# What type of training do YOU use?



## KodiBarracuda (Jul 4, 2011)

I have notice a bunch of people have different opinions outside of the clicker training positive stuff. More than I thought before. I'm just curious to see what percentage of people here actually use aversive techniques.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

KodiBarracuda said:


> I have notice a bunch of people have different opinions outside of the clicker training positive stuff. More than I thought before. I'm just curious to see what percentage of people here actually use aversive techniques.


There's not an answer there for me. I use a lot of clicker, a little body work type stuff, some classical conditioning, some relationship based work. But I do use things other than physical aversives which let the dog know that certain stuff will not be rewarded. I think the big misconception made by people who really don't have a clue about clicker training (including some who use it) is that it's not about letting the dog do whatever they want. It's about making them want to do the stuff you want them to do. If you are good at it, lessons are planned and consequences are carefully planned out. Positive does not = permissive. And run fast from anyone who tells you they are purely positive, because they are either prevarcating or a fool. By the way, MANY ecollar users consider themselves "balanced" trainers. In fact that's probably where I most often hear the term.


----------



## Lindbert (Dec 12, 2010)

I know of a few e-collar trainers around here refer to themselves as "positive methods only" trainers. The e-collar isn't an aversive, it's a gentle tickle to get the dog's attention!


----------



## Abbylynn (Jul 7, 2011)

Clicker training is brand new for me. I am enjoying it so far. In the past and even now I would say I am more of the positive, not afraid to say no, and will not leash pop trainer. I have used a number of different things in the 49 years I have dealt with dogs........from chokers and even once an E-collar (I will never use it again) which is still lying dormant in my designated doggie training tool drawer. I have a prong and have not yet used it and probably never will unless absolutely necessary. I am more for positive methods. All in all I am a mish-mash of methods. Individual needs for individual dogs I say!  I trained my first Dobie as a protection dog with all positive methods and he would stop on a dime on recall. The pup I have now.....I wouldn't even consider doing so. Totally different personalities-totally different training methods.


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

Simply put, the two quadrants of training I use most are Positive Reinforcement and Positive Punishment.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

I marked traditional but actually it's a combo of balanced/traditional, minus the choke chains.


----------



## Jenn~n~Luke (Aug 20, 2010)

I picked mostly positive, not afraid to say no, although admittedly I don't say it often lol. Im a pushover when it comes to Luke and thankful that he's so darn good I rarely have to worry about it  I'm also one to believe that there is no such thing as purely positive with NO aversives ever...I don't buy it and I'd like to see some of these trainers who claim to train that way try it on Luke when he's in one of his moods.


----------



## petpeeve (Jun 10, 2010)

OK, well I'm one of those "99.999%" purely positive trainers. I try my darndest to eliminate any and all types of negativity in my dog's lives, the exception being a _very_ occassional application of -P, or the odd well-placed NRM.

Go ahead. Crucify me if you feel so inclined, but in my case my approach certainly has proven to work very well, mostly in my dog's favour ! And, ... I find it difficult to dispute that. 


Voted, ... #1.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

petpeeve said:


> OK, well I'm one of those "99.999%" purely positive trainers. I try my darndest to eliminate any and all types of negativity in my dog's lives, the exception being a _very_ occassional application of -P, or the odd well-placed NRM.
> 
> Go ahead. Crucify me if you feel so inclined, but in my case my approach certainly has proven to work very well, mostly in my dog's favour ! And, ... I find it difficult to dispute that.
> 
> ...


I don't understand about crucifying program I have not read any replies that were crucifying Purely Positive trainers.


----------



## petpeeve (Jun 10, 2010)

wvasko said:


> I don't understand about crucifying program I have not read any replies that were crucifying Purely Positive trainers.


There seems to be some discrepancy defining, precisely, what constitutes a "purely positive trainer". I've even heard some people claim it to be a mythological beast.

Leaves me wondering ...


----------



## hast (Aug 17, 2011)

I picked #2 ... but in a tight spot (I DO have a rottweiler and many are afraid because of the breed, so I make sure to always have her under control) I might use an occasional leash pop if she's completely focused on something and I need her attention NOW. But I do not train with leash pops...



Lindbert said:


> I know of a few e-collar trainers around here refer to themselves as "positive methods only" trainers. The e-collar isn't an aversive, it's a gentle tickle to get the dog's attention!


It can be both or either ... I have seen some people using e-collars as you describe, but I have also seen others using it as an aversive with so much force that the dog screams.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

petpeeve said:


> There seems to be some discrepancy defining, precisely, what constitutes a "purely positive trainer". I've even heard some people claim it to be a mythological beast.
> 
> Leaves me wondering ...


Yes, but isn't being online a journey into the land of discrepancy. Many things are not what they seem. Only the posters themselves know what is myth and what is not. I pretty much wonder about all posters and would assume that they also do some wondering.


----------



## Jenn~n~Luke (Aug 20, 2010)

petpeeve said:


> OK, well I'm one of those "99.999%" purely positive trainers. I try my darndest to eliminate any and all types of negativity in my dog's lives, the exception being a _very_ occassional application of -P, or the odd well-placed NRM.
> 
> Go ahead. Crucify me if you feel so inclined, but in my case my approach certainly has proven to work very well, mostly in my dog's favour ! And, ... I find it difficult to dispute that.
> 
> ...


Well if anyone could pull it off, it would be you. That I believe


----------



## Jenn~n~Luke (Aug 20, 2010)

wvasko said:


> Yes, but isn't being online a journey into the land of discrepancy. Many things are not what they seem. Only the posters themselves know what is myth and what is not. I pretty much wonder about all posters and would assume that they also do some wondering.


Good point. I've often told people who are in online forums who ended up feeling like sub par owners somehow because they weren't as experienced or as "perfect" and all knowing as a lot of the posters in forums claim they are, that really at the end of the day? We have little to know way of knowing if ANYTHING they claim is true, and I've often found when it comes to human nature, many toot their own horn louder than they deserve


----------



## lisahi (Jun 19, 2011)

I can't train myself not to occassionally say "uh uh" at my dog. I know it's an aversive, but I'm ok with that. And Coco is a very confident, happy dog. I use positive training though, but I've also been researching natural training, which uses the idea of play to reinforce good behaviors. It's kind of a new agey positive training that uses the dog's energy and reinforces the dog's natural instincts to allow for behavior that you like. I find it's less stressful for me, and so less stressful for my dog because play is a big part of training. I'm not so worried about keeping a strict training schedule. My dog might not be ready for obedience trials, but she's actually become much more responsive to me using some of the techniques.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

petpeeve said:


> There seems to be some discrepancy defining, precisely, what constitutes a "purely positive trainer". I've even heard some people claim it to be a mythological beast.
> 
> Leaves me wondering ...


Not to worry - if you use an occasional P-, you are not a unicorn.


----------



## hast (Aug 17, 2011)

lisahi said:


> <snip>
> natural training, which uses the idea of play to reinforce good behaviors. It's kind of a new agey positive training that uses the dog's energy and reinforces the dog's natural instincts to allow for behavior that you like. <snip>


Using play as a reinforcer is a new age kind of training?


----------



## Miss Bugs (Jul 4, 2011)

I voted balance and traditional because you said no e-collars on balance, and I DO use E-collars as needed. for the most part I base on the dog and what I am teaching. as a general rule I will not restrict myself, I will try ANY methode. for Rusty a mix of mostly harsher negitive works best with praise and some rewards mixed in. for Happy play training and redirection works best, she thinks corrections are fun and starts repeating the bad behaviours with a grin on her face just to get the correction lol, clicker shaping it usless on her because she doesnt care enough, dont tell her what to do? fine, she's just as happy to leave. for Misty clicker training..and some ingenuity made up just for her works best..corrections either freak her out or she doesnt notice(depends what she is doing), Electra works best with strict dominance based stuff, not like corrections and pinning(which is what works best with Rusty) but in the sence of I have to act like a drill seargent, and treats he like she's in the military..she loves it lol, she doesnt respond to collar corrections or treats but she gets super exited and responds with a grin and wagging tail to me marching around speaking to her in short clipped demands lol


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

hast said:


> Using play as a reinforcer is a new age kind of training?


Hmmmm, That's news to me. Working a dog and having a playtime after is pretty old stuff. I probably am not understanding the new concept.


----------



## chubby (Aug 18, 2011)

If by training you mean going beyond teaching "sit" and also teaching appropriate behaviours (what to chew, etc), thenI think the best way for me and my small dogs is to couple positive reinforcement with some mild forms of punishment (Ex. saying NO in a stern voice and using time outs as a negative punishment). If I'm just teaching tricks, I only use positive reinforcement, but if my puppy is misbehaving, I do apply a correction (#2 form). I can't say I agree with harsher forms of positive punishment such as leash correcting and choke chains because my dog is young and quite small. All I do know is that I'll do everything in my power to ensure that my dog is stable and confident, and not fearful aggressive - which can result from owners inappropriately using positive or negative punishment, causing distrust and fear in the relationship. 

In response to #1 (no correction, or aversive): I don't agree however with just ignoring all bad behaviour and only applying positive reinforcement. I'm assuming here that no correction/or aversion leaves only redirection and ignoring. Redirection definitely works in many cases, and ignoring barking and whining can be immensely effective, but ignoring a dog when it is chewing on your shoes, paper towels, garbage, jumping on furniture, etc, which a dog would most likely do at some point in their life, seems counterproductive. Why not take that opportunity to communicate with your dog that it's unwanted? That way you get to reinforce good behaviours from both sides, and your dog will realize that getting the reward for doing something good is much nicer than having to sit through a time out -


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

chubby said:


> I don't agree however with just ignoring all bad behaviour and only applying positive reinforcement. Ignoring barking and whining can be immensely effective, but ignoring a dog when it is chewing on your shoes, paper towels, garbage, jumping on furniture, etc, which a dog would most likely do at some point in their life, seems counterproductive.


I'd like to know where the idea that to be a positive trainer means you ignore bad behaviors? I don't know any "positive" trainer that doesn't address bad behavior, immediately. Is it, people are confusing ignoring unwanted approximations, for more stellar behavior is punishment? It's not intended as so, and should not be confused with how "positive" trainers punish behavior.


----------



## chubby (Aug 18, 2011)

Curbside Prophet said:


> I'd like to know where the idea that to be a positive trainer means you ignore bad behaviors? I don't know any "positive" trainer that doesn't address bad behavior, immediately. Is it, people are confusing ignoring unwanted approximations, for more stellar behavior is punishment? It's not intended as so, and should not be confused with how "positive" trainers punish behavior.


I never mentioned "positive trainer" in my post. I am only explaining why just ignoring bad behaviour can be ineffective. That is all.


----------



## chubby (Aug 18, 2011)

Curbside Prophet said:


> I'd like to know where the idea that to be a positive trainer means you ignore bad behaviors?


Moreover, this is a thread in response to the survey above which clearly states "positive, no correction or aversive" and the second options says "mostly positive, not afraid to say no, but won't leash pop". So I'm assuming that the differentiating factor between the first two choices is "not afraid to say no".


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

chubby said:


> I never mentioned "positive trainer" in my post. I am only explaining why just ignoring bad behaviour can be ineffective. That is all.


Well, you said more than that, which prompted my curiosity. Saying, ignoring behavior would be ineffective training (this only), I don't think would be training. It may be management (in the case of a timeout), but its not training. But I took your statement to say ignoring bad behavior (timeouts) + reinforcement would not be effective training, and I don't see how that could be true at face value. 

I'm not trying to single you out. It just seemed like you were reporting a common misconception about "positive" training.


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

blanced - choke chains, leash pops, but no electricity or severe aversives>>>

the only issue i have here is that "electricity" does not need to be any more severe than a mild leash pop. your stereotyping.


----------



## chubby (Aug 18, 2011)

I didn't mean to bring in any notions of "positive training" or "positive trainers" in this because I don't know what the literature is out there, or what the accepted meaning of "positive trainer" is. In any case I think our misunderstanding comes from the differing perceptions of what encompasses "training". I meant it to encompass all desired behaviours you want to instill in your dog, whether it's teaching how to sit, or what things are appropriate to chew on. If we're talking just about training tricks - like rollover, then positive reinforcement would be my sole method. 

For everything else, such as barking, chewing, jumping on furniture, then I stand by my original post and say I would correct the behaviour with a stern no, or time out (which is a form of negative punishment and not a form of ignoring behaviour). This would fall into the second category which states, "mostly positive, not afraid to say no, but won't leash pop"


----------



## Lindbert (Dec 12, 2010)

See, I'm kind of confused as to the difference between the first and second choice. "no" is not in my dog training vocabulary simply because the word bears no meaning to my dogs and I find it's entirely too overused in some circles. I do not use verbal corrections either because there are other ways to get a dog's attention other than a startle response which is what a verbal correction is. That is why I chose the first choice.

That being said, I do not "ignore" behavior I do not want, I do interrupt it (usually just by calling the dog's name) and suggest other things the dog should be doing. You never know when you may need/want a "bad" behavior so I don't want the dog to extinguish it. I've gone the positive punishment route and will not be heading on that road again. I find these methods work much easier for me and I get great results from them, even with my "difficult" dog.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

Lindbert said:


> I know of a few e-collar trainers around here refer to themselves as "positive methods only" trainers. The e-collar isn't an aversive, it's a gentle tickle to get the dog's attention!


Most e-collar trainers don't see anything "positive" about the stim. I can't imagine how it would be used that way (as in opposite of aversive). It is not, however, a torture device. It can be used that way, but so can a length of electrical cord.


----------



## Lindbert (Dec 12, 2010)

I forgot to mention that I have a boatload of idiots for trainers in my area who are jumping on the cesar millan bandwagon and looking for a quick $$$. There's one particularly heinous one who even admitted to me that she hates dogs but she's "good" at training them and it pays the bills.

I'm actually pretty open to any methods other people use as long as they're used humanely and intelligently. The geniuses who are using phrases and methods as marketing gimmics royally piss me off.


----------



## Labmom4 (Feb 1, 2011)

I dont train my dogs. They're all rotten.

Seriously, I dont know which category I'd fall into. I do things the way I'm taught by guide dogs of the desert. I agree with Lindbert that whatever works is fine as long as it's humane. I teach with lots of praise and I do my best to set a dog up for success.


----------



## +two (Jul 12, 2011)

I am not in any one category because it really depends on the dog and what you are trying to accomplish. 

Ozzie is a very fearful dog so I do not use 'traditional' methods with him. I do a lot of BAT training and +R. However, sometimes he does get a stern 'enough!' or a time out. I am also very aware that Oz will never be a competitive dog. There are definitely no OTCHs in our future, so my methods mirror this understanding. It would be detrimental to our relationship and especially to him if I used more adverse methods more frequently with him.

Tyler is a very confident dog. I use more balanced methods with him; I walk him with a prong collar and use leash corrections. We do mostly +R training; lots of play and food rewards. However, he likes to set the agenda sometimes and needs to be reminded that its not acceptable. A leash pop on a buckle collar usually does the trick. I would say I don't give more than 3 physical corrections during any 30 minute training session. If I find myself wanting to correct more than that, then I know something is wrong and needs to be fixed. If it is clear he doesn't understand, he isn't going to get corrected for not understanding. I also keep in mind that I have higher expectations of Tyler; we are interested in pursing a competitive obedience career on top of the dog sports we already do. 

It depends on the dog and it depends on what the end goal is.


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

Most e-collar trainers don't see anything "positive" about the stim. I can't imagine how it would be used that way>>>>

I have heard of them and vibe being coupled w treats to act as a clicker for blind dogs. other than that they are being used as an aversive - mild or harsh.


----------



## Lindbert (Dec 12, 2010)

if you search for the very vague information on the net about "e-touch" and "forcefree" training, you'll find these geniuses really think there is nothing aversive at all about an e-collar. These are the programs many of the trainers in my area train under and I find the marketing/advertising very misleading and possibly quite confusing to the dog.

Also, I think you may mean deaf dogs. Blind dogs can still hear a clicker and most people use the vibrate function (which I feel may still be aversive to many dogs) coupled with treats. With the right dog, I think this is a brilliant method but once again it all depends on the individual dog and trainer.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

jiml said:


> Most e-collar trainers don't see anything "positive" about the stim. I can't imagine how it would be used that way>>>>
> 
> I have heard of them and vibe being coupled w treats to act as a clicker for blind dogs. other than that they are being used as an aversive - mild or harsh.


Yes, a modern e-collar could be used as a non-aversive marker if the dog were normally tolerant of low level stim. At the lowest level, the collar I have is imperceptable to me, and (apparently) my dog, and the majority of people I've tried it on. Dial it up a couple of notches and it's noticable, but not particularly unpleasant. Not that there aren't dogs who would freak out at the sensation, but most would consider it about equal to a tap on the shoulder. Anything above mid-level is a real attention getter.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

chubby said:


> I never mentioned "positive trainer" in my post. I am only explaining why just ignoring bad behaviour can be ineffective. That is all.


So . . . who does that?


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

jiml said:


> Most e-collar trainers don't see anything "positive" about the stim. I can't imagine how it would be used that way>>>>
> 
> I have heard of them and vibe being coupled w treats to act as a clicker for blind dogs. other than that they are being used as an aversive - mild or harsh.


Only providing this quote because I think (hope) most people are astute enough that it won't be seen as an endorsement: Ami Moore has pioneered the use of electric dog training equipment as positive reinforcement and combined this groundbreaking innovation with motivating dog’s natural drive to follow a strong leader. She has called this system “The Moore Method“.

If you have any doubts about who Ami Moore is, a quick search should be enlightening. She was arrested for her use of an ecollar (or multiple ecollars) as "positive reinforcement"


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

Jenn~n~Luke said:


> I picked mostly positive, not afraid to say no, although admittedly I don't say it often lol. Im a pushover when it comes to Luke and thankful that he's so darn good I rarely have to worry about it  I'm also one to believe that there is no such thing as purely positive with NO aversives ever...I don't buy it and I'd like to see some of these trainers who claim to train that way try it on Luke when he's in one of his moods.



Can't be a push over, A BC I own a breed that would have me "barefooted & always in the kitchen" if I was a push over, I chose balanced/traditional. Have tried the other styles, but they just dont mesh well with my personality which is alpha type A, perhaps that's why I subfonciously own pushy dogs lol.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

dogdragoness said:


> Can't be a push over, A BC I own a breed that would have me "barefooted & always in the kitchen" if I was a push over, I chose balanced/traditional. Have tried the other styles, but they just dont mesh well with my personality which is alpha type A, perhaps that's why I subfonciously own pushy dogs lol.


I think this is the crux of why people use the methods they use. It is a personal choice based on what the human feels resonates for them. It's not true that there are dogs who can't be trained with progressive reinforcement. Of course they can. But there are people who can't or don't want to use it.


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

Just BC someone uses a style that isn't agreeable with the new trend doesn't make t wrong. I believe that there is no "wrong" style of training, I believe that its only wrong when used on the wrong dog. I believe that the dog should dictate the method used, not the trainer.

Any trainer who hates dogs is just... Wrong


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

dogdragoness said:


> Just BC someone uses a style that isn't agreeable with the new trend doesn't make t wrong. I believe that there is no "wrong" style of training, I believe that its only wrong when used on the wrong dog. I believe that the dog should dictate the method used, not the trainer.
> 
> Any trainer who hates dogs is just... Wrong


Who is talking about trainers who "hate" dogs? I would be less likely to say that a method is "wrong" (after all, even a broke clock is right twice a day) that I would to just suggest it is somewhat less effective. And a lot less scientific


----------



## CricketLoops (Apr 18, 2011)

There isn't an answer for me. I probably use things that are "aversive" to my dogs constantly in training -- or, at least, it decreases behavior and acts as a punisher. If a dog doesn't exit the crate when I say "break!" the crate door closes. If the dog breaks a sit when I'm opening a door, the door closes. I frequently dip into -R. The dog always has consequences for his choices, both good and bad. I train by doing everything in my power to control a dog's access to reinforcement and to gain control (at least, in the dog's mind) over things that I don't have a say in. I make doing what I want his most reinforcing option. 

Most of my training sessions are very play-focused, with lots of moving around, except for those times where I want a more thoughtful dog. They are rewards-based, with food and toys as some of the primary motivators. I don't use physical/verbal punishments (leash pops, foot or hand 'taps', spankings, prong collars/choke chains, e-collars, "NO!", "BAD DOG!", etc). I do use loss of reward or loss of opportunity for reward as a punishment quite frequently. 

These methods work really well for me and they challenge me mentally in a way that other types of training would probably not, and I like spending as long as it takes figuring out how to communicate to a dog that doing "x" is not only possible but his most fun option. I don't think that other methods are "bad" or "wrong". I don't even think that everyone SHOULD train with reinforcement-based techniques. I think a happy, well trained dog is better than a happy ball of chaos that is a danger to itself or others, no matter what methods you use. 

It does bother me (quite a lot, actually), when people use punishment in their dog training improperly. I think it's even more important for people to have a firm grasp of the laws of behavior (and the potential fall-outs of punishment and how to avoid them) if they choose to use punishment in their training than for people using primarily pos R.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

Pawzk9 said:


> If you have any doubts about who Ami Moore is, a quick search should be enlightening. She was arrested for her use of an ecollar (or multiple ecollars) as "positive reinforcement"


The quick search I did revealed the charges were dropped and she was suing PETA for defamation. Charges and countercharges don't necessarily reveal anything imortant, but it does seem the bedwetting cranks at PETA made her their special project. That alone inclines me to give her the benefit of doubt. States and localities frequently press animal cruelty charges against people who do far less to dogs than is done in training their own police dogs.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Marsh Muppet said:


> The quick search I did revealed the charges were dropped and she was suing PETA for defamation. Charges and countercharges don't necessarily reveal anything imortant, but it does seem the bedwetting cranks at PETA made her their special project. That alone inclines me to give her the benefit of doubt. States and localities frequently press animal cruelty charges against people who do far less to dogs than is done in training their own police dogs.


LOL. Guessing you never heard of her until you looked her up. Point being (which you ignored) that she claims she uses a shock collar as positive reinforcement. Fred Hassen has a video of trying to teach a puppy that a high level of shock is a cookie marker too. So, yeah. People do say it.


----------



## waterbaby (Jan 20, 2009)

Weird, I guess I'm traditional because although I use reward-based training 99% of the time, I will also leash pop, say no "firmly", and put an e-collar on my dog if I think it's appropriate.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

I'm mostly positive.

I think that is where I would fit given my (if I had my way) exclusive use of shaping. 

Unless...that's something else *shrug*

I'm a shaping trainer. There. Ya'll figure out where that goes with the other labels 

I HAVE heard of that Natural Dog Theory before. Read up about it a couple times. It's not so much just using play to reward the dog, but I don't really know so much as to explain it. A lot seems to be about rewarding the dog by letting the dog use it's instinctive energy at you/through you. Something like that.


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

Also, I think you may mean deaf dogs. Blind dogs can still hear a clicker >>>


LOL at myself


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

I use telepathy.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

Pawzk9 said:


> LOL. Guessing you never heard of her until you looked her up. Point being (which you ignored) that she claims she uses a shock collar as positive reinforcement. Fred Hassen has a video of trying to teach a puppy that a high level of shock is a cookie marker too. So, yeah. People do say it.


Nope, never heard of her before today. I don't think I'll be signing up for her fan club or anything.

I already said I can't see any "positive" use of an e-collar. Non-aversive marker: possible, but that still doesn't seem particularly efficacious except maybe in rare, non-typical cases. E-collar stim is neutral to P+, but it isn't a reward.

I only know about Hassen in a very general sense (not much interested in him) but I understood his technique as heavily R- (i.e., e-collar stim is turned off when the dog responds properly). There are a few instances where I would use that, but it is not a thing I would undertake as a general practice.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

sassafras said:


> I use telepathy.


Can you teach me?


----------



## Lindbert (Dec 12, 2010)

I just spent an afternoon working with Pam Dennison. If I was a fan of positive, no aversive training before, I'm an absolute nutcase about it now. My dog understood everything that was going on and honestly didn't make a single mistake (I on the other hand messed up plenty for both of us.) My own confidence has improved dramatically (Pam praised me as much if not more than she praised Brody. I can't wait to work with her again because of this). 

The most impressive part was Pam never came closer than 15 feet from us. Brody was nervous and uneasy when she came too close (bad experiences with other trainers) and because she didn't push the issue, we had the most successful hour of training I ever had with him. We're obviously going to address this but by managing it how she did everyone was safe, Brody was relaxed enough to actually learn something, and he was able to leave the session thinking hey, she's not such a bad person, maybe next time she can come even closer to me!


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

KBLover said:


> Can you teach me?


You are half way there, "The Wally" has had telepathic control over you for a while and he's so good you don't have a clue what's happening. He's the controller and you the controlee (my own word)


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

wvasko said:


> You are half way there, "The Wally" has had telepathic control over you for a while and he's so good you don't have a clue what's happening. He's the controller and you the controlee (my own word)


LOL, I'm sure you're right  

I get my "digs" in on him, though.  I guess that's when he goes to sulk and plots his next strategy.


----------



## lisahi (Jun 19, 2011)

hast said:


> Using play as a reinforcer is a new age kind of training?


No... that's not the new agey part. The new agey part has to do with using the dog's "energy". I didn't explain it well because I really didn't want to get into the entire philosophy of the method here. Nor am I well-versed enough to do so.


----------



## Lindbert (Dec 12, 2010)

"energy" and "dominance" are two terms that I wish would vanish from the dog training world. There's nothing mystical about dog behavior and energies or auras.


----------



## lisahi (Jun 19, 2011)

Lindbert said:


> "energy" and "dominance" are two terms that I wish would vanish from the dog training world. There's nothing mystical about dog behavior and energies or auras.


Dominance plays no part in natural dog training, as far as I'm aware.

There really isn't anything wrong with the idea of "energy." It's new agey, yes, but so long as you are being positive towards your dog when you attempt to train, don't do anything harmful to her, and it gets results, who the heck cares if you believe it has something to do with "releasing energy" or what not.


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

lisahi said:


> Dominance plays no part in natural dog training, as far as I'm aware.


Pretty much the opposite, since "you are the moose." LOL! With the ~woo~ filtered out, NDT (as I understand it, which is very, very limited) uses a lot of drive fulfillment through the trainer. Frustration is turned to prey drive, which is resolved through interaction with the trainer. NDT has the dog winning tug a lot.


----------



## Lindbert (Dec 12, 2010)

Sorry I wasn't more clear, I didn't mean that dominance and energy were interconnected in natural dog training, they're just two of my little pet peevey "buzz words" that I see used around here by trainers that have no clue what they're doing.

I'm all about being positive and happy while interacting with my dog, but if someone was to tell me my energy isn't right while interacting with my dog, it would kinda bug me. I'm really a person of few words and little emotion when I interact with dogs and people. I don't talk to my dogs much at all beyond what's necessary while training and it's definitely not animated in any way, so someone looking for really "positive" energy might think I'm lacking in that department.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

RaeganW said:


> Pretty much the opposite, since "you are the moose." LOL! With the ~woo~ filtered out, NDT (as I understand it, which is very, very limited) uses a lot of drive fulfillment through the trainer. Frustration is turned to prey drive, which is resolved through interaction with the trainer. NDT has the dog winning tug a lot.


That's pretty much how I understood it too. 

It involves a lot of games mostly because a lot of games utilize prey drive. Chasing, biting, seeking, pulling, etc. 

I like to "beat" Wally enough to make him more eager to win the next time. It's basically VSR utilized in gameplay. Sometimes you win, sometimes you don't, but I want you to win enough to keep playing, so I can beat you again and make you want to beat me even more the next time, which might lead to a breakthrough in behavior.

That idea lead to me doing "competitive training" with him, where the prize is food and if he does it right, he eats, if the doesn't, I eat one right in front of him. I don't know if this is NDT principles or what, but it gets him pretty into it, especially once he loses a few times. LOL


----------



## Lindbert (Dec 12, 2010)

KBLover said:


> I like to "beat" Wally enough to make him more eager to win the next time. It's basically VSR utilized in gameplay. Sometimes you win, sometimes you don't, but I want you to win enough to keep playing, so I can beat you again and make you want to beat me even more the next time, which might lead to a breakthrough in behavior.


I actually do this a lot with my dogs without even thinking about it.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

I don't think I've ever really tried to 'categorize' myself. I don't really see the need to to be honest.

My goal in training is to communicate as clearly as I can to the dog what I want. I would say most the time I use a clicker or a marker. I just find it is easiest and clearest. I use shaping a lot, luring some. Agility, trick training, obedience training are all completely trained positively. 

As far as 'corrections' go... everyone has different ideas of what a 'correction' is. I have used collar pops before, but knowing what I do now, I would not use them in those situations if I were in the same situation. I have never used an e-collar yet and so far don't see a need to. Those kinds of corrections I don't use. I don't see the word 'no' as a correction either. It just means 'not what I want, try something else'. I am not permissive. I do use some punishment (mostly -p). I will use physical methods if the situation warrants it- ie: dog is in danger or someone else is in danger- ie something SERIOUS. I don't really consider that punishment though, more of an interrupter. Mia needs a firmer hand and a lot more redirecting and reminding of what she shouldn't do. She is headstrong and stubborn and manipulative and impatient. Rose is a dog that everything must be super happy and positive all the time. 

I would say most of what my dogs know is not from formal training. a lot is simply dialogue between me and them. I think a lot of what I do is just on a subconscious level because my dogs know a lot of commands/words and I could not tell you how I taught it to them.


----------



## Finkie_Mom (Mar 2, 2010)

Laurelin said:


> I don't think I've ever really tried to 'categorize' myself. I don't really see the need to to be honest.
> 
> My goal in training is to communicate as clearly as I can to the dog what I want. I would say most the time I use a clicker or a marker. I just find it is easiest and clearest. I use shaping a lot, luring some. Agility, trick training, obedience training are all completely trained positively.
> 
> ...


Honestly, I think this describes my training as well. Only insert Kimma for Mia and Bubbles for Rose. Pentti is somewhere in between.


----------



## Lamora (Aug 16, 2011)

I dont like Leash popping-- but it seems to be working so far, as nothing else did. Dont like using treats, never did get the hang of clicker, so im not really sure what kind of trainer I am. Postivie inforcement, not afraid to say no. Old school I guess.


----------



## Lindbert (Dec 12, 2010)

Lamora said:


> I dont like Leash popping-- but it seems to be working so far, as nothing else did. Dont like using treats, never did get the hang of clicker, so im not really sure what kind of trainer I am. Postivie inforcement, not afraid to say no. Old school I guess.


I'm a little unclear, do you or don't you use leash pops? I wouldn't say you are a positive reinforcement trainer at all if you use leash pops. I'd say you are a traditional trainer if you're using praise as your only reinforcer, maybe a balanced trainer if you do incorporate food even if you don't like to.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Well Lamora is unclear also and reading some of the replies on DF just might get a tad confused about trainer labeling. My advice is keep on doing what your doing as this keeps you and your dog working together. Now if you see/read something you would like to try, phase it it in and watch for results. There are posters here that while training run the extremes of prong/e-collar/alpha rolling etc etc etc work, to not wanting to hurt a dog's mental/body feelings in any way manner or form. Be careful with any advice given, mine included.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

wvasko said:


> Be careful with any advice given, mine included.


C'mon...they wouln't let you put something on the internet if it wasn't true.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Marsh Muppet said:


> C'mon...they wouln't let you put something on the internet if it wasn't true.


Well you just have not read the wvasko thread somebody started, CP I think. I can do anything. I just wanted to make sure newbies didn't believe that my advice meant something magical.


----------



## Polywoggy (Mar 7, 2011)

Laurelin said:


> I would say most of what my dogs know is not from formal training. a lot is simply dialogue between me and them. I think a lot of what I do is just on a subconscious level because my dogs know a lot of commands/words and I could not tell you how I taught it to them.


This is true in my case with Willow as well. I did not know anything about formal training when she was young. I knew to reward positive behaviour and distract from unwanted ones from my work with handicapped kids. I used the umbilical method with her without knowing what it was. I just had her with me all of the time. Dogs, esp certain breeds if typical, are incredibly tuned into our body language, facial expressions, and tone of voice. With Willow, all I needed was a soft low, "heeeey" and she'd stop in her tracks. If I praised her, she was over-the-moon happy to do the wanted behaviour again the next time. She's a typically people-pleasing Golden. I do think I may have lucked out the first time around and got a dog that is naturally well-behaved and mannerly, despite also having the energy for 10 dogs while young.

Living with Jack the past 3 years, knowing him for 4 years, has been a different experience. I do believe he is naturally well-mannered and behaved for a JRT, according to the rep they have anyways. I wasn't there for Jack's earlier years, but I do know that my boyfriend is not consistent with him, he's very impatient, and he is a moody-temperamental type. I am now the one who spends the most time with Jack and if I want to change and shape certain behaviours, I have to think it out a lot more. This dog could care less about a soft low, "heeeey". It really is only his prey drive that gets him in trouble. Jack used to believe the vacuum needed to be attacked. He's very food-motivated so I have been solidifying his sit/stay that way. Now he goes into a sit/stay when I vacuum and it has been working very well. He needs to be given something to do, he could care less about being told what not to do. Jack is very sensitive to sound and I have been thinking that he likely would do very well with clicker and treat training.
Certainly different dogs need different approaches, but I keep things on the more positive side.


----------



## casey15 (Sep 24, 2011)

I do traditional training though I do use a choke collar when walking my labrador, he weighs more than me, so it's the only way I can control him on walks.


----------



## Shiningsummer (May 24, 2010)

I definitely agree that different dogs need different approaches. I train with as much positive reinforcement as possible, would never leash pop my dogs, but I do use negative techniques like removing rewards for bad behavior or saying "Ah Ah" sharply. I train the way I do for a simple reason: I figure it's the best way to do the least possible harm to my dogs if I do it wrong. For example, let's say I wanted to use an ecollar to train my dogs. In the wrong hands (in this case, those would be my hands) a dog could be irreparably damaged with an ecollar. Now if it was a person who knew what they were doing with the right dog, they could probably get great results. Since that's not me, I just try to stick to the safest most reliable methods for me and my dogs. It may not be right for everyone else, but it works for me.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Marsh Muppet said:


> C'mon...they wouln't let you put something on the internet if it wasn't true.


Internet is the new TV?


----------



## ˚Alta˚ (Oct 11, 2011)

My personal training style is a small (like a piece of kibble) food lure to teach a positional command. NEVER physical force. Even though force doesn't hurt, (such as teaching "down" by putting a dog's legs down) I think that forcing a dog to do something to teach them, however un-painless it might be, is not a good thing. Back to the ever contraversial food reward... I use food to make them do it (at first) but the real reward is praise. There is no such thing as too much praise. I pretend the it is best thing in the world that my dog just sat. (at first, then a simple good boy/girl works.)
About the negative stuff. I am against using pain for any reason. I do use leash correction on a FLAT COLLAR only when they are doing something they already know they are not allowed to, or are disobeying a command that they already know. Not for teaching. Leash corrections on a flat collar do not hurt. I tried it on myself. They are more like, saying, "Hey you, I just told you something!" or "I taught you not to do that months ago!" Just leaving the room if they bite, or not letting them eat dinner yet if they will not sit and stuff like that usually works.


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

Be careful with any advice given, mine included.>>>>>

probably some of the best advise given on any forum regarding any topic wvasko . LOL


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

jiml said:


> Be careful with any advice given, mine included.>>>>>
> 
> probably some of the best advise given on any forum regarding any topic wvasko . LOL


It's a no-brainer.


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

˚Alta˚;1083224 said:


> My personal training style is a small (like a piece of kibble) food lure to teach a positional command. NEVER physical force. Even though force doesn't hurt, (such as teaching "down" by putting a dog's legs down) I think that forcing a dog to do something to teach them, however un-painless it might be, is not a good thing. Back to the ever contraversial food reward... I use food to make them do it (at first) but the real reward is praise. There is no such thing as too much praise. I pretend the it is best thing in the world that my dog just sat. (at first, then a simple good boy/girl works.)
> About the negative stuff. I am against using pain for any reason. I do use leash correction on a FLAT COLLAR only when they are doing something they already know they are not allowed to, or are disobeying a command that they already know. Not for teaching. Leash corrections on a flat collar do not hurt. I tried it on myself. They are more like, saying, "Hey you, I just told you something!" or "I taught you not to do that months ago!" Just leaving the room if they bite, or not letting them eat dinner yet if they will not sit and stuff like that usually works.


Exactly... Why is that so bad that I think that im entitled to a little obedience when I ask for it ( after they know better mind you).


----------



## Sibe (Nov 21, 2010)

I train as positively as I possibly can. I am not afraid to shout a sharp "aaih!" or use physical touch when needed including a slight leash pop, but it's more as Laurelin said about being an interrupter. I don't yank the leash and if a pop doesn't work I try something else. I also put a sound to the pop so soon I can do the sound and skip the pop. With our new girl Kaytu when she sticks her nose on the counter I'll go "aaih!" to get an immediate reaction. Then I'll distract her and then we'll go do something fun. I don't have a good place to put the cat food where the dogs can't get it. Nali knows not to touch it, but Kaytu now has to learn. She can walk by it, but if she starts to stick her face too close I'll go "aaih!" and call her away and distract her. We're still working on "leave it" with her which is what I'd really like to say so I don't need such a sharp sound. I use body language a lot too. To keep Nali from moving forward (like going toward the door when someone knocks), I will use my body to block her if she isn't listening when I tell her sit. Once she settles and sits, I'll reward. I *ALWAYS* end on a positive note. If I have to correct anything or stop a behavior then I work through the correction and then we'll do something positive, even some quick basic commands, or I'll start playing and running around with her. I'd always rather teach what TO do instead or what NOT to do. Like Kaytu tries to sprint out the door as soon as it's cracked open, so I'm working on teaching her to go to a certain place when there is a knock on the door or when it's opened, and to wait inside until she is called to come out. Much easier than pushing her back and wrestling her at the door.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

dogdragoness said:


> Exactly... Why is that so bad that I think that im entitled to a little obedience when I ask for it ( after they know better mind you).


What makes you think anyone thinks a "little obedience" is bad?


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Sibe said:


> I train as positively as I possibly can. I am not afraid to shout a sharp "aaih!" or use physical touch when needed including a slight leash pop, but it's more as Laurelin said about being an interrupter. I don't yank the leash and if a pop doesn't work I try something else. I also put a sound to the pop so soon I can do the sound and skip the pop. .


I'm not sure I'm real clear on the difference between a "pop" and a "yank" other than that the "yank" would be on your end and the "pop" would happen on your dog's end?


----------



## Sibe (Nov 21, 2010)

I see a "pop" as a quick motion, an instant snap of the leash that takes up all the slack then gives it back. The dog feels it on their neck, but it isn't strong enough to move them.
I see a "yank" as a more forceful motion, pulling the dog back or to the side, and not instantly giving the slack back.

It's like the difference between a poke and a push.


----------



## Lindbert (Dec 12, 2010)

Pawzk9 said:


> What makes you think anyone thinks a "little obedience" is bad?


I don't know.. my cookie tossing afraid to say no self actually demands a lot of obedience from my dogs. Dog is bugging me and trying to steal toys from the shelf at Petco: I ask them to lay calmly at my feet one more time and if they don't comply we leave and they get NOTHING. I think my dogs would much rather get a leash correction (possibly from a SHARPENED prong collar even!) and still walk out with a toy, however they don't make the rules.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

dogdragoness said:


> Exactly... Why is that so bad that I think that im entitled to a little obedience when I ask for it ( after they know better mind you).


Why do you think anyone ever said "OMG it's bad to ask for obedience!111!!!!"


----------



## aries23 (Oct 16, 2011)

I think that different methods works for different dogs, depending on the dog's personality and health. It's important to use our intuition/instinct when interacting with our dogs, that without it we might not understand how to make them learn what we want them to learn.

Personally, I don't think that some physical punishment like spanking is that bad, and I don't agree that it's abuse or that dogs won't understand it. Dogs do understand it, but they don't if people applies it in the wrong way, that it might even cause long term damage to the dogs. For example, some people might overdo it or do it after the act that the dog doesn't know why he's punished for, that it can cause him to start being afraid of humans. Also, it shouldn't be done on dogs that are too shy or had some past trauma, too physically weak (like recovering from some sickness), or that hasn't established a solid relationship with the owner yet.
In my case, whenever my dog misbehaves (trying to destroy something), I always warn him with a few "NO!", and if he still insists, I'd grab him by his neck (it's the place that it doesn't hurt but can help him understand) and pull him away slowly and say "NO!", and if he still insists, I'd spank him and say "NO!" again. My dog is very stubborn sometimes, and at the beginning, our gentle spanks wouldn't do anything, but we gradually added more force, to see what's the level of force he'd start to react (people shouldn't use too much force as we just want them to learn what they shouldn't do, and not to build up some trauma). Another way instead of spanking is to tap his nose gently but rapidly 'till he stops/backs away, as it annoys him and it's unpleasant for him. Ignoring him for doing something wrong does work too, in this case in situations in which it depends on my feedback (like if he jumps on me to get something).
Aside it, positive reinforcement and spending time playing with our dogs are very important, so that he can feel confident and loved.

But on the other hand, I have doubts about the time out method, as I'm not sure if the dog can really understand that the isolation is the result of what he had done. And I think that it can be more traumatic than spank (which it's just a 1 second pain), that the dog would start being afraid of being left, or it might make him misunderstand that he's being punished whenever isolation is needed (for example, whenever he's left home alone).

Also, I'm a bit shocked with e-collars or choke collars, as these sounds kinda cruel (my family had a few dogs and now I'm having one of my own, but I've never heard of these things before). I prefer body leashes, as it's more comfortable for my dog, and a leash attached to a collar might hurt if my dog suddenly decides to make a run.

Anyways, again, I think that intuition/instinct is very important, and we must use it to understand how to let dogs understand what we want them to understand, as well as understand what they want us to understand. Without it, whatever methods we use can be ineffective.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

aries23 said:


> Personally, I don't think that some physical punishment like spanking is that bad, and I don't agree that it's abuse or that dogs won't understand it. Dogs do understand it, but they don't if people applies it in the wrong way, that it might even cause long term damage to the dogs. For example, some people might overdo it or do it after the act that the dog doesn't know why he's punished for, that it can cause him to start being afraid of humans. Also, it shouldn't be done on dogs that are too shy or had some past trauma, too physically weak (like recovering from some sickness), or that hasn't established a solid relationship with the owner yet.
> In my case, whenever my dog misbehaves (trying to destroy something), I always warn him with a few "NO!", and if he still insists, I'd grab him by his neck (it's the place that it doesn't hurt but can help him understand) and pull him away slowly and say "NO!", and if he still insists, I'd spank him and say "NO!" again. My dog is very stubborn sometimes, and at the beginning, our gentle spanks wouldn't do anything, but we gradually added more force, to see what's the level of force he'd start to react (people shouldn't use too much force as we just want them to learn what they shouldn't do, and not to build up some trauma). Another way instead of spanking is to tap his nose gently but rapidly 'till he stops/backs away, as it annoys him and it's unpleasant for him. Ignoring him for doing something wrong does work too, in this case in situations in which it depends on my feedback (like if he jumps on me to get something).Also, I'm a bit shocked with e-collars or choke collars, as these sounds kinda cruel (my family had a few dogs and now I'm having one of my own, but I've never heard of these things before). I prefer body leashes, as it's more comfortable for my dog, and a leash attached to a collar might hurt if my dog suddenly decides to make a run.
> 
> Anyways, again, I think that intuition/instinct is very important, and we must use it to understand how to let dogs understand what we want them to understand, as well as understand what they want us to understand. Without it, whatever methods we use can be ineffective.




I don't think there is ever a time to strike/hit/spank a dog in the name of basic training. The fact that you have to keep escalating the amount of force you use tells me it is not effective. Actually starting gentle and adding force until you reach the point that the dog considers aversive is a way to desensitize the dog to the punishment you are giving, so you have to keep making it harsher and harsher to get the same result.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Also, to be for "spanking" but against shock and choke collars is pretty ridiculous. After all, a shock or a collar jerk is only a "1 second pain", too.


----------



## aries23 (Oct 16, 2011)

Pawzk9 said:


> I don't think there is ever a time to strike/hit/spank a dog in the name of basic training. The fact that you have to keep escalating the amount of force you use tells me it is not effective. Actually starting gentle and adding force until you reach the point that the dog considers aversive is a way to desensitive the dog to the punishment you are giving, so you have to keep making it harsher and harsher to get the same result.


I guess that you didn't understand what I've meant. The adding more force I'm talking about it's not about giving many spanks by escalating the force really slowly. I meant at the first times when I had to give him a spank, I've tried not to go with too much force coz I need to know how he would react first. After that, by getting the right force (and not too much force), you just need one spank each time for him to get the message, but usually he would already react to the "NO!" already that spanks won't be necessary anymore. If it wasn't effective then I wouldn't have used it anyways.



Willowy said:


> Also, to be for "spanking" but against shock and choke collars is pretty ridiculous. After all, a shock or a collar jerk is only a "1 second pain", too.


Comparing a spanking (a slap on the butt) to a shock or getting choked is pretty ridiculous. But it's understandable, many people seems to overract when they just see the word "spanking", and just start getting all judgemental for it.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

To be accurate, you're not hitting the dog's "butt", you're hitting them on the back (unless you are hitting the dog on the actual flank muscles, but that's just odd).

Talking about how you escalate the severity of the strikes and then accusing people of overreacting is interesting. And I don't see any difference in causing a one-second pain by hitting and causing a one-second pain by shocking. What, in your opinion, is the difference? (We'll say choking is different, because of the chance of injury. But the chance of injury with e-collar-type zaps is less than the chance of injury by hitting).


----------



## Lindbert (Dec 12, 2010)

Slapping on the nose.. OUCH. Hit the tip of your nose using the same amount of force and imagine that amplified by quite a bit because a dog's nose is way more sensitive than ours in both scent receptors and nerve endings. 

I was a nose slapper in my past dog training life and I do have to say it was strongly reinforced because a nose slap could get me results that all of the leash corrections in the world couldn't do. Now that I realize WHY it worked so well, I'm slightly horrified because the dog I used these heavy handed methods on was possibly one of the smartest, sweetest, and most gentle dogs known to human and dog kind.


----------



## aries23 (Oct 16, 2011)

Willowy said:


> To be accurate, you're not hitting the dog's "butt", you're hitting them on the back (unless you are hitting the dog on the actual flank muscles, but that's just odd).
> 
> Talking about how you escalate the severity of the strikes and then accusing people of overreacting is interesting. And I don't see any difference in causing a one-second pain by hitting and causing a one-second pain by shocking. What, in your opinion, is the difference? (We'll say choking is different, because of the chance of injury. But the chance of injury with e-collar-type zaps is less than the chance of injury by hitting).


I slap around the behind area that has meat, obviously not on boney areas. And by what you've said I do think that you obviously (perhaps quite seriously) misunderstood the escalating of the force I'm mentioning about. Otherwise it's really ridiculous to compare the spanking I'm talking about with the shock and the choke.



Lindbert said:


> Slapping on the nose.. OUCH. Hit the tip of your nose using the same amount of force and imagine that amplified by quite a bit because a dog's nose is way more sensitive than ours in both scent receptors and nerve endings.
> 
> I was a nose slapper in my past dog training life and I do have to say it was strongly reinforced because a nose slap could get me results that all of the leash corrections in the world couldn't do. Now that I realize WHY it worked so well, I'm slightly horrified because the dog I used these heavy handed methods on was possibly one of the smartest, sweetest, and most gentle dogs known to human and dog kind.


I've said tapping the nose gently, not slapping. As I've mentioned, it was to annoy him and not to cause pain.

This is why I've said that some people are overreacting.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

aries23 said:


> it's really ridiculous to compare the spanking I'm talking about with the shock and the choke.


 Really? Why? Shock collars can be set quite low. What's the difference? Seriously, I see absolutely no difference between hitting and shocking and nothing you've said so far makes me think otherwise. A shock collar is basically just a way to hit/collar jerk the dog long-distance.

And really, joining a dog forum and recommending hitting dogs on your first post is an interesting introduction. Welcome to the forum?


----------



## aries23 (Oct 16, 2011)

Willowy said:


> Really? Why? Shock collars can be set quite low. What's the difference? Seriously, I see absolutely no difference between hitting and shocking and nothing you've said so far makes me think otherwise. A shock collar is basically just a way to hit/collar jerk the dog long-distance.
> 
> And really, joining a dog forum and recommending hitting dogs on your first post is an interesting introduction. Welcome to the forum?


I'm just joining the forum recently, so I'm not familiar to the common terms used around dog forums, nor do I know what horrors "spanking a dog" really means to you (since you've mentioned about possibility of injuries), but in my dictionary it's really only "a slap on the butt" (or since "butt" isn't the correct term, I've meant the meaty area from behind - and not force enough to cause danger of injuries at all), and not some horrible striking.

You can accuse me of recommending hitting dogs, but if you want to continue misunderstanding my posts then go on, there's no point in explaining to someone that already has a closed mind with a set idea, that whatever physical way someone is talking about (even if just a simple slap, and not the horrors you might have imagined), you'd just categorize them the same (horrible strikes/abuse).


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I'm not imagining some "horrible abuse". I'm trying to understand how slapping a dog would have a place in normal everyday life and I can't. Good trainers don't do that.


----------



## aries23 (Oct 16, 2011)

Willowy said:


> I'm not imagining some "horrible abuse". I'm trying to understand how slapping a dog would have a place in normal everyday life and I can't. Good trainers don't do that.


Some people agree that some slapping is ok, while some people feels that the slightest slap is a bad thing. I can spend a long time trying to explain the intensity of the slap and you can spend a long time saying that it's not alright, but honestly I think that this is just a difference of opinion on the various methods of how dogs can be trained.


----------



## CricketLoops (Apr 18, 2011)

aries23 said:


> I guess that you didn't understand what I've meant. The adding more force I'm talking about it's not about giving many spanks by escalating the force really slowly. I meant at the first times when I had to give him a spank, I've tried not to go with too much force coz I need to know how he would react first. After that, by getting the right force (and not too much force), you just need one spank each time for him to get the message, but usually he would already react to the "NO!" already that spanks won't be necessary anymore. If it wasn't effective then I wouldn't have used it anyways.


Here's why I don't like this. By escalating whatever force you use, whether it's a "tap" or a "spanking" or whatever word you feel is an accurate description, you teach your dog to need more force (or a stronger punishment) to learn. 

I'm trying to remember the specifics of the study, and if you'd like me to find it for you I'd be happy to, but researchers found that dogs who were habituated to a shock collar (what you're doing with your "slow escalation") required a higher level of stimulation to react than those who were started out at medium or high levels. Those who started out high also needed less repetition for learning to take place. 

Basically, because you've started out this way, you now need to "spank", "neck grab", and "nose tap" your dogs harder and more frequently because you've taught them to tolerate weaker attempts.


----------



## hast (Aug 17, 2011)

I wonder how much slapping my (working bred) rottweiler would take before she felt the need to defend herself? There's no comparison with slapping your dog, tapping/slapping/whatever on the nose and using a shock collar _*AS INTENDED*_ for training. With the slapping there's no question who's doing it ... take a strong willed dog and it'll turn on you eventually. 

I didn't spank my children and they're now well adjusted adults ... I wouldn't dream of 'spanking' my dog either. If I need to use a correction I prefer to use a logical correction my dog understands.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

aries23 said:


> I guess that you didn't understand what I've meant. The adding more force I'm talking about it's not about giving many spanks by escalating the force really slowly. I meant at the first times when I had to give him a spank, I've tried not to go with too much force coz I need to know how he would react first. After that, by getting the right force (and not too much force), you just need one spank each time for him to get the message, but usually he would already react to the "NO!" already that spanks won't be necessary anymore. If it wasn't effective then I wouldn't have used it anyways..


You said you say no (several times). If that doesn't work you grab him by the neck and drag him away. If that doesn't work, you spank him. That's escalating force in my book. And indicates that your methods are ineffective. If your dog was effectively trained, you could say "leave it" (once) with no physical force, and it would be problem solved


----------



## hast (Aug 17, 2011)

Pawzk9 said:


> You said you say no (several times). If that doesn't work you grab him by the neck and drag him away. If that doesn't work, you spank him. That's escalating force in my book. And indicates that your methods are ineffective. If your dog was effectively trained, you could say "leave it" (once) with no physical force, and it would be problem solved


Yep ... once "leave it" and my rottie leaves whatever she's getting into ... and I taught it entirely positively without any form of corrections or force, and it took about a week for her to get the benefits of always leaving whatever I asked her to leave.


----------



## KodiBarracuda (Jul 4, 2011)

hast said:


> Yep ... once "leave it" and my rottie leaves whatever she's getting into ... and I taught it entirely positively without any form of corrections or force, and it took about a week for her to get the benefits of always leaving whatever I asked her to leave.


Just this friday, I was counting bales and had Kodi with me, when we were walking back to the truck he stuck his nose in a large hole in the ground (some kind of animal den) I didn't know what was in it, so I told him leave it... He left it like it wasn't interesting at all, I didn't have to repeat myself or drag him away. I taught that leave it without any kind of force at all. Don't get me wrong, I'm fine with the use of E-collars if you have a dangerous situation, like there are many poisonous snakes around and you want to teach your dog not to EVER go near them, or if its a safety "I don't trust you yet to leave it so i'm gonna keep the collar on just in case you need to be redirected at a distance out of the hole." But I cant imagine how "spanking" could ever train a leave it. In those situations, e-collars are great, spanking is silly because you have to actually be next to the dog to do it and he doesn't learn "I shouldn't go near that" he learns "I shouldn't go near that when my owner is within reaching distance.

sorry, that was long winded.


----------



## aries23 (Oct 16, 2011)

CricketLoops said:


> Here's why I don't like this. By escalating whatever force you use, whether it's a "tap" or a "spanking" or whatever word you feel is an accurate description, you teach your dog to need more force (or a stronger punishment) to learn.
> 
> I'm trying to remember the specifics of the study, and if you'd like me to find it for you I'd be happy to, but researchers found that dogs who were habituated to a shock collar (what you're doing with your "slow escalation") required a higher level of stimulation to react than those who were started out at medium or high levels. Those who started out high also needed less repetition for learning to take place.
> 
> Basically, because you've started out this way, you now need to "spank", "neck grab", and "nose tap" your dogs harder and more frequently because you've taught them to tolerate weaker attempts.





Pawzk9 said:


> You said you say no (several times). If that doesn't work you grab him and drag him away. If that doesn't work, you spank him. That's escalating force in my book. And proves that your methods are ineffective. If your dog was effectively trained, you could say "leave it" with no physical force, and it would be problem solved


As I've mentioned before, my dog now doesn't need slap so often anymore (unless what he's chewing really gets his attention), and he just reacts to a simple "NO!" or two now. And as I've mentioned before, I'm not doing slow escalation of force or continual escalation of force or whatever force escalation you guys are saying. But all I can see is that misunderstandings are escalating and escalating.

And about the method being ineffective coz I needed to escalate my warnings 'till the slap, the logic here is simple - my dog didn't understand my "NO!" at the first times, and so I needed to escalate the warnings and then a slap on the behind so he could understand. After a few repetition he understood the meaning of "NO!". This is such a simple logic I can't understand why someone can't understand it.



hast said:


> I wonder how much slapping my (working bred) rottweiler would take before she felt the need to defend herself? There's no comparison with slapping your dog, tapping/slapping/whatever on the nose and using a shock collar _*AS INTENDED*_ for training. With the slapping there's no question who's doing it ... take a strong willed dog and it'll turn on you eventually.
> 
> I didn't spank my children and they're now well adjusted adults ... I wouldn't dream of 'spanking' my dog either. If I need to use a correction I prefer to use a logical correction my dog understands.


Beating a dog a lot will get the dog "revenge" on you, but in this case I'm talking about an occasional slap, that does not injure or cause trauma to the dog.


I just can't understand why my post caused so much misunderstanding and critics in the first place, since I can't understand how mentioning about a slap could make people react as much mentioning abuse.

And I'm a bit tired of this. If you guys wants to continue bashing my post then go on.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Interesting how little yelling, scruffing and spanking is seen in this video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-84LNUAwVo


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

aries23 said:


> As I've mentioned before, my dog now doesn't need slap so often anymore (unless what he's chewing really gets his attention), and he just reacts to a simple "NO!" or two now. And as I've mentioned before, I'm not doing slow escalation of force or continual escalation of force or whatever force escalation you guys are saying. But all I can see is that misunderstandings are escalating and escalating.
> 
> And about the method being ineffective coz I needed to escalate my warnings 'till the slap, the logic here is simple - my dog didn't understand my "NO!" at the first times, and so I needed to escalate the warnings and then a slap on the behind so he could understand. After a few repetition he understood the meaning of "NO!". This is such a simple logic I can't understand why someone can't understand it.
> .


Even most of the people I know who are quite comfortable using aversives in training make sure their dog understand what they are asking before using any sort of physical force. If your dog still needs more than one cue to stop what he's doing, he's still not very effectively trained.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

aries23 said:


> And about the method being ineffective coz I needed to escalate my warnings 'till the slap, the logic here is simple - my dog didn't understand my "NO!" at the first times, and so I needed to escalate the warnings and then a slap on the behind so he could understand. After a few repetition he understood the meaning of "NO!". This is such a simple logic I can't understand why someone can't understand it.


Actually what I don't understand is using a "command" your dog, by your own admission, doesn't understand ("NO!") and then slapping him for not obeying it. Explain THAT logic to me.


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

If no doesn't work (depending on what they are doing, I am actually pretty lenient) I usually let them be dogs, I understand that they will sometimes: smell, get dirty, get sick, bark, dig, horse around etc... I make sure they know the things that could save their lives: sit, stay, leave it, come etc. I dont compete in competition anymore so I dont really have to use "pure positive" techniques there isn't a title for anything at stakeJosefina, my young one loves to LEARN tricks, so I teach them to her, she lives for praise so I use that. Izze, my old female doesn't care for that cutesy goofy stuff, so I respect that, she is however all about the "job" & is very biddable & does what I ask. When she was younger she was horribly stubborn, so I just let her figure out herself that my way was the best way & it doesn't psy to piss off the hand that feeds you lol.

But I dont spank them or strike them, in my previous "training" life I will admit to using that technique (a mistake, I ser that now) but I have a few yrs on me now since then (my teen yrs).


----------



## aries23 (Oct 16, 2011)

sassafras said:


> Actually what I don't understand is using a "command" your dog, by your own admission, doesn't understand ("NO!") and then slapping him for not obeying it. Explain THAT logic to me.


At the beginning, I try to command "NO!" a few times with a tone of voice to see if he understands it. It's normal that he might not understand it at first, so I try to push him away slowly while repeating "NO!" for a few times. After that, if he insists on the object of attention (garbage or something else), I give him a slap on the behind. If this is not clear then I don't know what's more clear, but I guess that when people don't agree with others, it's hard for them to understand other people's logic and not categorize them with the worst and bash them anyways.

This will be my last post, as I'm tired of this. One thing is not accepting abuse, another thing is just not agreeing with other people's methods when we're just talking about a slap and not striking the dog over and over again. It's just tiresome to explain simple logic and defend myself from obvious misunderstandings over and over again (many of you will continue the loop anyways).


----------



## hast (Aug 17, 2011)

aries23 said:


> <snip> I give him a slap on the behind. If this is not clear then I don't know what's more clear, but I guess that when people don't agree with others, it's hard for them to understand other people's logic and not categorize them with the worst and bash them anyways.
> <snip>.


Have you ever seen dogs play? I'd say they're much rougher with each other than a slap ever can be. How is the dog supposed to know that your slap isn't play if you haven't taught it?

I have seen no bashing ... what I HAVE seen is many of us not understanding, and not agreeing with your methods of "training" your dog. I also think it's too bad if you decide not to listen to all the very knowledgeable people here who are willing to offer suggestions and tips of other ways to do things ... we all might need new ideas from time to time.
If it seems that more than half of the people here think it's not a good technique, at least I would take a long hard look at what I'm doing and at least see if there might be a better way to do it.


----------



## KodiBarracuda (Jul 4, 2011)

For me the worrying part is when does it go to far? A tap? A slap? Where is the line that differentiates a "spank" with a "beating"? Then when you feel comfortable enough to hit your dog when your not frustrated, what does that mean you do when you are frustrated? I firmly believe that when the punishment calms the giver that it is abuse. When a parent turns to spanking as a way to make themselves feel better, the line is crossed. And I think that is a difficult line to find and not cross. It is because of that, that I prefer just not to go anywhere near it, and that I prefer when other people wont go near it either. I know my own temper point, but I also know that some people have a much shorter fuse than me and that line becomes that much closer for people with short fuses.


> After that, if he insists on the object of attention (garbage or something else), I give him a slap on the behind. If this is not clear then I don't know what's more clear, but I guess that when people don't agree with others, it's hard for them to understand other people's logic and not categorize them with the worst and bash them anyways.


See the problem with your logic is not that we don't understand it, its that your logic is flawed. When you physically punish your dog, he doesn't learn that the garbage is bad, he learns that you watching him eat the garbage is bad. Its like how dogs hide behind furniture to wee, they learn that weeing in the house isn't bad, weeing where your owner will find it is bad.

We aren't bashing your idea's we are trying to tell you why they won't work in the long run. And I don't remember anyone categorizing you... But I may have missed it I guess.


----------



## hast (Aug 17, 2011)

aries23 said:


> At the beginning, I try to command "NO!" a few times with a tone of voice to see if he understands it. It's normal that he might not understand it at first, so I try to push him away slowly while repeating "NO!" for a few times. After that, if he insists on the object of attention (garbage or something else), I give him a slap on the behind. If this is not clear then I don't know what's more clear, but I guess that when people don't agree with others, it's hard for them to understand other people's logic and not categorize them with the worst and bash them anyways.<snip>


It's clear for YOU, for a PERSON ... pushing a dog away isn't clear to a dog. You're thinking human language and logic, which isn't necessarily transferable to dogs. Dogs body-slams and pushes for a lot of things, attention, play, bossiness, and whatnot. A dog that doesn't want to share (which is what your dog sees, you don't want to share the garbage) first warn with body language not to take it, then a growl, then teeth, then a charge snapping in the air, and lastly a full bite and if the other dog don't back down a fight. To the dog that is two different things ...


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

aries23 said:


> At the beginning, I try to command "NO!" a few times with a tone of voice to see if he understands it.


Why on earth would he understand it if you hadn't taught it to him already? That's what I'm not understanding.


----------



## troglodytezzz (Oct 19, 2010)

Clearly, "No!" simply means "you are about to get hit" The dog may not understand this command yet but I am sure he is learning it.

Dogs deal with specifics so much better. It would be more effective to teach "drop it" meaning "let go of that thing in your mouth" and "leave it" meaning "turn your head away from that thing you are interested in but have not touched yet". Plenty of tutorials on this forum and on YouTube on how to teach these.


----------



## lil_fuzzy (Aug 16, 2010)

sassafras said:


> Actually what I don't understand is using a "command" your dog, by your own admission, doesn't understand ("NO!") and then slapping him for not obeying it. Explain THAT logic to me.


I would assume that it's a way of conditioning a punisher..? Just like you would if instead of a slap you use a correction chain. You say "no" or "ah ah" and if the dog doesn't stop you punish them. Soon enough they understand what the word means and you don't have to punish them. With a clicker you can have sessions where you condition it without doing any training, but from an animal welfare point obviously you can't condition a punisher like that (it would work, but it's not very nice), so you condition it "on the go".


----------



## lil_fuzzy (Aug 16, 2010)

troglodytezzz said:


> Clearly, "No!" simply means "you are about to get hit" The dog may not understand this command yet but I am sure he is learning it.
> 
> Dogs deal with specifics so much better. It would be more effective to teach "drop it" meaning "let go of that thing in your mouth" and "leave it" meaning "turn your head away from that thing you are interested in but have not touched yet". Plenty of tutorials on this forum and on YouTube on how to teach these.


I think this is actually a myth going around in forums dominated by people who use reward based methods; somehow punishment doesn't work. Of course it works. Dogs will work to avoid punishment just as much as they will work to get a reward. Using rewards and teaching actual commands is more pleasant for everyone, but if you use a conditioned punisher to teach the dog not to get into the bin it will work just as well, or better, than simply telling the dog to "leave it" or "drop it" when he goes into the bin. The latter doesn't teach the dog not to go in the bin, it just stops him doing it at that moment. If you watch over the dog like a hawk and tell him to "leave it" every time he goes toward the bin, he will eventually anticipate the command and not go in the bin. But using a conditioned punisher will produce the exact same result, probably quicker, and is just as specific.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

lil_fuzzy said:


> I would assume that it's a way of conditioning a punisher..? Just like you would if instead of a slap you use a correction chain. You say "no" or "ah ah" and if the dog doesn't stop you punish them. Soon enough they understand what the word means and you don't have to punish them. With a clicker you can have sessions where you condition it without doing any training, but from an animal welfare point obviously you can't condition a punisher like that (it would work, but it's not very nice), so you condition it "on the go".


I'm not talking about training theory, I'm talking about this particular case... and I very much doubt there's that much thought going into it here. Yelling "NO" to try to "see if he understands it"... is not training and does not showcase a deep knowledge of learning theory.


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

Interesting discussions we are having here  .


----------



## Firem4nJoe (Oct 10, 2011)

I only just looked it up.



> A *clicker* is simply a small plastic device that makes a distinctive "click" sound when pressed. The clicker has no value or meaning of its own but can quickly be conditioned to represent access to "good things" to your dog.


I see. 
A treat, a pat, a cuddle, or a game can also quickly teach the dog that doing what you want will result in good things.

The punishment form of training will teach what isn't allowed rather quickly as well. With such training, temporary isolation, or, a quick, light open handed smack on the bridge of the nose is generally all that's needed. The trick to any form of training is consistency. If you've just adopted an adult dog without knowing how it was previously trained and smack his nose when he does something you don't agree with, don't be surprised if the dog removes your hand from your wrist.
My dogs know they can wrestle and chew my wrists/hands but not bite. This is because as growing pups when they did bite a bit too hard I pulled my hand back quickly, said a definite "OUCH" and left the room. The pups soon got the message without being hit.
The other issue I have with punishment training is that misguided people who go above and beyond with the punishments are really only creating a fearful dog and it comes down to abuse. Another thing is the punishment needs to be immediate or the moment has passed and the dog doesn't know why it's being treated so badly.

I opt for positive reinforcement for the good things and reasonable punishments for the bad things.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Firem4nJoe said:


> I only just looked it up.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 As to smacking the puppy in a consistent way, no thank you. I don't need a hand-shy dog. Besides that, it's not at all necessary, as you outline in the rest of your post.

The clicker is a marker and secondary reinforcer. It tells the dog a primary reinforce (treat, cuddle - if the dog enjoys that, not all do - etc.) is imminent. It has a different purpose.


----------



## Firem4nJoe (Oct 10, 2011)

Pawzk9 said:


> The clicker is a marker and secondary reinforcer. It tells the dog a primary reinforce (treat, cuddle - if the dog enjoys that, not all do - etc.) is imminent. It has a different purpose.


Would a verbal cue that costs no money not do the same? Just out of interest.


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

Firem4nJoe said:


> Would a verbal cue that costs no money not do the same? Just out of interest.


A verbal marker is less precise, never exactly the same, and carries additional information based on tone (this is not a benefit). But it will get the job done. Keep in mind that a verbal mark is not praise, and should not be used as such.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Firem4nJoe said:


> Would a verbal cue that costs no money not do the same? Just out of interest.


Well, there are studies that the clicker is processed through a primitive area of the brain (hippocampus) and so doesn't have to be interpreted in the same way as a verbal marker (which is different from a cue and something I substitute later, when the behavior is already on cue.) As far as costing money? Good lord, is $2 more than you can afford?


----------



## Firem4nJoe (Oct 10, 2011)

Pawzk9 said:


> Well, there are studies that the clicker is processed through a primitive area of the brain (hippocampus) and so doesn't have to be interpreted in the same way as a verbal marker (which is different from a cue and something I substitute later, when the behavior is already on cue.) As far as costing money? Good lord, is $2 more than you can afford?


Well that's interesting and fair enough. I can afford $2 quite easily. But for the level of training I give my dogs it's not a justifiable expense when I'm sure I can find something around the house that would make the same noise every time and from what I understand do the job you're describing. As it is my dogs' training goes only as far as "do your business outside" and "stop at edge of the road and cross at the same time as me. 
Buddha's always been a slower learner and could maybe benefit from the clicker but he's got the house training sorted and I only ever walk them on leash anyway.

If the clicker works for you and your dog(s) I'm not about to try and change your mind. It might be something to look further into when I've finished the two books I'm reading now. 

Best of luck with it all


----------



## lil_fuzzy (Aug 16, 2010)

sassafras said:


> I'm not talking about training theory, I'm talking about this particular case... and I very much doubt there's that much thought going into it here. Yelling "NO" to try to "see if he understands it"... is not training and does not showcase a deep knowledge of learning theory.


True, but it would probably work. You don't need an in-depth understanding of learning theory to be able to train a dog.


----------



## hast (Aug 17, 2011)

Pawzk9 said:


> Well, there are studies that the clicker is processed through a primitive area of the brain (hippocampus) and so doesn't have to be interpreted in the same way as a verbal marker (which is different from a cue and something I substitute later, when the behavior is already on cue.) <snip>


Do you have any link or book where I can find this study or references to it?


----------



## Firem4nJoe (Oct 10, 2011)

Not saying I agree or disagree at this point but I found this site http://www.getsmartdogs.com.au/Clicker.html


----------



## Firem4nJoe (Oct 10, 2011)

Firem4nJoe said:


> Not saying I agree or disagree at this point but I found this site http://www.getsmartdogs.com.au/Clicker.html


And here's some responses from people tried it and decided it's not worth it. http://www.prodoggroomingsupplies.com/dog-forums/showthread.php?t=31096

And there's plenty of responses in this very thread from people who tried it and did think it's worth it so now we have both sides of the coin for everyone to get a bit more insight, short of trying it for your self.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

lil_fuzzy said:


> True, but it would probably work. You don't need an in-depth understanding of learning theory to be able to train a dog.


I really think you and I are talking past each other. I'm not talking about the theory of using the technique. I'm talking about this actual person using it, and I think all it is going to "train" his dog to do is to shut down when it hears "NO!" I guess if that's the kind of "training" you want, then it "works".


----------



## Lindbert (Dec 12, 2010)

... I am amazed that there are still people out there who think a "well timed slap" is an appropriate way of correcting a dog. Even the most punishment happy anti-treat trainers I have met (and I've met quite a few) say you should absolutely NEVER hit your dog. 

I can think of two times when I even considered hitting my dogs. Once was out of frustration when Hunter wouldn't stop trying to chew on my hair. Once was when Brody saw a groundhog and was so focused on that critter, I couldn't snap him out of it. I was 8 months pregnant and he's a big muscular dog so I couldn't exactly drag him back in the house. I did wind up slapping his flank to try to get his attention, and it worked because he thought I wanted to play with him.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

My issue isn't actually as much with the slap as with correcting the dog for something it hasn't even been taught to do.


----------



## Greater Swiss (Jun 7, 2011)

Lindbert said:


> ... I am amazed that there are still people out there who think a "well timed slap" is an appropriate way of correcting a dog. Even the most punishment happy anti-treat trainers I have met (and I've met quite a few) say you should absolutely NEVER hit your dog.
> 
> I can think of two times when I even considered hitting my dogs. Once was out of frustration when Hunter wouldn't stop trying to chew on my hair. Once was when Brody saw a groundhog and was so focused on that critter, I couldn't snap him out of it. I was 8 months pregnant and he's a big muscular dog so I couldn't exactly drag him back in the house. I did wind up slapping his flank to try to get his attention, and it worked because he thought I wanted to play with him.


I think all of us, especially with large strong dogs have been there at some point. I know a couple of times I've been in major neck spams, with Caeda out on the leash and she (when she still did it often) freaked out and decided to latch onto my arm. SO close to kicking her to get her off. I didn't, but I had to grab her collar with my free hand and pull her off since she had the fabric of my jacket still and didn't want to let go. Glad she is out of that phase (99.9% of the time anyway). Kind of makes me think she'd be a good candidate for Schutzhund 

As far as I can tell, a little slap on the flank to get some attention when it is a difficult situation and the dog is in drive isn't a big thing, so long as it isn't the constant form of punishment. I know when Caeda is in drive mode she doesn't notice herself slamming into her harness at high speeds, so a little slap on the flank certainly isn't going to harm her if she even notices, but isn't a policy to live or train by. 

As for my choice, so far I'm positive, but I picked balanced despite not agreeing with choke collars. In some rare cases I agree with "traditional" but don't use it. I do think that in some cases more than a "no" is called for. Yep, I will physically remove Caeda from something if I have to, as gently as possible (which, with her isn't exactly kid gloves). I know some people don't agree with that, but sometimes it just doesn't work to wait until she "wants" to leave something alone, either for safety or time, and there is not much out there good enough to lure her away from a rotting mouse carcass on the lawn (ewwww! lol). I suppose I could keep a beef knuckle in my pocket......


----------



## hast (Aug 17, 2011)

Pawzk9 said:


> Well, there are studies that the clicker is processed through a primitive area of the brain (hippocampus) and so doesn't have to be interpreted in the same way as a verbal marker <snip>


I really truly would like a link, or title of a book, to confirm this ... 



Lindbert said:


> ... I am amazed that there are still people out there who think a "well timed slap" is an appropriate way of correcting a dog. Even the most punishment happy anti-treat trainers I have met (and I've met quite a few) say you should absolutely NEVER hit your dog.
> <snip>


Considering how many slap/spank their kids I'm not at all surprised.



Greater Swiss said:


> <snip>
> As far as I can tell, a little slap on the flank to get some attention when it is a difficult situation and the dog is in drive isn't a big thing, so long as it isn't the constant form of punishment. I know when Caeda is in drive mode she doesn't notice herself slamming into her harness at high speeds, so a little slap on the flank certainly isn't going to harm her if she even notices, but isn't a policy to live or train by. <snip>


When my rottie was under 2 years old it happened that I gave her a slap to break her focus and get her brain to listen to me. I found that what I consider a quite hard slap, the step before it becomes a regular hit, doesn't face her at all. She didn't even notice it ... At the same age I also slapped her with the leash (she was on her way to back out of her collar to go after a corgi that was attacking her friend, a male rottie) that helped ... because it hurt enough for her to notice me. I don't know if it is because a rottie is a "harder" breed ... but slapping/hitting wasn't a working way to deal with her, with her it works best if I am mainly positive, with verbal corrections after she has been taught what I want.


----------



## Tofu_pup (Dec 8, 2008)

hast said:


> Do you have any link or book where I can find this study or references to it?


Reaching the animal mind by Karen Pryor


----------



## Tofu_pup (Dec 8, 2008)

Firem4nJoe said:


> And here's some responses from people tried it and decided it's not worth it. http://www.prodoggroomingsupplies.com/dog-forums/showthread.php?t=31096
> 
> And there's plenty of responses in this very thread from people who tried it and did think it's worth it so now we have both sides of the coin for everyone to get a bit more insight, short of trying it for your self.


Once upon a time, I picked up a cheap petco clicker to train my two GSDs with. When I realized that the damn thing wasn't a magic wand, I bannished it to the garbage and I'm sure it went on its way to a landfill.

Then Kaki came along and I had to learn how to deal with a scaredy dog. Fancy new clicker(cost $2.99!) and we learned together. She's a different dog now.
And no, I don't think that clickers are special tools just for soft dogs. I use reward markers when working with the shelter dogs(clicker or verbal if my hands are too busy). In a 15 minute session, I had a dog responding to a verbal reward marker and two new cues. She continued to kick butt in training. But the real kicker is that this dog is an olde english bulldog mix who is "stubborn", strong, reserved for experienced handlers only(One volunteer decided to lecture me on handling this particular dog), and she is in the shelter because of a very serious bite history. One might even call her a hard dog.

Nowadays, she is a phenomenal class demo dog.


----------



## Lindbert (Dec 12, 2010)

hast said:


> Considering how many slap/spank their kids I'm not at all surprised.


I would be way more afraid of my dog defending himself or fighting back. My daughter, not so much. I think the ability to reason with a child and fully explain why they are being punished is much greater than what you can reason with a dog. I choose not to hit my daughter or my dogs but I think hitting the dog would be much riskier and unfair than hitting the child.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

I like using markers for training, but I've learned that I personally have too much of an itchy trigger finger to use a clicker really well. As I'm anticipating clicking, I often click too soon. It's almost involuntary and I drive myself nuts. So now I use a verbal marker instead. It's not as precise but I find it easier to refine what I want once we're in the neighborhood than deal with the fallout of clicking/marking incorrectly. So, you know, whichever works.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

hast said:


> I really truly would like a link, or title of a book, to confirm this ...
> .


Here's a very old article about the possible link between the click and the amygdala http://www.clickertraining.com/node/226. I don't have it in front of me at the moment (computer is at home and book is at school) but I'm pretty sure Pryor talks about Dr. Jaak Panksepp (Seeking system) telling her he thought the click was absolutely linked to the hippocampus in a chapter of Reaching the Animal Mind. I know I also heard her talk about that at Clicker Expo a couple of years ago, but that's on memory


----------



## Lindbert (Dec 12, 2010)

Pawzk9 said:


> Here's a very old article about the possible link between the click and the amygdala http://www.clickertraining.com/node/226. I don't have it in front of me at the moment (computer is at home and book is at school) but I'm pretty sure Pryor talks about Dr. Jaak Panksepp (Seeking system) telling her he thought the click was absolutely linked to the hippocampus in a chapter of Reaching the Animal Mind. I know I also heard her talk about that at Clicker Expo a couple of years ago, but that's on memory


After reading that article, I came up with a really good example of a mechanical sound correlating to a primitive emotional response in my own life. I'll never forget the feeling of terror, disappointment, or anxiety that I got when my husband called to tell me he had lost his job. He had just gotten back to work from undergoing a bone marrow transplant as a result of leukemia and we had hospital bills coming out of our ears. I was still in vet school (which I never returned to) so he was the ONLY moneymaker in the family. I also found out I was expecting our first child not even 5 days before. After that point, whenever I heard my phone's ringtone, I would get a horrible sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach. I changed my ringtone and everything was okay.

Fast forward 16 months (last week.) I changed the sound for the alarm on my phone to the same ringtone that was my ringer when I got the call that changed my life. I woke up from my nap feeling panicked and horrible, like I was reliving the entire experience again. It wasn't until later in the evening that I realized why I had those feelings, but it was amazing how something so insignificant and latent in my mind could have such an effect. My only theory was that a more primitive, less rational part of my brain made the connection of that sound being linked to panic, despair, and anxiety, so whenever I heard that sound it would be triggered. A word never brought that strong of an emotion because words cannot be replicated exactly like a click or a ringtone can be. If a click brings happy anticipation, joy, and pleasure as strongly as that sound brings me anxiety, fear, and despair, I can see why it would be a good teaching tool. I would like this to be studied way more in-depth.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Lindbert said:


> word never brought that strong of an emotion because words cannot be replicated exactly like a click or a ringtone can be. If a click brings happy anticipation, joy, and pleasure as strongly as that sound brings me anxiety, fear, and despair, I can see why it would be a good teaching tool. I would like this to be studied way more in-depth.


That is an interesting example. It's odd how strong the attachment between totally unrelated things can be. I think that when the clicker (or sound is used) other things can start to carry the same association. So that if hearing the click brings anticipation and pleasure, the cues associated with the click can as well. If a sound carries unpleasant associations, that can generalize to the places where the sound is heard repeatedly. Maybe the reason clicker trained dogs tend to look so happy when they come to class.


----------



## Lindbert (Dec 12, 2010)

Pawzk9 said:


> That is an interesting example. It's odd how strong the attachment between totally unrelated things can be. I think that when the clicker (or sound is used) other things can start to carry the same association. So that if hearing the click brings anticipation and pleasure, the cues associated with the click can as well. If a sound carries unpleasant associations, that can generalize to the places where the sound is heard repeatedly. Maybe the reason clicker trained dogs tend to look so happy when they come to class.


One thing I find strange: my dogs don't get excited when they see a clicker like they do when they see their collar and leash or their treat bag come out. I don't know if they even make the conscious correlation that the click is actually coming from the clicker. 

An interesting example of the opposite response is when Brody hears a high pitched tone. He will roll over and urinate on himself when he hears the smoke alarm's low battery "chirp" go off. I never realized why that sound made him so upset until we were at my sister's house and my dogs and her dog were playing in the backyard. Her dog got too close to the invisible fence boundary and it gave a warning tone. Brody froze, rolled on his back, and urinated on himself. He wasn't even wearing a collar, but the sound alone was enough to upset him badly enough that it took days before his tail was out from between his legs and he no longer cowered whenever I came near him. It was actually a MAJOR setback in his progress and many of his aggressive/reactive behaviors reappeared.


----------



## hast (Aug 17, 2011)

Pawzk9 said:


> That is an interesting example. It's odd how strong the attachment between totally unrelated things can be. I think that when the clicker (or sound is used) other things can start to carry the same association. So that if hearing the click brings anticipation and pleasure, the cues associated with the click can as well. <snip>


There's no doubt in my mind. My very hungry Rottie clearly shows what I taught her with clicker and treats. The exercises when I've used clicker and treats makes her salivate just thinking of doing them, lol, she snorts like crazy while she's drooling and (half hysterically, but 'eagerly' sounds better) tries to figure out exact what she has to do to get a treat.
She's very eager to do exercises I've taught with a ball or tug too, but she doesn't snort and drool at all ... just "walks on her nails" waiting for a ball or tug to come out so she can play.
She doesn't get excited when she sees the clicker at all ... I don't think she connects the clicker with the treats ... just the exercise and the sound since she at the time I'm using it is completely focused on what to do to make it 'click' to get a treat.



Pawzk9 said:


> Here's a very old article about the possible link between the click and the amygdala http://www.clickertraining.com/node/226. I don't have it in front of me at the moment (computer is at home and book is at school) but I'm pretty sure Pryor talks about Dr. Jaak Panksepp (Seeking system) telling her he thought the click was absolutely linked to the hippocampus in a chapter of Reaching the Animal Mind. I know I also heard her talk about that at Clicker Expo a couple of years ago, but that's on memory


Thanks, I've found that most obedience people around these parts use aversive methods to teach the exercises ... I need all the info I can get since at every show we go I'm told what a HAPPY dog I have and that people have never seen such a happy rottie ... and I'm told what an exceptional dog I have ... while I try to say it's just the teaching methods. LOL


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

hast said:


> She doesn't get excited when she sees the clicker at all ... I don't think she connects the clicker with the treats ... just the exercise and the sound since she at the time I'm using it is completely focused on what to do to make it 'click' to get a treat.


I make it a point to be subtle with my clicker (I tell male students that they aren't allowed to aim it at the dog like a remote control). I also seldom use a bait bag, or have treats in my hand prior to the behavior. Because I don't want the behavior to be dependent on knowing those things are present. And I don't want to "block" the dog by letting him get fixated on promises of reinforcement. However they do get excited when they hear a click.


----------



## hast (Aug 17, 2011)

Pawzk9 said:


> I make it a point to be subtle with my clicker (I tell male students that they aren't allowed to aim it at the dog like a remote control). I also seldom use a bait bag, or have treats in my hand prior to the behavior. Because I don't want the behavior to be dependent on knowing those things are present. And I don't want to "block" the dog by letting him get fixated on promises of reinforcement. However they do get excited when they hear a click.


I've actually made that a point too, but in Mandy's case I don't think that would have made a difference, she knows we're going to do "whatever" exercise which often gives a click and ... OMG ... maybe even a tiny piece of a meatball. LOL 

Since I sometimes can hold the clicker in my hand for quite some time doing something I'm not clicking for (I'm NOT very good with a clicker, I just don't have the coordination, so I pick and chose how to reinforce what I teach her) before I click there's not really a connection between the clicker and the click ... but there IS a connection between the exercise and how it is reinforced. 
(I taught pivots with clicker ... she has the most awesome pivots there is. Nowadays, even though I haven't clicked since the first pivots I taught, I've also stretched them out to now include walking backwards and sideways without any clicking but with the same over eager attitude even though treats aren't coming very regularly anymore, just once in a while.)


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

hast said:


> I've actually made that a point too, but in Mandy's case I don't think that would have made a difference, she knows we're going to do "whatever" exercise which often gives a click and ... OMG ... maybe even a tiny piece of a meatball. LOL
> 
> Since I sometimes can hold the clicker in my hand for quite some time doing something I'm not clicking for (I'm NOT very good with a clicker, I just don't have the coordination, so I pick and chose how to reinforce what I teach her) before I click there's not really a connection between the clicker and the click ... but there IS a connection between the exercise and how it is reinforced.
> (I taught pivots with clicker ... she has the most awesome pivots there is. Nowadays, even though I haven't clicked since the first pivots I taught, I've also stretched them out to now include walking backwards and sideways without any clicking but with the same over eager attitude even though treats aren't coming very regularly anymore, just once in a while.)


That's the amazing thing about clicker training. Even when you're no longer clicking, the dog has a great association for the behavior. Speaking of "odd" associations - my dogs get happy feet when the computer voice says "goodbye" Tonight, just before I logged off, Ray dashed over and started dancing. I have NO idea what he was keying off of!


----------

