time training one thing, or you want to put off the training until later, that's fine, but the lazy method you choose should not have negative consequences for the dog. I can put on my front clip harness and not worry about leash training for an entire walk, and I also don't have to worry about it making my dog uncomfortable or shutting him down. Just be fully aware of the methods you're using and why you are using them and if the reason you're using them is because you don't have the time or experience to teach it positively, then be aware of that and admit it. It doesn't mean that it can't or shouldn't be trained positively. Have you worked with an experienced and qualified PR trainer with him yet? I'm unclear from your posts if you have or not.

I'm also not 100% against prong collars in the right hands for the right dogs. However, nothing you have said about your dog makes me think he's a candidate. I could be wrong here, but from your description he's a good dog, who learns quickly and wants to please, and is an adolescent. Everybody goes through these things with smart teenage dogs and bringing coercive methods into the equation is a dangerous road to go down. I don't advocate letting your dog blow you off, and I do think you have to be extremely consistent with them, but there are better methods. One time I allowed my trainer to physically place my dog into a down/stay when he repeatedly blew me off (I know he is capable of a 10 second down/stay in a low distraction environment). She didn't hurt him, and didn't use a prong or anything especially aversive, but I can tell you that the experience freaked him out and shut him down momentarily. No, it didn't ruin him, and he still loves that instructor, and maybe he did learn that when she says "down" she means "down", but I wouldn't do it again. Once or twice is not going to break him, but making that method a regular part of my training program might. At the very least, I don't want to use any training method that causes that type of confusion and level of discomfort (even momentarily) in a dog who wants nothing more than to make me happy 95% of the time.

My final point is that, to me, the ends don't justify the means. Many dog trainers are highly successful, but that doesn't mean I agree with their methods or would use them on my dogs. Yes, I want the people who instruct me to be successful in the sports I'm interested in, but I also want to understand the methods they are using and have an opinion about those methods one way or the other.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

> Honestly, within the context of this discussion, I don't see anything to warrant writing off what Amaryllis has to say (how it is coming off to me, but tone is very hard to tell on the internet, so please correct me if I'm wrong).


I agree with the above, I'm an aversive based trainer 95% prongs and whatever else is needed (PR included) I really stay off the which is best method. Amaryllis was stating a possibility of what could happen with any amateur and any dog and any prong. Problem with amateurs is there are some that get instruction/training from pros but when amateur is at home decide if a small correction is good a larger correction is better. Then there is the amateur that gets mad and goes into an ego frenzy with their dog. This has nothing to do with OP just things that do/can occur.


----------



## RabbleFox (Jan 23, 2013)

As to dogs who need walks but haven't learned leash manners yet, Im always a advocate for the front clip harness or head halti rather than a prong. Front clippies and haltis give you control on your daily exercise walks but do not have the potential to damage your dog. Mentally or physically. Depending on the dog, the halti maybe or not recommended. Pepper was never a lunger so we never had to worry abou him snapping his own neck. Other dogs who tend to lunge? Front clippie for you! Both training tools allow you to walk your dog in peace. Then you have a shorter, training based loose leash walk. No prong or choke required.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Greater Swiss said:


> Aversives can't be taken lightly, actually no training should be taken lightly, all training affects the dog and their personality during their upbringing either positively or negatively, how it goes depends on the dog....something that can also be hard to understand in a forum setting, the exact temperament and reactions of the dog. The needs and temperament of the owner need to be taken into account too.


This is it, for me, and is always going to be.

I've said it before, and I've said it again - my advice here, and what I am going to promote, is always going to lean toward the safest advice to give. You can train a dog WRONG with a clicker and treats and end up training the wrong thing, but you are unlikely to physically or psychologically damage the dog. There are situations that aversives are fine for, and I don't outright hate prongs or e-collars. I am not, however, not going to respond to someone saying they are using one, or asking for advice about electronic collars, with 'oh, cool'. I don't know the owner, the dog, or if there's a trainer. When a situation that I believe actually NEEDS those methods crops up, my response is 'go find a professional trainer or behaviorist'. 

If you'd presented this academically, with 'do you believe there is a place for aversives in training', and some of your speculation (about wanting a dog you can get into a ring) hadn't come into play, personalizing it for both you and us, I suspect that the answers you would have gotten would have been different. There still would have been a heavy promotion of positive training, and we would have leaned toward assuming the harshest corrections were what were being discussed, but the personal (and insulting) aspects wouldn't have come into play.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

I found these two pages interesting/enlightening:

I Had To... (Suzanne Clothier)
Pinch Me A.K.A. Prong Me


----------



## EagleRiverDee (Mar 14, 2011)

@ Greater Swiss - I just read that blog post "Silent Killer" - thanks for posting that.


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

Crantastic said:


> Like others have said, that is negative punishment and that's something that positive trainers do! (I know, it's confusing that "negative punishment" is "good" and "positive punishment" is "bad" -- this page briefly explains.) It's the same thing as giving a nipping puppy a "time out" to teach him that when he nips, the fun stops. _Positive_ punishment would be if you shocked Izzy or gave her a harsh collar correction every time she got snarky with the ball.


It was josefina not Izze that used to get snarky when she was younger ... But I think it was just that she would get over stimulated ... It was frustrating at the time, but I did some reading (some of them were your links, Cranastic. Thank you  ) & got a lot more patient once I understood WHY she was doing it. 

Like when buddy killed a rabbit in the yard & was eating it (ewwwwww! >_<) instead of saying "NO BAD DOG! Drop it!" ... Something I would have done back in the day before I know what I know now) I just grabbed a piece of hot dog & approached him & cheerily asked "what's that!" I fed him a small piece of the hot dog & then told him to come here so I could scoop up the rabbit & tossed it over the fence lol, I fed him a few more pieces of hot dog so it didn't even miss it


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

Cran, I really like that Suzanne Clothier article. That about sums it up for me. If you are going to use an aversive, specifically +P, know what you are doing and why. If you don't know exactly why you are doing it and how to do it correctly, just don't do it. Doing the extra work is worth it to me to avoid having to use +P in the first place if I can help it.

As for "The Silent Killer" article, I was pretty meh about it. I see what the author is trying to say, but I've never once met a trainer who was 100% positive and would rather put a dog to sleep than do what was necessary to keep the dog and humans safe. He seems to be arguing against a phantom trainer that he has created, the same way some positive people might assume all trainers who use prong collars must be stringing dogs up and beating them. I'm sure pure positive people exist, and I'm sure abusive trainers exist, but our general arguments exist in the space between with people who use varying degrees of each of the four quadrants. Hyperbole on either side isn't really constructive at the end of the day.


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

CuddlyKat said:


> Don't know yet right now she just has young dogs just getting started like mine or the others are already trained. The ones that do agility, stock and obedience all have the same enthusiasm for just working. And when they do it they don't have anything on them, no shock collar, nothing they just listen to her voice. But from what I gather the positive currency she uses is praise and being happy with the dog and sometimes they get a treat when they're done like a piece of cooked steak or another food treat. And by done I mean with the training session no like each trick. The younger dogs are basically at the same level with mine because they're from the same litter or from a litter around that time. But like if she works one on a course and not the other he's like upset until he gets to do something. They enjoy what they're doing, it's like meeting true farm dogs that like they're happy to be working.
> 
> That was a tangent. I haven't done an agility class with her yet, my dog isn't ready to do jumps and such. I have done a different agility class with him but it was like just seeing what the equipment is and walking through the jumps and walking over the A-Frame. I decided to mentor under his breeder and this entails classes with her and stuff. I had a really good experience so I posted on here regarding a training method that isn't positive reinforcement. Like it's positive with the consistent praise and throwing a 'party' when the dog gets it right but it also has corrections for unwanted things. Idk why I always wind up on a tangent when you asked such a simple thing >_<


You (someone might correct me but this is based on my experience with herding dogs) cant train a dog not to be kicked by a cow, thats IME something they have to learn ... sometimes the hard way. But a good dog learns from being kicked ... & becomes a better working dog for it. 

IMO its kind of unrealistic to expect a dog to work stock ... esp cattle & not expect or at least be prepared for the fact that they might get kicked or trampled. You also cant call the dog back, if he doesnt learn to gain a cows respect on his own they wont respect him.


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

CptJack said:


> Yep. It's a pretty rare dog that will work if they know, for absolute sure, that you have no treats at all. Kylie will. The others? They perform for the hope that maybe this time there will be a treat. It's why I carry treats in my pockets and randomize the reward. They MIGHT get one, so they give it a go. Eventually it becomes habit, I think, but there's a long between stage.


Agreed.

I have one dog, Buddy who is very motivated by food ( I think he was a pig in just last life LOL the boy will walk over hot coals for bits of the same kibble he eats for dinner xD ) the others? the oppertunity to work is their reward ... want to me to throw the ball? you have to do something for me first. With my ACDs i made the WORK the reward because when they are revved up, food is the last thing they want


----------



## EagleRiverDee (Mar 14, 2011)

elrohwen said:


> As for "The Silent Killer" article, I was pretty meh about it. I see what the author is trying to say, but I've never once met a trainer who was 100% positive and would rather put a dog to sleep than do what was necessary to keep the dog and humans safe. He seems to be arguing against a phantom trainer that he has created, the same way some positive people might assume all trainers who use prong collars must be stringing dogs up and beating them. I'm sure pure positive people exist, and I'm sure abusive trainers exist, but our general arguments exist in the space between with people who use varying degrees of each of the four quadrants. Hyperbole on either side isn't really constructive at the end of the day.


I haven't met a trainer like that, but there are definitely people on this forum that are like that. Every time a thread like this comes up, you'll see a number of people preach that positive rewards with no aversives is the only way to train any dog, period and will accuse people who use any aversives of abusing or screwing up their dogs.


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

Laurelin said:


> You should look up some of Sandy's old posts (PawsK9 I believe was her name here). She was heavily involved in the ASCA and had titled dogs in many sports, including an OTCH, stock titles, agility titles, etc. She was my trainer until she passed away this year and had great insight into training and aussies. She'd gone through all kinds of training methods and when I trained with her, was doing mostly purely positive training with her dogs- as much as is actually possible. Brilliant stuff. I wish I'd been able to train with her longer.


OMG Sandy passed away? I had no idea ... I am so sorry to hear that & am sad now


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

EagleRiverDee said:


> I haven't met a trainer like that, but there are definitely people on this forum that are like that. Every time a thread like this comes up, you'll see a number of people preach that positive rewards with no aversives is the only way to train any dog, period and will accuse people who use any aversives of abusing or screwing up their dogs.


You can NOT base that off this forum. I believe I kind of covered that, but if you really expect a bunch of forum goers, who don't know the dog, owner or trainer to recommend anything but the safe option-- 

Go to a professional is as far as I will go. Preferably a positive one, first. I'm not giving people advice or 'permission' (that they don't need) to do something that, if done wrong, may screw up the dog, or get themselves or someone else bitten. If the situation is minor enough to be handled on an internet forum, management and reward based training will cover it, if not quickly. If those things WON'T cover it the answer is not 'use a correction' it is 'go to a professional'. I don't know their skill level. I don't know their experience. I don't know their dog. Telling them to do that kind of thing, over the internet, while knowing nothing about them or their dog or their experience, is.... foolishness, or at least really irresponsible. 

And pointing out that positive training CAN accomplish what most people need accomplished, or logic failure (praise isn't positive if the dog doesn't care about listening to you to begin with, and if it did you wouldn't need the correction), or even pointing out the risks associated with the training method is not the same as saying 'let the dog die' if it's a serious issue. IT means here, on this forum, I am not recommending anything but positive methods or a professional trainer.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

Pretty much what CptJack said. 

Also, since this post did become personal after the OP shared information about her dog, I still don't see any need for aversives. From what she has described, her dog is not aggressive or fearful or in any way dangerous to himself or others. He sounds like a totally normal (if not smarter and more biddable than average even) adolescent dog who is more interested in his environment than listening to her. That's not anything that can't be overcome by good PR training, IMO. If we're really speaking generally about whether aversives are ever necessary, then that's a different discussion, but not really the way this topic has gone.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

elrohwen said:


> If we're really speaking generally about whether aversives are ever necessary, then that's a different discussion, but not really the way this topic has gone.


And this. 

Seriously, 'Is there ever a time for aversives', asked as a hypothetical, you'd get different answers than you are going to get asking about them in relation to a distractable adolescent puppy. 

The leap from not thinking corrections are necessary/beneficial/that the benefit outweighs the risk for a teenage puppy does not mean 'would never, ever, use them'.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

Yep. I don't villainize someone like wvasko for using aversives. I know he cares about dogs and has many years of experience training them. I know he has good timing and that he won't use too much force. I know that he doesn't buy into dominance/alpha stuff and that he doesn't believe in using aversives on puppies. I may not use the same techniques as him, but I'm not going to condemn him. However, I am _never_ going to suggest that some amateur asking for advice on a dog forum use aversives. I only recommend positive techniques because if they mess those up, they are not going to harm the dog. I will note that I never see wvasko and the other trainers here who use aversives recommending that posters use them without contacting a professional, either. As people who understand the techniques, they know how easy it can be for an amateur to mess up.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

dogdragoness said:


> OMG Sandy passed away? I had no idea ... I am so sorry to hear that & am sad now


Yes, she lost her battle with cancer around the new year. We all miss her here. .


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

As far as the original question, I do not have a problem with well timed and placed corrections and have seen them work very effectively in different situations with the right dogs. Could the same thing have been done via positive reinforcement? Probably but it would not have been done in a realistic and safe time frame in those situations. However, I don't really encourage them, especially online, because of the propensity for people to get it wrong. I would be lying if I said I did not use ANY punishment at all, although I do not tend to go over a verbal correction these days. 

I also am extremely skeptical of trainers that start every dog in a class on a prong or a choke. I think it's silly and overkill to be frank. I've been there done that with a trainer like that and it was a bad experience and yes, there's been fallout from the dog subjected to it. Any trainers that REQUIRE correction collars for their classes are trainers I will not go to. 

I am also extremely skeptical when it is brought up that the dog just doesn't want to listen so I will correct him. I think there is a foundation problem there that is lack of drive for whatever you're doing. So the trainer is failing to motivate the dog, hasn't prepared the dog for that level of distraction, or just plain hasn't put down base work of getting the dog to really tune in to you. Things like 'the dog focusing on treats' are easily solved without correction. 

I am also very very skeptical of trainers that only use praise as their 'reward'. Praise is not a good motivator for most dogs. It may work for some dogs that are very driven by doing things but not most, who need something much higher value to get going. I see this a lot with 'old school' trainers. I think it's a hard habit for people to break because they see food/toys as 'bribes'. There is a lady in my agility class that is older and has working border collies. She's trialled them in stockdog trials and is now doing agility. She really struggles with rewarding (and timing the reward) the dog in agility, probably because stock work, the dog working is the reward. It's just a different mindset.

Online I see a lot of people getting frustrated over very basic issues then they resort to a correction. If the person doesn't understand the problem and the underlying root cause of the problem, why would I want to encourage them to correct their dog? In all likelihood they will correct the wrong thing or too hard or...

I also think there is an issue with getting 'correction happy'. A correction timed right and used sparingly is one thing but there are so many people that use corrections as a crutch to train EVERYTHING. Or even most things. It's not needed, imo. Starting out with correction in hand is once again overkill.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

What really bugs me is the "punishment as training" model, which I was taught at all the dog classes I've been to, and I'm pretty sure is the Koehler method. Puppy moves out of heel position? Jerk him back. The poor pup has no idea what's expected of him, what the proper position is, or even what the heck is going on here. That's the worst, IMO. If he understood what was going on and didn't do it, the punishment might be more fair (still unnecessary and not nice), but hurting him when he doesn't even know what's what is just plain sadistic (and teaching kids to do that to their dogs is. . .hmm, extra sadistic?).


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

Laurelin said:


> Yes, she lost her battle with cancer around the new year. We all miss her here. .


I am very sorry to hear that, I had no idea   godsspeed to her.

I also used to use the Koehler method & spinoff of it when I was younger. but as I started rescuing more dogs & after having a couple of fearful dogs, it became clear to me that although the method when applied CORRECTLY (& i did study under people who knew how to aply it correctly AND knew dog body language & behavior... not those like a certain "celeb dog trainer" who think they do but dont). 

they knew when to give a correction & how it would effect the dog they were working with & how it would effect the dog's view of the situation, & its surroundings. they were smart enough to know not to leash pop or punish a reactive dog who is over threshold & fixated on whatever they are reactive too.

that being said, I may be more positive now but i am not above tapping bear lightly & using a stern "hey!" to him when he tries to grab the ball from me as i try to scoop it up with the chuck it launcher. 

aversives are IMHO fine as long as they arent emotionally damaging to the dog, or abusive (okay ... lets use common sense when defining "abusive"). Some dogs need to know "Okay ... when i dont listen, i lose privlages" others just need to be shown what to do INSTEAD.

take Buddy for example: because he is already afraid of doing the wrong thing, so i consider the fact that he offers ANY behavior ... even the wrong one a victory. it gives me an oppertunity to be like "that was a nice try but this is what i want you to do INSTEAD" I PRAISE his CHOICE to offer a bahavior beecause it means that he is gaining confidence.

we also work on building confidence excersises during our walks, i will ask him to step over something, usually a low log, something i know he knows he can do, something i know he could do on his own & i do it with him. when he does it its the biggest party ever & i treat it like he just jumped across the grand canyon.

the result? he now has graduated to jumping over 2 ft obsticles now by himself on his own with just an encouraging "come on, lets jump!" from me! . Now i know that might not sound like a huge accomplishment but if you knew this dog when i first got him, a dog who wouldnt even walk on a leash because he had no confidence you'd be impressed too.

i also got smart (remember the problems I was having breaking through to him?) with a behavorist friend of mine to see how I could help him, because it was obivous to help him i was going to need more experienced help then just doing it myself. Im not too proud to admit that I need help, i love my dog enough to be comfortable admitting that i am not the worlds greatest dog trainer & there are dogs that i cant help on my own.


----------



## petpeeve (Jun 10, 2010)

> I'd love to talk to someone that seriously competes about they're training.


 Really, that 'someone' should be your mentor. Or even your teacher if that's the case. 

Personally, I'd expect a true mentor to have many more tools in their toolbox beyond prongs praise and a small piece of steak at the end of the day, but that's just me. 

Genuinely curious if she actually titles her own dogs in obedience or agility .... or something .... by using this method of teaching ?


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

> Personally, I'd expect a true mentor to have many more tools in their toolbox beyond prongs praise and a small piece of steak at the end of the day, but that's just me.


Add me to that list, 1st 50 dogs trained I just had a tool belt , that did not hold many tools at all but thinking back I also had some luck, the luck told me there had to be better/easier ways. Through the years many tools added. (now a large tool shed)


----------



## Greater Swiss (Jun 7, 2011)

CptJack said:


> You can NOT base that off this forum. I believe I kind of covered that, but if you really expect a bunch of forum goers, who don't know the dog, owner or trainer to recommend anything but the safe option--
> .............
> 
> IT means here, on this forum, I am not recommending anything but positive methods or a professional trainer.


 Cpt Jack, I do agree with your post completely, except that it can be based off of this forum a bit. There are a lot of people who pull out the words "lazy" and such when someone mentions aversives, and are in general pretty impolite about it. I remember when I first came on here I asked about e collars. Not looking for permission, but asking about them. There were a few answers along the lines of "they can work for some people, but you should really consult a professional as to whether it is really necessary, try positive first" and such. Somewhat helpful responses which I completely understand now that I've had some experience with e collars. Not something you recommend to random Joe on the street that you don't actually know, and might just get abusive and zap-happy with their "magic obedience wand". Many responses were pretty vehement and made me feel as though I were a disgusting, lazy, abusive monster for even considering it. For a newbie to the whole thing it was pretty hard for me to get past. I did consult a professional, several in fact, not in person, but through some private forums (real names used, you can look these people up, etc). I did find one or two individuals whose idea was "zap until you get compliance", I had the wits to ignore that BS and get some very good guidance from some very experienced people who walked me through issues a step at a time. 

Basically, what I'm saying is that when people come to this forum asking about aversives, there are lots of accusatory comments. Guidance to a more positive method in a more respectful way would be much better, I'm not saying most people aren't respectful, but there are some pretty strongly worded villainizing posts that I've seen. If people who are considering a more aversive method come here for help some could be driven away by some of these "mean" posts, and they'll go along and do what they were doing anyway, rather than being guided to trying something else first, or guided to a professional for help. When the nasty stuff comes out, I know in the past I've just read through and not absorbed any of the useful stuff in there because especially as a newbie, who cares about their dog, the feeling of guilt, and being informed of being a bonafide demon can be somewhat off-putting. Even worse is when people DO go to a professional who is using somewhat aversive methods and these new people get slammed for it (along with the occasional gentle reminder to maybe try a different trainer first, which can be overlooked in the seemingly harsh criticism). 

I remember mentioning that I was considering a prong for Caeda because all of the positive leash training was going nowhere and I was having a hard time handling her (I had an injury at the time and it was literally painful). I got criticized for being an idiot who got a dog that was too big for me to handle, since of course large dogs are "stylish". That certainly wasn't the case, and it certainly wasn't constructive or helpful (to make it worse, I know the person was a trainer). Then there are rants by well known trainers against any aversives. I'm sure several people here have seen kikopup/Emily Yharlam's anti e-collar/prong collar video post on Youtube. I think she is a brilliant trainer and watch most of her videos, but her intensity against any aversives is a little much. 

I do completely agree though, on an internet forum, especially one where we don't know the people or dogs, or the circumstances even, very well. Positive methods advice only, far safer. For the OP, If the trainer is good with the somewhat aversive methods, and both the trainer and OP watch the dog carefully, and it isn't having any fall out. Yeah, it is faster using an aversive, but if there is NO fall out at all (something WE can't tell or insist that we know!), I say it is efficient rather than lazy, which isn't necessarily a bad thing but that's just me.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

GreaterSwiss, I do see what you mean about the vehemence of some of the posts, but I honestly don't see very many that are "mean" (and I don't mean just in this thread, I mean overall on this forum). Honestly, I think people here are generally pretty polite and make a lot of really helpful points. It's easy to read into things as personal attacks when you're talking about a sensitive subject (ie your dog who you love), but most of the advice that I see here isn't personal in nature. And sometimes there are one or two mean posts and I think it's easy to get overly fixated on those and miss the good points that are being made by others.

And as far as the "lazy" thing goes, I explained my reason for using that word earlier. It's not meant as a personal insult and I will readily admit to taking the easy or "lazy" way out sometimes. I just strongly feel that the "easy way out" shouldn't involve methods that are potentially painful to the dog unless positive methods have been fully exhausted, which it doesn't sound like they are in the OP's case. I think at the minimum it's important to realize when you are doing something because it seems like a quick fix or the most efficient way and decide if it's worth it in the end, but I have no idea if the OP has considered it like that. I use a front clip harness on my dog, but I fully admit that it is a quick fix and I'm too "lazy" to devote the necessary time to leash walking right now. I would never say that positive leash training methods just don't work for him - it's clearly my issue and I've decided to prioritize other training goals over that for the moment.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

elrohwen said:


> GreaterSwiss, I do see what you mean about the vehemence of some of the posts, but I honestly don't see very many that are "mean" (and I don't mean just in this thread, I mean overall on this forum). Honestly, I think people here are generally pretty polite and make a lot of really helpful points. It's easy to read into things as personal attacks when you're talking about a sensitive subject (ie your dog who you love), but most of the advice that I see here isn't personal in nature. And sometimes there are one or two mean posts and I think it's easy to get overly fixated on those and miss the good points that are being made by others.
> 
> And as far as the "lazy" thing goes, I explained my reason for using that word earlier. It's not meant as a personal insult and I will readily admit to taking the easy or "lazy" way out sometimes. I just strongly feel that the "easy way out" shouldn't involve methods that are potentially painful to the dog unless positive methods have been fully exhausted, which it doesn't sound like they are in the OP's case. I think at the minimum it's important to realize when you are doing something because it seems like a quick fix or the most efficient way and decide if it's worth it in the end, but I have no idea if the OP has considered it like that. I use a front clip harness on my dog, but I fully admit that it is a quick fix and I'm too "lazy" to devote the necessary time to leash walking right now. I would never say that positive leash training methods just don't work for him - it's clearly my issue and I've decided to prioritize other training goals over that for the moment.



Yeah, pretty much this. I've said before and will again that I do some really lazy things with my dogs, because they're not the most important for me. I do think choosing a method *that has the potential to harm the dog* based soley on ease is a bad idea, but lazy in and of itself isn't really an insult. It's just commentary on motivation. If your motivation is fast and easy, go for it. I just think going for it should not be done to the detriment to the dog. And since, as you and I both said, I can't know the dog, the owner, or the trainer.... *shrugs* It's back to recommending positive methods. 

I mean really, the options for me and all I will promote here, ever, is 'seek professional help from someone you know, trust, and investigate and whom uses primarily positive methods if at all possible' for serious issues and 'use the positive method' for non-serious ones. 

And in this particular thread, we're dealing with a teenaged puppy who is acting like a teenage puppy.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

I've been thinking more on this and of course must subject you guys to my thoughts... I get told I talke too much sometimes.

Now hopefully I don't offend the 'dinosaurs' as wvasko puts it. I think it is invaluable to have an experienced breeder/mentor. I go to my breeders a lot for advice and appreciate it. You cannot replace years of experience. that said, I have noticed in my breed (and I am sure in others) that the older generation sometimes is stuck in their ways and not very open to newer ideas. I am not just talking about training, I've not talked training at all with my breeders, but I am talking about things like new health tests, new breeding policies, etc. There is sometimes a lot of 'well this worked for me for 20 years, why do I need to go through this OFA now? Health testing has been a big issue in the breed. So questioning or doing things a bit different isn't always bad. Just because some experienced people don't do it this way doesn't mean it's the wrong thing to do.



Laurelin said:


> I also am extremely skeptical of trainers that start every dog in a class on a prong or a choke. I think it's silly and overkill to be frank. I've been there done that with a trainer like that and it was a bad experience and yes, there's been fallout from the dog subjected to it. Any trainers that REQUIRE correction collars for their classes are trainers I will not go to.


And to further elaborate, the dog here has not had severe fallout but I do see fallout. He is a happy, confident, well rounded little dog. But a correction collar was a poor choice for him and it's something that has been difficult to overcome training him now. He's not shut down at all but he lacks that love for training and that creativity I find that comes with dogs taught via positive methods and esp shaping.

The trainer involved was not evil or wanting to abuse dogs or shut them down. He was what he called a 'balanced' trainer. Treats and praise and chokes and prongs. He'd titled several dogs of a couple breeds before. It's been about 7 years now but looking back I see a lot that wasn't good- not for my dog or in general. I just think it's a good thing to keep in mind.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

> Now hopefully I don't offend the 'dinosaurs' as wvasko puts it.


As I'm probably the only dinosaur here and I'm not offended there should not be any problems.



> but I am talking about things like new health tests, new breeding policies, etc.


Well there are idiots in every line of work that fail to keep in touch with real world. When I was in school there were no calculators, we had to learn something called the multipication tables. 

I recently purchased a PC with W7 OS and had to reinstall all my apps on new unit, then purchased W7 disc from Wal Mart and reformatted older XP machine to W7 and using it as a backup PC. All done was done trial and error no computer learning classes. Very similar to my dog training, (dog training much more fun) OFA stuff has been here a long time and was used by this dinosaur because it made sense.

The point is people that can't keep up are left behind to complain about how hard life is.


----------



## Greater Swiss (Jun 7, 2011)

elrohwen said:


> GreaterSwiss, I do see what you mean about the vehemence of some of the posts, but I honestly don't see very many that are "mean" (and I don't mean just in this thread, I mean overall on this forum).


You are right....not many are mean, but even the more firmly worded, or opinionated ones (which for the most part are still fine), can be pretty overwhelming to a "newbie". In the scheme of things I am sill a newbie, but have done LOTS of reading and had lots of experiences in the last while to make myself comfortable and confident with my own opinions and feelings on training styles (but strive to keep an open mind to constructive criticism of course!). I have been very recently on the absolute newbie side of the fence, and am still VERY much on the newbie side of the fence with the dog rehab issue, so the "feeling like an idiot/stupid" sensation when people who take particular things for granted say something that isn't self evident to me, is still fresh in my mind. Many here (and everywhere on the internet!) state opinions as facts, and with authority which can also be thoroughly confusing for a new person. Some here (and having been around here on and off for a while) have some justification to do that, others don't, and on an open forum it's hard to know without being around for a while who those people are (not to say that everyone's input doesn't hold great potential value!). It doesn't help that forums are a perfect recipe for misinterpretation lol. On any forum that people go to they SHOULD be ready for some tough opinions, but on such a sensitive subject (a well loved dog, never mind the aversive issue!) it can be hard to take. 

Cpt Jack, you are right though, in this particular case, it does sound a lot like an adolescent being what it is, but the OP was looking for a discussion too, which she has gotten lol.


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

Most of the people who come on this forum asking for training advice are not that experienced with dogs or haven't had much good experience with dogs. Plus, there are so many factors that anyone who might offer advice here simply can't know. We weren't there, so we didn't see the behavior and all we have to go off of is the poster's descriptions and anecdotes. With that in mind, most of us will only offer advice that, even if it backfires, has a very low risk involved. Add to that the fact that very few of us are professionals here and, yes, we tend to rely very heavily on positive reinforcement as a knee-jerk response to any training question. It's the least likely to do any harm and most of us don't want to do any harm.

I've owned several dogs and was raised with a variety of dogs. I've used several different training methods and, whenever I ran into issues with a dog, I was willing to consider all options and see what would work best for the dog. Over time, I've come to use more and more positive methods and become more and more sparse with corrections...because I've seen in my own experience that the risk vs. benefit of positive methods works for me. If I ran across an issue that had to be fixed quickly or it could result in serious consequences for the dog (like the snake bite example), then I would use whatever method was necessary to protect the dog, so I suppose I'm still not a 100% positive trainer in that regard. Still, to me, the aversives are what I would go to only after ruling out any possible positive methods and then I would apply them consciously and carefully.

We had GSD's growing up that were trained in what was probably the Kohler method, with choke chains and plenty of corrections. They were well-behaved and good dogs and wonderful companions. But...I didn't like having to train that way. I approached training with them like it was work and much preferred the time outside of training when I could play with them. To me, relying far more on positive reinforcement takes the "work" feel out of training for me and makes training more of play for both of us. I enjoy that more, so if I can get the same results with those methods, even if it takes longer and more patience, I'll opt for that any day and I'll certainly recommend those methods to anyone who is already emotional and frustrated with their dog over methods that would potentially lead them to take out that frustration on their dog, particularly to a stranger I don't know over the internet.


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

I think the biggest issue here is what can be responsibly suggested over the internet. Aversives on the wrong dog at the wrong time can produce aggression, fear and exacerbate the problem. There just isn't the same risk with positive methods. The worst you could possibly do is ingrain some bad habits, you won't end up with serious damage or a lifetime problem. I think PP techniques are just fine when used thoughtfully and compassionately, but if people want to use them they need to be asking a professional about implementing them. Not the internet.

Edit: completely wrong word!


----------



## CuddlyKat (Apr 22, 2012)

Well i had a post responding to most things but that didn't work soooo I just have to try and remember what I had before kind of. I didn't think anyone kept responding after my long ramble. 

*CrimsonAccent:* I have nothing against Amaryllis as a person. I've seen him/her post around the forum and most of the time I agree and I don't know him/her so I can't have something against Amaryllis personally. But I don't appreciate what was said since they don't know me either and the comparisons and comments and suggestions made were not delivered in anywhere near being polite. Like suggesting I somehow look down on 'feeble' dogs even though all I said was I don't consider them to be feeble. My dog isn't hard headed or tough but not really considered soft and I enjoy his personality and it makes him easier to train and deal with. 

*elrohwen:* I didn't know who made the comment and tbh I was too lazy to go back and look >_< I was just making a point about the fact that I just wanted to start a talk and not get advice about training and that being accused really isn't constructive. I'm not one to use anything corrective (besides vocal), I've never used it on any other dog. 

*I know I said this wasn't about me or my dog but since that has already been brought up: *

Backstory to that is that since his testicles dropped, he's started a bit of pulling but the tree method and treats never really worked. In a public class I was enrolled in with him, a border collie friend of his that was a month earlier had a bigger issue with pulling and jumping up and biting his owner, so they got suggested to have a prong and then I said nah. I didn't think it was necessary at the time and he was doing well when told to calm down with the nipping. I got him out of nipping most of the time (I think I have a thread about the nipping) but the pulling never ceased and while he did well in general if he saw another dog he would lose concentration. With the added weight (he's growing) he's managed to actually pull me forward. Twice he pulled enough to get off collar and while I was sick I physically couldn't manage walking him for long. I had bought a gentle leader a little after he got off leash the first time, of course you put it on and he's no longer pulling. Tried to get him to understand the concept of walking calmly but when I did without it he went back (so I carried it in my bag). He hated it on his face. And once as we stopped in the shade to just relax, he jumped into some brush and started rolling about and acting nuts and he scraped under his eye. With that he couldn't wear it anymore because it would agitate that. The person at the petstore said that the front halter actually pulls to the side on certain breeds when they pull. After three days of being around the breeder and seeing him not able to settle she suggested trying a diff collar until he had some better leash manners. 

*Currently how he's doing:*

I would be concerned if he was reactive, like showed dislike for the object, or anything, but he doesn't seem to care and the couple times we've used it these past few days, he just acts like he's on a mission. If he was pulling I would be concerned and I would do something else but like I said, he sits, you place it on and he acts like his' on a mission. It has a extra link in it so it's not like pressed on him and he has so much neck fur that even when I put my hand in between it's not really on his neck. So it's been a total of....4 times he's had it on since I made this post. Yesterday we went to a practice space for a club so he could see other dogs and to practice some heeling and commands and it went great. Like he was happy to see the other dogs but not lunging at them, he was focused on working (keep in mind even though he had it on he wasn't getting corrected for anything) and he just stayed and watched the other dogs working too. Surprising enough someone had this interesting 'invention' on their younger sheltie, she had like a really tiny 'prong' (that's what she called it) but there was like a thick quilty type material completely along it like a sleeve. Anyways, when I got back I tried doing heel work with nothing on, off leash and he did fantastic and after we played around with a tug and stuff. 

*wvasko*: I know that people use corrective devices and do so much bad with it. Hence I've always stayed away and I've asked others regarding how they use it correctly, like I asked about the e-collar on here. It's not something I've ever used or considered using because I have no experience with them. I trusted this person and that's the only way I put one on him. And it's also why I don't even use it for walking unless with her. I don't want to do anything detrimental and the only reason with works with me is because he doesn't pull and with the extra link it's not pressing. 

*CptJack*: I did say I just wanted to start a discussion about when something other than PR training is better. I only included the other stuff because that's what led to me wondering and I got excited because it was a nice session because I saw the wheels in his head turning and he was excited about it. But I did say I wasn't looking for advice or anything I just wanted to start a discussion about when people found other methods helpful. I didn't start a discussion about aversives per se, it was just methods other than PR training. I could even switch and ask whether everything that's not PR needs to be classified as an aversive because really testing wise I could just put a collar on him without a leash, let it hang and not be correcting him for anything. From reading on here everything seems to be one or the other. Most of the training sessions I've been in has no collar popping or corrections besides maybe an nah pup do it again or just moving on. Somehow everyone got this focus on me getting a prong collar and it's not like I'm doing some 360 and restarting training based on yanking him with a collar. 

*dogdragoness *: I know you can't train a dog not to get kicked but two pairs of eyes are better than one and if he were to ever get in a pen with cows I'd rather him be listening than just go rogue in the midst of it and not listen to back off or something. I don't really have any intention of through him in a pen with cattle any time soon, I was just using it as a dangerous example, like not listening if he gets off leash by the side of a road. 

*petpeeve *: I don't want to replace my mentor and she does use multiple things. The collar was just a suggestion for the time being. I could have said no. I just said that because I subscribe to many PR trainers on youtube and I use their methods for tricks etc. but I don't have any personal friends besides my breeder for an in to people who have been competing so I just wanted to literally that, talk. Like what they like doing with their dogs etc. I'm not looking to disagree with what I'm doing or arguing but I find sometimes its best to hear information from many sources just to have that knowledge. And what she's accomplished is done over years and taking time with the training. She uses different things for different dogs. Because not all of them are the same. Like I said the collar was a suggestion for my dog after 3 days and not like a fix all solution till the end of time. And the treat at the end is just for like her advanced dogs who's going for their utility titles etc. where she can't actually stop in agility to treat after each jump. She sets a course and does that when working them and then things like that. Not for like my dog. He's not even allowed over a jump right now. 

Overall, somehow this got focused on the prong and I just want to say that this is not like a solve all thing for my dog. This wasn't supposed to even be about his training at all. But since it's come up, I just need to point that out. I don't think that things are black and white. I've said it before that I agree with PR training. All his tricks etc. are PR trained and it's fun. I just don't think that only that is for us at this point. I agreed with Laurelin before that agility etc. should all be fun for the dog and handler. I'm not going to go yank him over jumps. I assure you I care just as much for my dog. This has now been long enough lol >_<


----------



## doxiemommy (Dec 18, 2009)

CptJack said:


> This is it, for me, and is always going to be.
> 
> I've said it before, and I've said it again - my advice here, and what I am going to promote, is always going to lean toward the safest advice to give. You can train a dog WRONG with a clicker and treats and end up training the wrong thing, but you are unlikely to physically or psychologically damage the dog. There are situations that aversives are fine for, and I don't outright hate prongs or e-collars. I am not, however, not going to respond to someone saying they are using one, or asking for advice about electronic collars, with 'oh, cool'. I don't know the owner, the dog, or if there's a trainer. When a situation that I believe actually NEEDS those methods crops up, my response is 'go find a professional trainer or behaviorist'.
> 
> If you'd presented this academically, with 'do you believe there is a place for aversives in training', and some of your speculation (about wanting a dog you can get into a ring) hadn't come into play, personalizing it for both you and us, I suspect that the answers you would have gotten would have been different. There still would have been a heavy promotion of positive training, and we would have leaned toward assuming the harshest corrections were what were being discussed, but the personal (and insulting) aspects wouldn't have come into play.


I love this, especially the part about giving the safest advice! Yes, there are lots of differing opinions on lots of topics, on the use of aversives, on training methods in general, on the validity (or lack thereof) of a dominance/alpha theory. I think we have to remember that there is a huge variety of people coming on this forum to seek advice. While some folks give lots of background, so we know their entire story, most don't. So, when I personally give advice, I tend to be on the safe side, too, because you never know when some advice, in inexperienced hands, will go wrong.

Just FYI, I am not talking about the OP's situation, just expressing agreement with CptJack on giving safe advice.


----------



## doxiemommy (Dec 18, 2009)

elrohwen said:


> GreaterSwiss, I do see what you mean about the vehemence of some of the posts, but I honestly don't see very many that are "mean" (and I don't mean just in this thread, I mean overall on this forum). Honestly, I think people here are generally pretty polite and make a lot of really helpful points. It's easy to read into things as personal attacks when you're talking about a sensitive subject (ie your dog who you love), but most of the advice that I see here isn't personal in nature. And sometimes there are one or two mean posts and I think it's easy to get overly fixated on those and miss the good points that are being made by others.
> 
> And as far as the "lazy" thing goes, I explained my reason for using that word earlier. It's not meant as a personal insult and I will readily admit to taking the easy or "lazy" way out sometimes. I just strongly feel that the "easy way out" shouldn't involve methods that are potentially painful to the dog unless positive methods have been fully exhausted, which it doesn't sound like they are in the OP's case. I think at the minimum it's important to realize when you are doing something because it seems like a quick fix or the most efficient way and decide if it's worth it in the end, but I have no idea if the OP has considered it like that. I use a front clip harness on my dog, but I fully admit that it is a quick fix and I'm too "lazy" to devote the necessary time to leash walking right now. I would never say that positive leash training methods just don't work for him - it's clearly my issue and I've decided to prioritize other training goals over that for the moment.


I agree with you. It is so very hard to "hear" someone's tone of voice over the internet. And, yes, there were maybe some posts that were a little harsh, but, hey, some people are very blunt, and say exactly what they mean without pulling any punches. Aside from that, I tend to think you have to give folks the benefit of the doubt, when you are offended by what someone posts, it doesn't mean that the person intended it to be harsh. It's internet, and, you can't tell exactly how someone intended it to "sound".

As for "lazy" in reference to training, I don't find that offensive at all, but, maybe that's just me. I think there's a big difference between saying someone's methods are lazy, and saying they are a lazy person.


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

Greater Swiss said:


> You are right....not many are mean, but even the more firmly worded, or opinionated ones (which for the most part are still fine), can be pretty overwhelming to a "newbie". In the scheme of things I am sill a newbie, but have done LOTS of reading and had lots of experiences in the last while to make myself comfortable and confident with my own opinions and feelings on training styles (but strive to keep an open mind to constructive criticism of course!). I have been very recently on the absolute newbie side of the fence, and am still VERY much on the newbie side of the fence with the dog rehab issue, so the "feeling like an idiot/stupid" sensation when people who take particular things for granted say something that isn't self evident to me, is still fresh in my mind. Many here (and everywhere on the internet!) state opinions as facts, and with authority which can also be thoroughly confusing for a new person. Some here (and having been around here on and off for a while) have some justification to do that, others don't, and on an open forum it's hard to know without being around for a while who those people are (not to say that everyone's input doesn't hold great potential value!). It doesn't help that forums are a perfect recipe for misinterpretation lol. On any forum that people go to they SHOULD be ready for some tough opinions, but on such a sensitive subject (a well loved dog, never mind the aversive issue!) it can be hard to take.
> 
> Cpt Jack, you are right though, in this particular case, it does sound a lot like an adolescent being what it is, but the OP was looking for a discussion too, which she has gotten lol.


I agree with this ... Because I can see both sides, the side of the frustrated owner who is often times at their wits end with their dog, but I can also see the side of the frustrated forum member who reads & studies up on dog behavior (well at least I do lol ... I might be alone in my geekiness I don't know) & the reason why the frustrated dog owner's dog is doing said behavior is totally obvious.

I guess that's why sometimes our posts come off as "rude" or "condescending" because to us it's obivousnto us lol.


----------



## cookieface (Jul 6, 2011)

dogdragoness said:


> I agree with this ... Because I can see both sides, the side of the frustrated owner who is often times at their wits end with their dog, but I can also see the side of the frustrated forum member who reads & studies up on dog behavior (well at least I do lol ... I might be alone in my geekiness I don't know) & the reason why the frustrated dog owner's dog is doing said behavior is totally obvious.
> 
> I guess that's why sometimes our posts come off as "rude" or "condescending" because to us it's obivousnto us lol.


I think, too, that passion can come across as rude or condescending. What I love about this forum is that the best interest of the dog comes first, but that can be misconstrued as a personal attack, especially for newer members.


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

Amaryllis said:


> There was a study done with police dogs in training, so working line mals and GSDs who were already used to being trained with heavy aversives. They took the dogs to a new location and applied an aversive to the dog (I think it was leash pop with a choke chain). The other half of the dogs were given a treat. The dogs were then brought back to the location and the dogs given a treat had a neutral or positive reaction. Most of the dogs given an aversive showed signs of stress and avoidance: ears back, whale eye, curving the body, yawning, lip licking.
> 
> That was one aversive given to a working line dog already trained with aversives.



there is also research showing mals have a higher stress level from withholding treats than w aversives.


----------



## Greater Swiss (Jun 7, 2011)

dogdragoness said:


> I agree with this ... Because I can see both sides, the side of the frustrated owner who is often times at their wits end with their dog, but I can also see the side of the frustrated forum member who reads & studies up on dog behavior (well at least I do lol ... I might be alone in my geekiness I don't know) & the reason why the frustrated dog owner's dog is doing said behavior is totally obvious.
> 
> I guess that's why sometimes our posts come off as "rude" or "condescending" because to us it's obivousnto us lol.


You are absolutely not alone in your geekiness lol, I'm right there with ya! I even read (and watch) stuff I know I disagree with to find out if there is anything worthwhile in there (and figure out why I disagree with it if it isn't obvious).....and there often is, though it can be pretty buried. 

Both sides, the new owner and forum members both get frustrated. Heck, I know I've made a few statements that probably, reading between the lines sounded like "You idiot! What on earth are you thinking!", I try to avoid this unless I really mean to say it lol. You are right cookieface our dogs, and dogs in general whether we are newbies or not are a passionate subject whether we include the other hot issues in the conversation. Especially for a newbie, who may not understand, realize or even be interested in the "finer nuances" of dog training gets told something they are doing is wrong, its like being told they don't love their dog, or at least don't love their dog the right way. Automatic recipe for defensiveness as we've all seen and experienced! On top of it culture, world-view, perceptions of dogs, even over-arching ideologies can affect how we interact with our dogs....so when someone says "You're doing it wrong", it may challenging more than simply the relationship with their dog. 

Also, we've all seen that many problems are the owner not the dog. I know it took me a while before I started automatically thinking "what can I do differently" rather than "what am I doing wrong", or even worse, "why isn't the dog getting it". At first, either way, there tends to be a bit of a blame game, whether blaming the dog, or the owner blaming themselves (at least in my experience, and some of the observations on threads here). Its just a challenge for a newbie to develop the thick skin surrounding such a passionate issue as their dog, to stick it out on a forum long enough to start asking the questions they really need to ask rather than just "what tool will make my dog be nice" or whatever.



jiml said:


> there is also research showing mals have a higher stress level from withholding treats than w aversives.


Now I find this really interesting, and honestly, I could see that as the case with many dogs (but not all). I can also see some dogs having very high stress with the removal of attention (time outs), I'm sure there can be some horrible fall out for that, though probably fairly rare. The study Amaryllis mentions though specifically mentions dogs trained with high levels (I think I actually read that study). It would be interesting to hear of a study using say low level e collar conditioning (rather than using it as a high level punisher for bad behavior), I've looked and haven't found any.


----------



## lil_fuzzy (Aug 16, 2010)

jiml said:


> there is also research showing mals have a higher stress level from withholding treats than w aversives.


I have only worked with one mal, but I can believe this. He was VERY food motivated, but didn't care AT ALL when his owners got frustrated with him and told him off and smacked him on the bum to get him to sit. I'd say a hard dog doesn't care much about corrections, but being highly food motivated they would care if you took away their treats.

I wouldn't use this as an argument to use corrections on hard dogs though, to me it seems silly to use corrections on a dog who doesn't care much about them. If you train right, withholding a treat wouldn't happen much either. Basically, a good trainer would set the dog up to succeed and failures would be so uncommon that you would hardly ever need to use punishment, be it corrections or withholding a treat.


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

cookieface said:


> I think, too, that passion can come across as rude or condescending. What I love about this forum is that the best interest of the dog comes first, but that can be misconstrued as a personal attack, especially for newer members.


I will say that this forum is a lot more game then some of the others I have been on both currently & in the past ... It's a jungle out there I tell ya!


----------

